Israeli Medical Teams Provide Details of Hamas Massacre for War-crimes Probes

mediaite

You’ve probably seen these images over the past three weeks, pasted on lamp posts and held up at vigils around the world of the faces of the names of the more than 200 Israeli hostages taken by Hamas terrorists when they attacked southern Israel and committed a mass atrocity, slaughtering men, and women, children, and the elderly. Recently there have been a number of despicable incidents of people so full of hate of Jews,they’ve actually ripped these images down, as if that could erase the humanity of the people whose images are on them.

And for anyone who lived through 9/11, those images bring back memories of the thousands of fliers of the missing put up all over Manhattan in the frantic days after that terrorist attack. There were so many family members left grieving. And there was a small group of them that took that grief and turned it into action. They spoke out, asking their country, our country, not to respond to the deaths of their loved ones with more violence. They founded an organization called September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows.

At that time, in the wake of 9/11, supporting a nonviolent response to Al-Qaeda’s mass murder was at the very fringes of public opinion. And I remember being struck by the sheer grace, moral witness of those who had personally lost loved ones. I also thought, as many did at the time,  was that was not how the world works. Terrorists slaughtered Americans, America had to respond with force. But as the war on terror dragged on, thousands of American service members and hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed. And radicalization spiraled into ISIS and a new round of brutal wars. As all that happened, the call for peace and nonviolent solutions began to seem not just idealistic, but, in retrospect, wise.

Now there are Israeli families whose loved ones were murdered and kidnapped by Hamas who have somehow found the same moral grace. In her eulogy, the sister of one victim called on Israel to, “not use our deaths and our pain to cause the death and pain of other people or other families.” Another victim’s son said, “Do not write my father’s name on a military shell. The mother of a victim pleaded, “War is not the answer… In my name, I want no vengeance.”

Reservations about a full-scale ground invasion in Gaza have grown in Israel. Nearly half of Israelis now saying in a recent poll, it would be better for the military to hold off, to delay at least. And today, the United Nations approved a resolution calling for a durable and sustained humanitarian truce.

Israel’s government, though, as you heard, is vowing to destroy Hamas, saying they simply cannot tolerate the threat on their border. And that is an understandable reaction in the wake of what Hamas did three weeks ago. But the costs of a war to destroy Hamas will be enormous. First, there’s the human cost to Palestinian lives in Gaza. Already more than 7,000 dead in Gaza, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry there, which is run by Hamas. America and Israel say there’s reason to doubt those figures, but every single piece of available information from Gaza from reporters, to NGOs, to eyewitness accounts indicates an enormous and unprecedented human toll amidst the bombing.

What is unfolding there in Gaza has become the most brutal humanitarian crisis in the world. Innocent women, children dying horrible and desperate deaths. And there will be thousands and thousands of more lives lost if this continues. The scope of civilian death already, the bombing combined with a full blockade of basic supplies is simply not morally defensible.

Palestinian children, like Israeli children, both together deserve to grow up and to grow old, and to live in peace, security, dignity, and freedom.

Now, you may say, “Well, the human is awful, but it is Hamas’ fault. They did this knowing full well what it would bring onto Gazans.”

I think that’s true. They knew what they were doing. And if Hamas wanted to de-escalate, they would immediately and unconditionally release the nearly 200 hostages they took. But if you think Hamas wants the spectacle of the mass death of Palestinians, of children in the rubble, then it is worth asking, what will be achieved by giving them that?

The deaths of civilians in Gaza buried in rubble are already echoing and will echo throughout the region, further inflaming public opinion, likely drawing in other states and proxies already committed to harming Israel. There is a real possibility of the attacks expanding on Israel and on U.S. soldiers who are stationed in the region. Not only that, Israeli soldiers will be facing enormous risk and peril. If a ground invasion is happening now, as we believe it may be beginning, they will be embarking on some of the most dangerous urban warfare imaginable, facing an enemy that has an asymmetrical advantage to inflict maximal cost with minimal resources.

And then, what if the campaign is successful? Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant outlined one of the goals of this war as “the creation of a new security regime in the Gaza Strip.” Getting rid of Hamas, replacing it with some other entity. What would that look like?

Our experience in Afghanistan and Iraq tells us regime change, which is what they are discussing – and again – understandably – is grinding, it is expensive, and brutal. It is a vortex from which it is very difficult to escape. In fact, reporting suggests that these concerns – What happens after? What about the day after? – are front of mind in both the Pentagon and Israel’s own war cabinet.

Now, you might say to all of this, as many do, “Well, what’s the alternative?” And I’ll be honest. I don’t know. I don’t know. I do know that the most dangerous reasoning in policy, is, “Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, it must be done.”

Yes, this campaign of bombing and maybe ground incursion in Gaza is something. But no, it does not need to be done. And I fear, and many people with way more expertise than me fear it will usher in far, far worse. And this time, we should listen more closely to those who are calling for peace, who are calling for a ceasefire, and particularly to those still in mourning now calling for no more civilian deaths on either side of the line.

Was intentionally inflicting massive civilian casualties ever moral?  I would say no. 

I suppose the only argument for morality would be a 'for the greater good'.   That is, if killing civilians is a way to stop the killing of an even larger number of civilians then there is a foundation for a moral argument.

The brutal killing of civilians by Hamas lacks any moral grounds that I can imagine.

It's not. But can it be helped? 

Good question.   One would naively think so, but many military operations (such as the Gaza operation) are complex and impose limitations on what can be done.   It would be ideal if Israel could surgically remove Hamas, but that is not even remotely possible (it seems).

Whose greater good? Its not the greater good of the people being killed. 

I think is is extremely unlikely that, however Israel decimates Hamas, this will be the end of terrorist threats to Israel. One could argue it will make the terrorist threat to Israel worse. 

Peace protesters on all sides are the moral people, but the realities of national security and well, retribution, make peace protesters into dreamers. 

Whose greater good? Its not the greater good of the people being killed. 

The greater good as perceived by those who kill the civilians.

I think is is extremely unlikely that, however Israel decimates Hamas, this will be the end of terrorist threats to Israel. 

History confirms this.

The stated goal of the Israelis is to make sure that Hamas can never threaten Israel again. That may well be the result of this war, but it doesnt prevent the sons and daughters of the Gazans starting it back up at a later date. 

Indeed.   The blind, irrational hatred has a life of its own.   People can be killed but the hatred persists.   

Indeed.   The blind, irrational hatred has a life of its own.   People can be killed but the hatred persists. 

Correct. Violence never solved anything.

Violence didn't work with Nazi Germany. It didn't work with Imperial Japan in WWII.

(If we had used violence against either, fascist regimes there would still be in power-- thank  goodness we realized violence didn't work and instead sat done with leaders of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and while respecting the other peace-loving natures of the other party we talked our differences out like mature human beings!

Violence never solved anything.

That is not what I wrote and is clearly, obviously, not what I meant.

And I get enough of this shit from conservatives so I am really in no mood to get if from you.

My point, obviously, is that the long-standing (thousands of years) generational hatred is not going to be stopped by killing the current generation of fighters.   The hatred is beyond the extant human beings acting on it.

My point, obviously, is that the long-standing (thousands of years) generational hatred is not going to be stopped by killing the current generation of fighters.   The hatred is beyond the extant human beings acting on it.

I agree.

In fact  if I could influence the Israeli leadership, I would suggest they withdraw from Gaza. In face open the old Israeli border crossings and allow supplies into Gaza. 

But that wouldn't work.

I agree, that would not work.   Israel seems to be stuck in a perpetual cycle where they defeat each generation only to have the next generation come at them again.   It is a nightmare driven by generational hatred.

There is no single nutcase like Hitler where taking out the head of the snake kills the aggression.   The root of the aggression is cultural and that survives across generations.

Thus they fight to gain some short-term relief only to have to repeat the same fight in the future.

The root of the aggression is cultural and that survives across generations.

Can you elaborate on this point you've made? I ask this, because I see the root problem as being land possession and dispossession. And that is from my remote understanding of this lifelong crisis between the two people. In my reality, I get to ask questions of Palestinians more because I see several Palestinians on a regular basis, not so regularly with my Jewish acquaintances. The biggest theme I get from Palestinians: Israel should move away from their land.

It ultimately goes back to Holy land, but at this point (due to the length of time) it is culture and tradition that rule.

Palestinian children are brought up to hate Jewish Israelis.    This is indoctrination that stems from indoctrination that stems from indoctrination, ...., all the way back to land claims.

Iti is a part of war and always has been.  No way around it. 

Don't want civilians killed then don't get in a war

Don't want civilians killed then don't get in a war

Exactly.

The thing that started the recent violence was Hamas' deliberately barbaric attack on (unarmed) Israeli civilians. Women raped, babies murdered in front of their mothers, and more.

What I'm wondering now given the strong Israeli response__ I wonder if some supporters o Hamas living in Gaza are starting to wonder: "maybe our 'sucessful' attack on Israel might not have been such a good idea after all?"

If for comparison,  a pesky coyote sneaked up and attacked a full grown sleeping grizzly bear's cubs the end result would be bad for the coyote.  Not a real smart move and now they get what happens when you mess with the bear's cubs.  

A fox gets in the henhouse and the enviable will happen.    If you want to keep your hens, the fox must be hunted down and eliminated.

Meanwhile useful idiots will protest the killing of the fox.

Crazy.

I have thought much about this and have come to opine that morality is a construct applicable to individuals not to collectives or societies.  Certainly most of us in the US, and not born in Israel or elsewhere in the middle east cannot apply or force what we feel to be moral on other cultures with long histories of hatred, fear and war.  An individual has the luxury of reacting morally to harm done to them by others (Love thy enemy, Matthew 5:43–44, and so forth).  Societies haven't the luxury of reacting morally as the morals of those in a given society will always differ. So a societies' reaction is not moral, it is practical, measured, a consideration of what is best for the greater good or survival of the society, not what is best for the individual or the enemy of said individual.  I realize this might be an unpopular opinion for some but allow me to attempt to elaborate.  

Hamas, not all the people in Gaza, unleashed an attack specifically aimed at Israeli civilians.  Hamas being a group whose individual morals might be skewed by hatred and predicated on genocide. Then they retreated with hostages to hide among Gazan civilians some, if not many, who did not support the attack in the first place.  The Israeli response in contrast is more measured and is targeting known Hamas positions, albeit rife with civilian casualties given the way the enemy is hiding behind the civilians and hostages.  Both collectives (Hamas and IDF) feel justified in what they are doing given the history of conflict in the area, but neither has the luxury of doing what only individuals can do, i.e. turn the other cheek, love thy enemy, do good to those who hate you, etc.  If all individuals in the area could do that, true peace could be had, but we all know that isn't going to happen (call it human nature, whatever), so we must do what societies do and rationalize, make the best collective decisions we can for the greater good and try to make it work.  That's not to say we can't appeal to other individuals in our societies to consider a more moral response for the society as a whole.  Certainly that seems to have worked better in Israel than it has in groups like Hamas or Hezbollah, in terms of purposefully targeting civilians, but the casualties are still high as societies must make rational decisions to survive, not always moral ones.  

We did not defeat the NAZIS by stooping down to their level. War crimes do not justify more war crimes. While it is understandable to want to "kill them all" in response to such cowardly viscous attacks on innocents, the aged and children it is not a long term strategy for peace. Revenge usually only begets more revenge!

Absolutely! Go after one's enemy  in this case when/where you find and isolate that and enemy world societies will 'nod' in assent to exacting punishment. Even if only for the purposes of heavily damaging or completely ending attacks from that source.

However, there is NO ACCEPTABLE JUSTIFICATION IN MY BOOK for DELIBERATELY attacking and killing INNOCENT people as a way to get at a TRUE ENEMY or just to SOFTEN UP that enemy by giving it less "obstructions" to hide behind.

I think of it this way: If your (collective your/you) next door neighbor deliberately throws an incendiary device across the shared fence/border onto your property and it ignites and harms/kills "grandma," a dear/elder of the family,. . . do you expect permission to kill uninvolved family members who live in your neighbor's house, starve and let die of thirst the visitors on the premises, and disinfect and sterilize the local area of spilt blood? Of course not!

What you (collective you) do is call out for the coward who deliberately bothered/trespassed/killed who and what belongs to you to explain and accept any judgement rendered for the crime committed. You do not have any expectation that you can legally or morally kill the entirety of anybody who gets between you and your target.

Do not seek revenge, seek justice, and the world will be for you. 

Revenge usually only begets more revenge!

Where did I say anything about revenge? I said merely that individuals have the luxury of making a moral choice to turn the other cheek, to love thy enemy, or to return them only kindness when others do harm to them.  Societies not so much.  Israel as a collective is threatened by enemies who wish to wipe them off the face of the earth.  They have said for decades that this is their goal.  It is not a matter of revenge, but a matter of survival and in that regard the right choice (perhaps not the moral choice) is to deter such attacks and protect their existence.  

Do you for one second believe that if Israel were to do nothing but say "we forgive you" and the IDF were sent out to deliver hugs to Hamas in response to 1,400 of their citizens being slaughtered, that those enemies wouldn't keep coming?  In this world we sometimes need to accept the fact that the hard or ugly choices on a societal scale are often not going to be the moral ones.

However, there is NO ACCEPTABLE JUSTIFICATION IN MY BOOK for DELIBERATELY attacking and killing INNOCENT people as a way to get at a TRUE ENEMY or just to SOFTEN UP that enemy by giving it less "obstructions" to hide behind.

Is this truly what you think Israel is doing, especially the bit in red?  I take it by the rest of your comment that you feel that it is easy to extract an enemy sworn to not just kill you but wipe your entire country off the map while seeking defilade behind and among innocent civilians, or behind the very hostages they have taken?  Have you ever served in such a forward area CB? Have you ever engaged such an enemy and done it in the way you feel is the moral way?  How would you go about "calling out those cowards" or separating them from the innocents? 

You and I have no idea what those with boots on the ground have to deal with there, but I know many who have been there and I can tell you with confidence that NONE of them were/are there  "DELIBERATELY attacking and killing INNOCENT people as a way to get at a TRUE ENEMY or just to SOFTEN UP that enemy by giving it less "obstructions" to hide behind."   That is an awful thing for someone in an armchair thousands of miles away in the safety of their home to say.

Indeed, I am fully convinced that Israel would love to have a method where they surgically kill Hamas without harming a single hair of any innocent.  ( I write this knowing that a large number of Palestinians support Hamas. )

Hamas, however, has shown that they are brutal, horrific terrorists who deliberately target innocent, defenseless civilians.

Fucking inhumane, malicious cowards who need to be removed from this planet.

I am fully convinced that Israel would love to have a method where they surgically kill Hamas without harming a single hair of any innocent

Of course they would!  And to suggest otherwise while not having a fucking clue what they are faced with, and having no close infantry experience at all, is ignorant at best and offensive at worst.... IMHO. 

That is not what I meant and I take strong exception to your using my comment to lecture me. Read my comment again and when you do realize and ACCEPT that I will not support the deliberate attacking and killing of innocent people - full stop. The fact that people some time can fall under the acceptable kill verbiage: "collateral damage" does not mean that openly counting innocent people as par for the course is to be expected. 

Furthermore, I do respect the people who live in the locality of Palestine and Israel to tell their stories. However, there is politics fogging up the truth on the ground and it is hard to know who is acting on what!

Hamas has been 'id-ed' as attacking Israel and its civilians, in my opinion, Hamas bears the full blunt of the Israelite Defense Force and not wholesale 'liquidation' or whatever you call it of the Palestinian people. 

It's a consistent position that I am taking; innocent people are not cannon fodder to me.

That said, if ordinary rank and file Palestinians join in with identifying with the attackers of Israel and fight with Hamas then they have forfeited their own lives-that has not been determined as happening. It does appear that Hamas is oppressing and exerting its power over Palestinians to keep them under control as well.

Yes, I see all of this from a distance, because I am not now or ever been in the Middle East, but like many I have heard about the problem/s of this region off/on my whole life.

Did the U.S stand at a distance from Afghanistan and Iraq and demolish their cities? No. The U.S. knew that would look like bullying of a superior force against a lesser opponent. And more to the fact that the nations of this world would see it that way. Did the U.S. and its allies kill innocent people- of course! And it was unacceptable. Nations can't keep issuing hollow apologies for killing innocent people! Otherwise, where/when will it end?

If Israel wants to go after Hamas then do so. However, the images of dead babies, burned babies, dead teenagers, dead adults, seniors, and disabled will turn the world against Israel and so it should. 

That is my position. If there is something you don't understand about my position: Ask. I will be glad to answer/clarify further. Because this is a difficult issue to discuss and I get that. But being a difficult issue does not mean it shouldn't be discussed at all. So, let's discuss without trying to put each other down.

Because relatively-speaking you are likely no longer to the ME than I am. So we likely get our information from similar or the same grouping of sources.

Did the U.S stand at a distance from Afghanistan and Iraq and demolish their cities? No. The U.S. knew that would look like bullying of a superior force against a lesser opponent.

These are different wars. Hamas is embedded within the Gazen people. 

I am going to post an Op Ed on this by a very interesting person; A former U.S. envoy to the Middle East. I hope you read it.

Did the U.S stand at a distance from Afghanistan and Iraq and demolish their cities? No. The U.S. knew that would look like bullying of a superior force against a lesser opponent.

You might want to read about our 2nd Battle of Al-Fallujah. 

We did not defeat the NAZIS by stooping down to their level.

Depends on what you mean by that.  If you mean stooping to the level of wishing to exterminate all jews, like Hamas or Hezbollah today, then yes we do not stoop to that level.

If, however, you mean purposely targeting civilians, what do you think the bombing of Dresden was?  How about the firebombing of Tokyo?  We most certainly defeated the Nazis and Japan that way.  Again, the decisions made by societies or nations are not always moral, but they are sadly necessary for survival or to rid the world of an even more deadly evil.

If there is something you don't understand about my position: Ask.  I will be glad to answer/clarify further.

Respectfully, I did ask at #5.1.3 .  The entire paragraph I wrote after quoting your comment was a series of questions that you still have not answered. If your quote that I high-lighted was not talking about Israel, then who/what was it about?

Because this is a difficult issue to discuss and I get that. But being a difficult issue does not mean it shouldn't be discussed at all.

Indeed. I certainly never said it shouldn't be.  I am here to discuss, as are you. Let's discuss and honestly answer questions that we ask of each other.  Agreed?

So, let's discuss without trying to put each other down.

Indeed.  And lets start by not assuming that we are trying to lecture each other or put each other down.  And I truly apologize if you felt that is what I was doing.  That was certainly not my intent.

I will not support the deliberate attacking and killing of innocent people  -  full stop

And I respect that, very much.  My point has been that you and I as individuals have the luxury of taking such a moral stance.  But in my opinion, societies, countries or other such collectives do not often have that luxury.  Leaders of such groups often have to make the tough decisions as a matter of survival, or as a matter of trying to rid the world of a more deadly evil.  Such existential choices are not always moral ones, and they can't be as long as the evil remains.

At the Allied bombing of Dresden, and the fire bombing of Tokyo, and of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki, civilians were purposely targeted.  Horrible decisions to have to make for sure, but ultimately stopped those enemies from causing further death and destruction around the world.  In this case, the IDF is not purposefully targeting civilians, their approach is far more considered, meticulous and surgical than was the Allied approach in WWII. That was at the root of my questioning in #5.1.3 and I am happy to discuss that further if you disagree.

[✘]

2nd Battle of Al-Fallujah

What about it do you want to discuss? 

Why are you under the misconception that we stand at a distance in Iraq and didn’t demolish a city?  Have you read of our two battles there?

What? A question? Narrow your scope of what you wish to convey to me or just drop the topic. I don't have time to "f" around with you on this most serious of topics!

It’s simple.  In 5.1.7 you seemed under the misconception that we didn’t destroy Iraqi or Afghani cities to avoid looking like a bully.  I narrowed the scope as you asked and I challenged your assumption with just one example.  Do you think that we didn’t bully Fallujah?

This may not tie-in to 5.1.14 but I need to drop it and move on to something else on the topic:

theguardian

Palestinian civilians ‘didn’t deserve to die’ in Israeli strikes, US chief security adviser says

From left: US national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, and President Joe Biden listen as Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reads a statements in Tel Aviv on 18 October. Photograph: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

Jake Sullivan’s comments are a marked softening of the Biden administration’s hardline support of Israel

Thousands of Palestinians killed in Israel’s attacks on Gaza over the past three weeks “did not deserve to die”, according to the US national security adviser, in a marked softening of the Biden administration’s hardline support of Israel.

In an interview with ABC News on Sunday,  Jake Sullivan , the White House’s chief security adviser, said Hamas is “hiding” behind civilians but that doesn’t lessen Israel’s “responsibility under international humanitarian law and the laws in war to do all in their power to protect the civilian population”.

“There have been deaths of thousands of Palestinian civilians in this conflict and that is an absolute tragedy … Those people did not deserve to die. Those people deserve to live lives of peace and safety and dignity,” Sullivan told ABC’s This Week.

At least 8,000 Palestinians including more than 3,300 children and more than 2,000 women have been killed by Israeli’s military bombardment of Gaza, according to Gaza’s health ministry. The toll is expected to rise as  Israel  continues with its ground offensive – in addition to ongoing aerial attacks.

Israel’s current offensives were launched in retaliation for the surprise cross-border attack on 7 October in which  Hamas , which has run Gaza since 2007, killed about 1,400 people in Israel and took more than 200 hostages.

“Israel has a right – indeed a duty – to defend itself against terrorists. Israel also has a responsibility to distinguish between terrorists and ordinary civilians,” said Sullivan.

[deleted]

Okay, what exactly happened in Fallujah? And is it symbolic of the U.S. soldiers' presence in the country for all its years there and on-entry into the country did we bomb our way in and out of Iraq? 

Okay, what exactly happened in Fallujah?

Why can't you share the point you wish to make since you are HERE every day all day?  It's not like you dont have the time. And I was alive and a news junkie during the Iraq war. I made a point to ask you what do you want to discuss about Fallujah even though it is off-topic and all I get is this flippant response. 

5.1.3

Is this truly what you think Israel is doing, especially the bit in red?  I take it by the rest of your comment that you feel that it is easy to extract an enemy sworn to not just kill you but wipe your entire country off the map by seeking defilade behind and among innocent civilians, or behind the very hostages they have taken?  Have you ever served in such a forward area CB? Have you ever engaged such an enemy and done it in the way you feel is the moral way?  How would you go about "calling out those cowards" or separating them from the innocents? 

I don't have to answer your questions anymore than you or anybody else here bothers to answer mine. Let's get that straight.  That said, my ANSWER to your 5.1.3  was INCORPORATED in 5.1.6. It will likely not suffice for you, but it is what I wished to share on the comment. Accept it and move on. I do that here all the time. There is a great deal of silence that comes my way when conservatives exercise their CHOICE to ignore a question or questions or even comment of mine. So accept what i give as I do from others here.

As we become more civilized the world over, assuming you think we are a more civilized world, it is not too far-fetched or far afield to think that we can get our enemies over time instead of 'carpet-bombing' or something just shy of it over the heads of civilians who I remind you may not even like Hamas; have not picked up a weapon to harm anybody, but can't get out of the path of Hamas!

BTW, this theory of it's okay to kill civilians because throughout history civilians have been killed in war is a Disgrace. We're better than that.

After all, when the U.S. Government does something WRONG during wars we are involved in there is great recompense made afterwards. I wonder if conservatives are against us making compensation for wrongs. 

If Israel needs to destroy Gaza and kill civilian non-Hamas Palestinians - their old/young/women/disabled/hospitalized/injured - it will do so without any support from me!

I will not support anything that reeks of wholesale or "willy-nilly" civilian deaths. 

We hear this all the time. . . about innocent lives loss as "Oh well, . . . we had to do it."  And, then the compensation "packages" start.

Well, if you use care and concern upfront, you won't have to pack in compensation on the back-end!

Some places are more civilized, but Hamas and Gaza have become more barbaric. For the continued movement towards more civilization and a better life the areas regressing towards barbaric and uncivilized behavior must be delt with harshly and an example made for other less civilized groups to consider before doing bad things.   

For the continued movement towards more civilization and a better life the areas regressing towards barbaric and uncivilized behavior must be delt with harshly and an example made for other less civilized groups to consider before doing bad things.   

Damn! That. . .is indelicate. 

However, I will consider that as an American, likely White American, you have a different understanding, if one at all, of what it means to live your whole life under occupation or some such thing where your every move is subject to the control a 'foreign' entity like Israel. My understanding is Israel makes crucial decisions for Palestinian movement in and around Gaza - both justified or unjustified. 

That might account for some of the 'barbarism' and regression towards barbarism you are addressing. But, continue to just look at the bright side. . . and none of the darkness that appears to be Palestinian fare in life. Sure, it's all their fault they are 'animals.' 

(You went there, so I feel compelled to do so in response.)

There was a young Palestinian woman on with MSNBC's Ali Veshi this Sunday morning, who spoke about growing up in Gaza with 6 hours a day of electricity only every day. Is that 'barbaric' in the 21st century? Can you get through a civilized day for years with 6 hours of electricity?

If you had to live with taking care of your dreams and aspirations with only 6 hours of electricity a day. . . would it frustrate and anger you?

It is sad what these Palestinians and Jewish people are doing to each other.

 of what it means to live your whole life under occupation or some such thing where your every move is subject to the control a 'foreign' entity like Israel.

Hasn't Palestinians lived for centuries under occupation?  When did they ever govern themselves?

Us, you and me are done here, Drinker. You just don't know it yet.

Which side has made something good of their part of the area? 

Gaza has had plenty of opportunity to become more civilized and prosperous but wants to act like the Dark Ages and refight the Crusades. 

I have to do other things now 

I have to do other things now too. Like dinner!   (Chuckles. Stomach growling.)

Personal note: Charger thank you for being a scholar and a gentleman during a terse section of discussion. Admittedly, it does get choppy talking about this subject and it can't be avoided actually. But, your willingness to continue to engage-without turning the topic into something tawdry or to grandstand: I truly appreciate. Thank you for bringing the heat and taking it as well.

have a good dinner

Enjoy your evening.

Societies haven't the luxury of reacting morally as the morals of those in a given society will always differ.

Are you trying to say that countries like, say, Denmark-- or the Netherlans-- are no more moral than, say Iran-- or Putin's Russia?

Are you trying to say that countries like, say, Denmark-- or the Netherlans-- are no more moral than, say Iran-- or Putin's Russia?

No.  That is not what I said at all.  I said that morality is a construct applicable to individuals not to collectives or societies, or countries.  Such groups act in what their leaders rationalize to be best for the group or the world given the circumstances.  Whether that be some misguided sense of justice or whether it be a very real fight for survival, the decisions they make are not always moral in the sense that we see them as individuals.  Some societies, or perhaps their leaders, are more aggressive or irrational, others more passive or rational, but when pushed to the brink the decisions they make collectively will not be based on morals, they will be based on other criteria rationalized to be critical to the survival of that group. Morals at that point have little to do with it.

Israel wants to eliminate Hamas, IMO that is not possible over time. They will come back in the same or different form. Think of the Taliban, and ISS they lose a tentacle they grow another. 

Bombing civilians is it moral? Who is to say, what is moral to you or me is not moral to the next person? We firebombed Tokyo which had no military value, we killed around 100,000 civilians and estimates of wounded range from 40K to 125K. Was it immoral? General Lemay was never charged with a war crime so it seems that the winner of the conflict makes the rules moral or immoral. Lemay commented if the Japanese had won the war they would have hanged me for firebombing Tokyo. 

Tokyo was only one of the 60 cities that we firebombed:

By the end of the war in August 1945, 153,000 tons of bombs had been dropped on civilian targets, 75 percent of the bombs being incendiaries. The result was that 60 major Japanese cities were burned down, with Tokyo being the major target in a series of raids in February and March of 1945.

The same can be said of Dresden Germany. No one was charged with a war crime so not immoral, the winner set the rules. 

We killed tens of thousands in Vietnam by bombing and we used napalm, WP, and Agent Orange, no one was charged with a crime so I believe that the winner always makes the rules and shades history to their liking.

The Golden Rule tends to make intentionally killing civilians immoral. The "necessity" of it may be an unanswerable question. Could Israel take out Hamas without killing tens of thousands of people?  One would hope so, but Israeli people want revenge and they dont want to wait a year or two which it might take the Israel intelligence services to identify the Hamas perpetrators and create the capability to reach them and terminate them. . 

IMO, there is no ''golden rule'' in war. Could Israel take out Hamas without killing tens of thousands of civilians? I don't think so, even if they didn't bomb Gaza which is to protect Israel soldiers as much as anything else. If they simply went with a ground offensive the urban warfare would still kill thousands, IMO.

If one goes back to the 1940s and Israel fought for independence they used terror tactics against the Palestinians and some experts on the ME feel that it was the opening salvo and an OK for others (Hezbollah, Hamas et al) to employ the same tactics.

Could Israel take out Hamas without killing tens of thousands of people?  One would hope so, but Israeli people want revenge and they dont want to wait a year or two which it might take the Israel intelligence services to identify the Hamas perpetrators and create the capability to reach them and terminate them. . 

How do you know what Israel wants?  How do you know what is tactically possible? The golden rule goes both ways, you know. Israel would have loved peace from it's inception, but apparently their Arab neighbors didn't want that. And they repeated that process over and over again, until finally making peace with Egypt.

Yet, Israel went forward with the Oslo accords. They pulled their own citizens literally out of Gaza, and even dug up their dead, to give the land to the Palestinians. If you need video of this, I can find it. And what did they get? Terrorist who want them wiped off the map. Inconvenient truth 1. The Palestinians voted in Hamas over the PA and then couldn't get rid of them. Inconvenient truth 2. An entire generation of Palestinians have been indoctrinated to hate Israel and Jews, since Hamas runs the media and the schools.

The bombings are not for revenge, although it would not be unheard of. Didn't we want revenge after 9/11?  The bombings a blunt instrument to get a job done with as little death to Israeli soldiers which will be really bad. They are also necessary because Hamas uses its own people to hide behind. It's an effective tool to make Israel look bad.

And your comment indicates that it works well.

I said that ALL bombings of innocent civilians are immoral, not just this one. 

That would go for the US in some of our wars, as well as many other countries. 

If it took killing 100,000 Gazan civilians in order to "get rid" of Hamas, would you be for that? 

I am all for killing all of Hamas , but there has to be a perspective that includes civilians that are trapped in a confined area. 

If it took killing 100,000 Gazan civilians in order to "get rid" of Hamas, would you be for that? 

Yes

To get rid of stubborn weeds you have to pull the roots up   

If it took killing 100,000 Gazan civilians in order to "get rid" of Hamas, would you be for that? 

You are asking for a hypothetical I can't answer, since I am not the one living with terrorists on my doorstep, and neither are you. 

But I am guessing if I were, I probably would be.

I have heard that Israel took some kind of revenge or retribution against Nazi leadership and etceteras over many decades. . . so what is with the need for "instant gratification" militarily now? Especially since it will destroy any/all good-will towards Israel. A nation surely sitting in the midst of Muslim nations. . .taunting them by reckless bombardment from the 'ceiling' overhead! Gaza has no planes in the sky that I can see. 

The thing to do is use ground forces to go in and get your enemy, and even so be careful of what you do to innocent men/elderly/women/disabled/youths/children as others with opinions and the ability to sway hearts and minds will be looking on and documenting what comes out—right and wrong!

There are even rules for waging war. Deliberate killing of civilians will DEFINITELY mean something: That those who judge that they are about to be unjustly kill. . . will/should just strap on a bullet-proof vest, grab weapons, and go out seeking to NOT be the NEXT victim. 

No one in their right mind will sit and just let another person kill them-without a proper fight. That is, if as the saying goes, "Today is a good day to die. . . ." Then don't be surprised when the right decision becomes one that takes out every SOB that troubles you (damages your mental state by murdering those you love) out so that there will be less of them enjoying live in your 'absence' from it.

Agreed. For people who love all people in this world . . . .  There has to be some rules of engagement to war for the Good practitioners of war. I mean we all know how to destroy stuff. How about the hard work of saving lives ('stuff') because it is GOOD stuff caught up in a 'net' with bad?

BTW, something was mentioned in the opinion article above about: The U.S. executing "Shock and Awe" and it televised. But a reminder:

At the last 'minute' the DOD called that 'mission' off and opted to limit "full-scale" demolishing and pounding into submission of Iraq. (Don't know what happened behind the scenes away from the public to inform that decision.) It makes the point that there are ways to do this without utter destruction, even if it unfortunately means leaving an opening for attack of one's own forces during a ground invasion. 

We did that. We called off "Shock and Awe" and we able to accomplish the mission through saving thousands of lives untouched by violence or the threat of violence. It turned out to be a good-will measure!

I have heard that Israel took some kind of revenge or retribution against Nazi leadership and etceteras over many decades. . . so what is with the need for "instant gratification" militarily now?

WWII was over and there was no impending danger. You are assuming this is about revenge. How about that this is a war, brought about a very long planned attack on Israel. That is the difference. The difference is that they want to get rid of any chance of this happening again.

A nation surely sitting in the midst of Muslim nations. . .taunting them by reckless bombardment from the 'ceiling' overhead! Gaza has no planes in the sky that I can see.

A nation who was multiple time attacked by those very same nations. Did you forget that? And why do you see what Israel is doing is a taunt, while Hamas has been for over 20 years shoot bombs at Israel proper. What was that? Not a taunt?

The thing to do is use ground forces to go in and get your enemy, and even so be careful of what you do to innocent men/elderly/women/disabled/youths/children as others with opinions and the ability to sway hearts and minds will be looking on and documenting what comes out—right and wrong!

So, you think that the Israeli soliders wouldn't be attacked by the citzens of Gaza? Think "Black Hawk Down". Why would anyone want to walk into that?

Why is Israel held to a totally different standard than every other nation? 

Hamas does not play by the rules then they do not get to benefit from the rules.  They are outlaws and should be treated as such, 

Perrie, what would be the stated justification for killing "innocence" in the form of oppressed men, women, and children? I am so sorry that Israel civilians were deliberately attacked and murdered, but is war the opportunity to punish  Hamas or the entirety of the oppressed people of Palestine? Some Palestinians have place this on the table: Israel will exterminate Palestinians. . .and then take the land for Israel. Wait! I know I can not question Israel's motivations and I am not. I am just bringing up what is being said and it is a validate issue up to and touching it does not happen because of this. 

Now then if the two peoples want to continue exacting revenge against each other. . . then, continue doing what they are doing. Violence begets more of it. 

What really needs to happen is they should share the land once and for all. 

The WHOLE WORLD is waiting for these two peoples to finally find peace, because apparently no one else can supply it for either/both of them!

Why is the war to punish? Is it the Israeli's fault that Hamas hides among their own people? 

Here, let me tell you something. My daughter and her now husband were on trip of Isreal when the Hamas started firing on Israel. They had to take shelter at Tel Aviv Airport. They were there to go home. So do you think I don't understand what it feels like to be on the receiving end of a bomb?

The fact you use words like "exterminate", which of course will not happen and then assign a reason: to take over land, means you long ago assigned a who is good and who is evil in this discussion.

The fact that Israel has tried and tired again to give the Palestinians a homeland (a two state solution), as did the UN in 1947, seems to not be remembered.

What really needs to happen is they should share the land once and for all. 

Why? Because the Arabs couldn't deal with a small piece of land that went to the Jews even after they were supposed to get a piece much larger?  Or because they didn't like a two state solution, since that required recognizing Israel? Because that is what they were offered in '47 and they said no to it and they were offered it again and again. And after '47, they kicked out all the Jews that lived in their countries without the shirts on their backs. Where was the outrage for them?

Israel wants the standard? How about listening to its friends who are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. . . asking for calm before this literally blows up in EVERYBODY'S face. The other 'parties' to this region have eyes and opinions too. Will Hamas bring Israel down to its level?

We all know this is a complex set of problems in the Middle East. But, isn't the WHOLE WORLD gotten involved in it from the 'get-go'? Therefore, who in the "village" as in: "It takes a village" gets to come alongside these two peoples and offer ideas, suggestions, and solutions? The village community. As we caution Hamas to come out from amongst the civilian population, we counsel the Palestinian people to push Hamas out into the 'street' where they can be dealt with completely. But, can an oppressed people accomplish such a feat?  Should innocent Palestinians: Its babies, its youths, its elderly, its disabled, and many who do not now or never supported Hamas but are caught in the 'net' of Hamas leadership be slaughtered and blown to pieces?

Forgive me, this is rough subject matter and I will do my best to respectful to all God's "children" in it. 

Now then, If Hamas wants the destruction of Israel. . . does it have the power to accomplish this feat? Why should Israel let Hamas 'win' the propaganda war by claiming Israel is no better than Hamas since they kill every thing which moves?  Hyperbole yes. But it conveys a message.

Finally, no I am not assuming this about revenge. I am making a point that the goal of getting Hamas can best be done by having Hamas pushed out from behind the masses. However, if the masses are unable/too weak/anemic as a people to do so. . .then, a different course set of steps must be considered (a more patient and slow set of consequences) which will not HAUNT the Jewish people for as long as the world remains.  A step of steps that the world AGREES with Israel leaves its brand in tact as a people and moreso as a people of God! 

Israel wants the standard? How about listening to its friends who are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. . . asking for calm before this literally blows up in EVERYBODY'S face. The other 'parties' to this region have eyes and opinions too. Will Hamas bring Israel down to its level?

Israel has been listening and that is why it took 2 weeks for them to go in. It was because the US and other nations asked them to hold off. They were not going to hold off forever.

Should innocent Palestinians: Its babies, its youths, its elderly, its disabled, and many who do not now or never supported Hamas but are caught in the 'net' of Hamas leadership be slaughtered and blown to pieces?

And why does the responsibility fall on the Israelis? You might want to read this article about Hamas:

nytimes

If they don't care, why should Israel, and believe me, Israel does care, since they are being casted as the villian by some.

Why should Israel let Hamas 'win' the propaganda war by claiming Israel is no better than Hamas since they kill every thing which moves?  Hyperbole yes. But it conveys a message.

I'm glad you said hyperbole... since that is what it is. Let's see what happens when the soldiers go in. As for Hamas... again, read the article.

I was not around in '47. Had I been chances are I would still be on the outside looking into the mess that is this looking for a solution. I don't mean to be glib. But it is important to remember that we state-siders are looking in on a world-class problem that affects: the world.

Respect to you as a mother and a very good R.A. for us for all these years. I would not dare, ever, to tell you the emotions you should feel for you and yours! Moreover, I will respect your knowledge of these matter which likely are deep and well-thought out. That said, I would like to 'air' out what I think and reorganize it as needed.

The word, "exterminate" is a news word delivered by satellite to cable viewers from the ME region: "Some Palestinians have place this on the table: Israel will exterminate Palestinians. . .and then take the land for Israel." 

I don't have critical opinion about the possession of Palestine or Israel land. Full stop. 

My opinion is for the non-fighting people of both sides who are caught up in this. All the innocent people in this region who keep having to start over and over (on both sides - though it appears Palestinians are sitting on rubble the most!) who have little to nothing to live for and even that can be "little" can be turned into 'powder' and rock. 

I do remember the problem area of how the two-state solution kept falling apart. . . .  I remember thinking take the 'solution' and it did'nt happen.  But, that does not help us now nor can it. We are "HERE" and blood is being spilled.  The question asked is this: Is bombing civilians moral. 

The answer plainly is NO! Because if it is right then the solution can be rushed to:  Just unleash hell on Earth and let the best. . . group of set of people win. But we know that would sicken the world, wouldn't it. It would no be the ME or the world's best moment.

Now if I can be blunt. All my life I have heard about Israel and the Palestinians skirmishes over land and who is inheritors of the land, and let me say it is visually easy to see that Israel is in a spot for holding land (and even the Bible seems to say that Armageddon will take (a) God to help Israel win because of the collective Arab states surrounding her). I will get the Old Testament prophecy later if you wish to see it .

Now a question: In looking at the map of the area of Palestine and Israel. . . why is it acceptable and to whom is it okay for Palestine to appear to be two different "countries" on the map? That is, wouldn't it be more efficient for everyone to have Palestine in one location? 

take the Israel intelligence services to identify the Hamas perpetrators and create the capability to reach them and terminate them

But given Hamas vast tunnel system-- and all sorts of support from Iran--it might never happen.(For starters Israeli casualties would be huge-- the country wouldn't stand for it).

I can not read the New York Times article as it is behind a permanent paywall. I will look for an alternative article on it tomorrow with the same information. Thank you. It's late. I will retire for the evening, dear Perrie. Thank you for 'fleshing' this out and more besides. This is good exchange. Because it stretches me, us. (I hope.) 

Always a friend. And my heart belongs to. . .You. Yes! It does and there is nothing you can do about it! Good night. 

Good night NT. Good night, World!  Peace to Israel. Peace to Palestine. 

(I will pick up with your comment Sunday (God willing.)

I don't want Israel to be cast as the villain, but this is. . .some world-class complex political. . . stuff. Has been for a long time. Peace. 

Yes To get rid of stubborn weeds you have to pull the roots up   

I can't agree with this. I am pretty sure if your family was some of those wiped off the map for being guilty of nothing more than proximity, you would feel much differently. 

Exactly. Innocent people want to live just like we do. It's a survival instinct. And 99.99 percent of humanity fight to hang on to it for as long as we can. 

Exactly. Innocent people want to live just like we do.

Exactly, guilty people want to live as well except for suicide bombers that got onto Israeli busses, restaurants and other public places to kill Jews.

So what is your point about guilty people: Do you wish guilty Hamas to go scot-free? What is your POINT?! Are you just exploiting this discussion?  Maybe you need to attach a laugh track to your comments!

So what is your point about guilty people:

That most want to live as do innocent people although Hamas has a subset that is happy to suicide bomb Israeli civilians for all the virgins in paradise.

Do you wish guilty Hamas to go scot-free?

I don’t know how you reached that conclusion.

What is your POINT?!

That Hamas and Gazans have left Israel little decision space.

[trolling]

No point continuing. You're too facetious and it kills the seriousness of the situation.

[Deleted]

Hi Perrie, I very much will like to read your article from the New York Times and I shall after I locate a different provider who picks up the story. This article may be closed since I got delayed in replying. I will do so on your opinion article if you post it up! 

Peace. 

The word, "exterminate" is a news word delivered by satellite to cable viewers from the ME region: "Some Palestinians have place this on the table: Israel will exterminate Palestinians. . .and then take the land for Israel." 

I watch the news every night and read major papers and none of them use the word "exterminate". Humanitarian crisis, yes, but never exterminate. And no one said that the Palestinians interests should not be considered. And the fact that you have already assumed that Israel will take the land, lets me know you don't know the history of the region. Israel had the land and they gave it to the Palestinians. They ripped their own citizens out of their and dug up the dead, and then gave it all to the Palestinians. And what did they do? The voted in Hamas over the PA, and thus set this mess into motion. You want to blame someone, please take that into consideration.

Now a question: In looking at the map of the area of Palestine and Israel. . . why is it acceptable and to whom is it okay for Palestine to appear to be two different "countries" on the map? That is, wouldn't it be more efficient for everyone to have Palestine in one location? 

I don't understand the question about the map. Are you talking about Gaza and the West Bank being seperated?

btw, CB, I hope you don't think that I am upset on any level. I am here to share what I know.

Let me start by saying that you have my deepest respect at all times. 

I am talking about Gaza and the West Bank separation. It looks odd in the scheme of how county lies are drawn. Though I have some idea how it came to be so; it strikes me that Palestine would be happiest if they could at lease join together without all the checkpoints (gates) in Israel to cross. Also, does Israel allow or does Gazans have the ability to fly over to the West Bank? 

These are some questions that come to mind about the daily workings of these two countries (in three places).

As for the quote about extermination of Palestinians through the current bombings and telling them to move South and leave the North. The thinking goes something like this: Once the Palestinians leave the North of Gaza heading South . . . some of them were on the news stating they fear they will not be allowed to return home or if they stay without leaving it is a 'death sentence' once Israel beings razing (or whatever term best fits) the area.

This article will close. I will look for the footage and post it for you on your proposed article later.  : )  

Israel wants to eliminate Hamas, IMO that is not possible over time. They will come back in the same or different form. Think of the Taliban, and ISS they lose a tentacle they grow another. 

Sorta like when we eliminated Naziism in Germany? Or when we eliminated facism in Inperial Japan? (Google UNIT 731).

Has that come back in Japan? 

If not, why not?

When the people of a nation are mistreated by those who govern them (think of Hamas using civilians as human shields, think of Hamas making civilians remain in the north when Israel told them to get out and go south to save their lives, think of Hamas planting an IED in the road south that blew up civilians fleeing to the south in order to stop the flow) they revolt.  The people of France did, the people of Russia did, did they not?  The Gazans voted Hamas into power and have supported them for long enough no matter how they might have been deprived by Israel's blockade.  There was no movement to remove them, it was part of the constitution of Hamas to destroy Israel and the civilians never complained about that but have been educated to despise the Jews, to push the Jews into the sea, to "free Palestine" "From the river to the sea".  Have the Gazans snitched on Hamas, indicated to Israel where the Hamas munitions are stored under schools and mosques, where the militants have their headquarters under hospitals?  Have they given the Israelis names and identity of the militants?  Every war has its collateral damage.

As for the numbers, of course you can believe Hamas and those they control, just as you can believe them when they told you it was an Israeli missile that hit a hospital and killed 500 people.  The Jew-haters WANT that story to be true, and look how it triggered the Jew-haters around the world to react. 

Even though it has been said that if you cut off one tentacle another will grow in its place, IMO it is time to demolish the octopus.  It is time to kill every Hamas militant, every Hamas politician, every Hamas supporter, and every Hamas sympathizer and put the Palestinian Authority in charge of the innocent people of Gaza.  It is the only way to stop the invasion and infiltration of terrorists into Israel, the rockets and missiles aimed at Israel, the destructive incendiary kites and balloons.

The Gazans voted Hamas into power and have supported them for long enough no matter how they might have been deprived by Israel's blockade. 

One minor correction it would be more accurate to say "the joint Israeli-Egyptian blockade". 

Yes, of course, but nobody in the world is critical of the Egyptian part of the blockade.  According to them is it Israel's blockade, a blockade though which hundreds of big trucks a day loaded with food, medical supplies, fuel, etc were delivered to the Gazans and electricity and water were pumped from Israel and Gazans who required sophisticated medical attention were allowed to pass through - - you know, THAT "blockade".

People seem to think waging war is something that can be done with surgical precision, such that only military combatants are ever harmed. They hold on to this fantasy in spite of the fact that no such war has ever been waged. Bombs are not lasers or magic spells. They do damage over an area, not just to a single individual.

If Israel could just push a button and only kill Hamas fighters, I’m sure they’d be happy to do that.

They do more to protect civilian lives than any nation in history has ever done, but the hatred of Jews is so deep they are criticized more than any nation for what they have to do to protect themselves.  

The Enigma of Colonel Richard Kemp CBE explained in …

If Israel could just push a button and only kill Hamas fighters, I’m sure they’d be happy to do that.

If only.

If Israel could just push a button and only kill Hamas fighters, I’m sure they’d be happy to do that.

Exactly. 

Well I am not stupid and do not expect any of this COMPLEX set of issues politically or militarily to be easy. It's going to be hard and by its nature war should be hard or what else would be the use for it? However, the United States has already demonstrated that boots on the ground saves civilian lives. And that is the point, eh?

Willy-nilly killing civilians while treating them like soldiers if folly. And to prove the point the world will condemn Israel if it does not limit the civilian deaths. 

Also let me just add. There is too much ideology of general killing and destruction taking place in this discussion. It's as if people don't seem to understand the SANCTITY OF LIFE that they toss around on a routine basis—until they don't.

It's INCONSISTENT. 

I had no idea so many of us would agree without RESERVATION on wholesale slaughtering of an "indefinite," in quotes, number of civilians. 

Makes me wonder if war broke out here in the United States if the aged, infirm, feeble, disabled, seniors, women, children, and unarmed men should just count themselves among the soon to be casualties as a general principle.

And if Israel could just push a button and kill Hamas, it is likely Israel could do similarly anywhere in the world. . . instantly, we all would be put on notice to look over our shoulders. That is a bit of hyperbole that goes without stating.

However, the United States has already demonstrated that boots on the ground saves civilian lives. And that is the point, eh?

So you’re anxious for the IDF to get more boots on the ground in Gaza?

Makes me wonder if war broke out here in the United States if the aged, infirm, feeble, disabled, seniors, women, children, and unarmed men should just count themselves among the soon to be casualties as a general principle.

Exactly, makes me wonder what the US would do if foreign terrorist surprised us with slaughtering our civilians and kidnapping others.

I envisioned a civil war and what one side would permit itself to do to civilians. But, of course, you are on a whole other 'bent' in discussion (as usual). 

In the best light you are supporting "An eye for an eye" ideology, but that runs afoul of the way today's U.S. policy works. This nation wishes its military forces to limit (decrease) the death of innocent people in conflicts and wars.  Also, there is a war crime that Ukraine is asking the world court to hold against Russia over the death of innocent men, women, and children. 

You are insisting Israel commit war crimes; I hold they should not listen to you on this one!

I envisioned a civil war and what one side would permit itself to do to civilians.

What do you mean by “one side would permit itself to do to civilians”.

You are insisting Israel commit war crimes; I hold they should not listen to you on this one!

Which war crimes have I insisted Israel commit?  What do you think that Israel should do?

I envisioned a civil war and what one side would permit itself to do to civilians.

Interpret it as it reads. 

Deliberately targeting and killing civilians is a war-crime. May be genocide.  Israel should go after Hamas in Palestine on the ground. Yes, it will cause lives as often as it will cherish lives too!

ISRAEL SHOULD GO AFTER THE GUILTY ENEMY PARTY/IES WHICH INVADED ITS TERRITORY AND TAKE THEM DOWN AND NOT KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE SIMPLY FOR NOT LIKING-OKAY-HATING, OR SAYING THEY HATE, ISRAEL.

Interpret it as it reads

With the absence of your cooperation, it’s easier to just let it go.

Deliberately targeting and killing civilians is a war-crime.

What evidence of that do you have?

In the Civil War, Union troops tried to burn every grain mill in the Shenandoah Valley. The one that did not burn completely down they set fire to and rode off letting the women of Edinburg put it out (it still stands as a restaurant). 

It is strange that some criticize Israel fighting Hamas, but the tactics of Union troops are justified. 

It is strange that some criticize Israel fighting Hamas, but the tactics of Union troops are justified. 

One could reply

It is strange that some criticize Israel fighting Hamas, but the tactics of CSA troops are still justified. 

As long as poverty, religion and testosterone persist, the atrocities will continue to be repeated

as being justified by the winners who eventually write the history.

It has been so since our ancestors began to throw stones and sharpen sticks...

Yankees won the war so they made themselves look better than the Rebels.

And poverty, religion and testosterone are not going away and add overpopulation, overcrowding and more powerful weapons to the mix along with social media and it won't get better

Its real simple-- its a "double standard".

Some individuals-- even groups-- insist the standards that apply to other somehow don't apply to them.

It just dawned on me that you were absent from us for a 'minute.' Welcome back. . . long time no read!

And let me hasten to say this: JR this is one 'fiery hot' topic you have laid before us. Kudos. We need it. It's hard. It's rough. It will offend some. And through it all I hope we become better informed and good people for having dared to touch something so 'combustible.'  In my own way, I love you, guys and gals!

this is one 'fiery hot' topic you have laid before us

Yes it is. The ground invasion of Gaza has begun. If the topic cant come up now, then when? 

Agreed.

Is Bombing Civilians 'Moral'?

I wonder if people realize that all Hamas members are all civilians?

(According to the Geneva Conventions, all soldiers must wear identification as soldiers. Not doing so is a violation of the Geneva Conventions).

"Palestine" does not have an army. (How could it-- it doesn't even exist!)

Therefore Hamas are considered civilians (fighters, but civilian fighters)

There is no Hamas "army" -- only civilians who are Hamas members who are in combat.

So "bombing civilians" includes bombing Hamas.

So "bombing civilians" includes bombing Hamas.

Oh, that clears everything up.  /s

It’s clear that Hamas uses civilians and their facilities as camouflage and shields,

If Hamas is not distinguishing themselves then nobody there gets Geneva Convection protection

So if Hama does not wear distinguishing uniform, you see it as something of "open bombardment season' on the whole of the Gaza Strip? Speak plainly, Charger.

How should Israel distinguish between Hamas and civilians?  How much more should Israel risk the lives of its soldiers by confessing a civilian with a Hamas soldier or suicide bomber.

How do we distinguish anything? The ones holding the weapons pointed in your direction! Sheesh! Basic.  Else any enemy force can take off its uniforms and blend into the civilian crowd and stomp their opponent. Or, would you really just kill every man you see or man, woman, and child you see?

Please do not imply or whatever it is you're doing now that uniforms makes the troops fighters.

The blame for all deaths is only on Hamas. They try to act like civilians while fighting, commit  terroristic acts and they started it. So put the blame where it belongs.  They are evil and deserve no mercy.

Okay. Then that is your 'bottom line.' So be it.

I do not care about enemy losses, victory is far more important

Krishna, have a care about what you write on this. If you make all of Palestinians Hamas, then why is Israel even having a discussion with the WH or European Nations or the UN about civilian death counts or saving civilian ("Hamas") lives? 

Please make PROPER distinctions as those who have to explain these matters to their 'citizen-pubic' do. 

Ron DeSantis is on tv this morning saying he is not in favor of sending humanitarian aid to Gaza. 

Did he state why?

What would be a good reason for withholding food water and medicine from tens of thousands of people who need them ? 

They are the enemy?

What did he say?  

Were you in favor of sending aid to the ISIS caliphate?  Why would we ever send aid to an enemy holding Americans hostage?

Ask hamas.  They are sitting on food and water reserves for their army while Palestinians suffer.  

I would think it is next to impossible to make sure the aid goes to the innocent victims and not Hamas or Hamas sympathizers.  I have not heard a plan to make sure that happens and based on past it seems Hamas is more interested in their war against Israel than the health of Palestinians (both innocent and sympathizers). 

So the people in Gaza who are not part of Hamas, which surely must be in the many hundreds of thousands , should be starved to death in order to get Hamas today? Is Hamas going somewhere? 

Israeli spokespeople regularly say something along the lines of "we're going to put an end to this threat once and for all". Who are they kidding? 

The women and children of Gaza are your enemy? 

So the people in Gaza who are not part of Hamas, which surely must be in the many hundreds of thousands , should be starved to death in order to get Hamas today?

How do you believe the aid would go only to them while Hamas controls who gets what?  Do you think Hamas would be willing to let go all of the hostages to make sure the people in Gaza that are not part of Hamas would get the supplies they need?

Interesting that you still haven't said why DeSantis has an issue.

They are not an ally

The women and children of Gaza are your enemy? 

Are the innocent Israelis who would end up suffering if more aid was given to Hamas your enemy?

 Is Hamas going somewhere? 

I think that they went into Israel to party a couple weekends ago,

Is Hamas going somewhere? 

No, they are being buried in their tunnels right in Gaza.

“we're going to put an end to this threat once and for all". Who are they kidding? 

Exactly, they should just learn to live with it like our Black communities have learned to live with gun violence and car jackings.

How much will Egypt let through?  How much are the rich Arab states contributing?  We’re is Iran with supplying financial aid so others can by the food and medicine for Gaza?

Do you think that destroying Hamas will put an end once and for all to violent uprisings in Israel (including West bank and Gaza ?

I agree Hamas needs to be eliminated but when that is done there will still be threats to Israel. The best hope for ending threats to Israel is a two state solution. 

They are the enemy?

Not all of them and probably not even a majority. 

Do you think that destroying Hamas will put an end once and for all to violent uprisings in Israel (including West bank and Gaza ?

No, and I don’t think that a Two State Solution will stop their violence either.  The region remains a non-democratic powder keg regardless of Israel.

Not all of them and probably not even a majority. 

You think that the election was rigged?

You think that the election was rigged?

Huh? What are you talking about? I was saying that not everyone in Gaza is an enemy...not sure what that has to do with the 2020 election. 

You said probably not a majority support Hamas, I wasn’t talking about our 2020 election, but their election that put Hamas in power.

Yes, the last election in Palestine.    17 years ago ……

but their election that put Hamas in power.

It's cute that you think a terrorist organization would have a free and fair election... So, again, I doubt that the majority of the people in Gaza support Hamas. 

I doubt that the majority of the people in Gaza support Hamas. 

Why?

It's cute that you think a terrorist organization would have a free and fair election.

If you reread my comment, you will see that I never said that their election was free or fair, but rather, I asked you what you thought.

I will not that I don’t remember and media coverage of Gazans protesting the election, then or later.

Charger, do you believe in the phrase: "Sanctity of life? Are all the Palestinians on the Gaza Strip open to perish in your opinion? Are their no good Palestinians in Gaza?

You said probably

Yea, that's called an opinion. 

Yea, that's called an opinion

Yes, and I asked the basis for your opinion, do you have one number?

"Sanctity of life?

Sounds nice, I am more concerned about my survival as Israel should be

I am on Israel's side (as an onlooker) and really do not care about Palestinians, they are part of the problem. nobody wants them, they can't be trusted to not be Hamas.

Israel needs to win the war, protect their Citizens and soldiers, and eliminate the enemy first, before worrying about any good Palestinians, if there is such a thing. 

Of course not but Israel certainly has more compassion for them than the cowards using them as human shields do.

How do you propose Israel handles that issue?

Of course not but Israel certainly has more compassion for them than the cowards using them as human shields do. How do you propose Israel handles that issue?

Your position appears to be "We're terribly sorry that we have to kill you and your kids. No hard feelings ?" 

Your position appears to be "We're terribly sorry that we have to kill you and your kids. No hard feelings ?" 

My position is that we’re terribly sorry, but you apparently voted Hamas in power, have sheltered them as they carried out terrorism and not only did revolt but didn’t ask for international assistance to kick them out.  Elections and behaviors have consequences.  We will do our best to spare you as Hamas hides behind you.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

John, you say you don’t defend Hamas actions but in the same breath you advocate protecting them to avoid civilian casualties.

Exactly why they use human shields.    Attitudes like yours.

I am on Israel's side (as an onlooker) and really do not care about Palestinians, they are part of the problem. nobody wants them, they can't be trusted to not be Hamas.

That is a bigoted thing to put down. There are Jewish people who are not so negatively opinionated against all Palestinians. Aside: I am shocked to read such a viewpoint from you.

I am not advocating protecting Hamas. I could just as easily say you are advocating killing innocent Palestinian civilians. 

(Ahem.) Easy off the lips. . . good no perceived enemies of Israel are standing behind any conservatives you know.

What specifically are advocating?

[deleted]

good no perceived enemies of Israel are standing behind any conservatives you know.

you’ve left me clueless again.

The first thing I would have advocated was a delay in the ground attack , but it is too late now. 

What worthwhile have the Palestinians accomplished in Gaza?  

I do not see why some care so much about them.

If everyone had your attitude every country in the world would be at war with everyone else all the time. 

No, some respect the judgement of history after 75 years.

The first thing I would have advocated was a delay in the ground attack , but it is too late now. 

There was a delay, at least 10 days after the initial attack before a concerted move into Gaza occurred.  In fact, Israel even implored Gazan residents to move south out of danger and told them what they were going to do before they began the Hamas targeting operations.  Sure they repelled some attacks at both their northern and southern borders and took out Hezbollah and Hamas military targets, before moving into Gaza but what would you have done differently?

[✘]

Well, . . . like you they are human; they are alive. It matters to them and others in this world even if some can be heartless about this.

All kinds of bad people and criminals throughout history were human and alive; but, that does not excuse them

That. . .does not help this situation. Remember humanity. It's a first principle for humans.

I am not advocating protecting Hamas.

Sure you are.    

By not vociferously supporting an effective response to the terrorist attacks of Oct 7th.    And how long do you suggest Israel waits?    Do you have some rule book you follow?    How many days per innocent Jew burned alive, murdered in cold blood or throat slit.    

Really, you must have some kind of idea the way you are pushing they should have waited longer than the weeks they did wait.   I’d love to hear your answer.

I could just as easily say you are advocating killing innocent Palestinian civilians. 

You could but you would be wrong.    100% wrong.    

BTW Charger, I want to underscore that "sanctity of life" did not get conservative support when it mattered to save INNOCENT life that is already existing in this world. I take it that sanctity of life is just a useful talking point that is only used for convenience to win an argument.

Bullshit, try walking a mile in Israel’s boots before you make ignorant comments like that.

The left has zero high ground in the sanctity of life discussion.

Zero.

When I see someone say, at least a half dozen times, that he doesnt care if women and children in Gaza die I will say any damn thing I want to him. 

OK on that. Most times "Sanctity of life" is used is in another argument.

That nice.    

Love to see where ANYONE  said that here once let alone six times.    As usual, the hyperbole in you comments is just a ridiculous as ever.

Also note you avoided my question in my other comment.  

So typical and sad.

Charger knows what he has said since this thing started. Ask him if he wants to see civilian lives in Gaza saved. 

It is evident that MAGA/conservatives don't really mean anything by the phrase anyway. It's just easy off the lips and. . .gives a lot of mileage in certain debates. But, oh, the irony that the living don't qualify for "sanctity of life." 

And for the purposes of talking about sanctity of life, I don't give a damn about things "Left" and things "Right." This is life in and of itself that is the issue not some sorry political bs.

Agreed. But  sanctity of life applies to life and that is what we are discussing here: Civilians are alive. Until they are not because someone rules their wholesale slaughter in total or part is is more valuable to the larger scheme of society and the world.

Civilians are alive as long as Hamas lets them live.

Pretty simple answer. None of it is likely to get to the people that need it, since the Hamas "government" will take it all.

Is Bombing Civilians 'Moral'?

Everyone has their own definition of what is moral and what is not.  I am confident Hamas believes they have the moral high ground because of their twisted beliefs.

As for me I have a problem saying any taking of life is "moral".  Is it sometimes necessary?  Unfortunately yes.  Are governments asking moral people in the military to do immoral things by taking a life?  In my opinion yes.  Do people know what they might be asked to do when they join the military?  Yes.

I am reminded of Air Marshall Arthur Harris, Chief of the RAF's Bomber Command, in WW II. Harris was a staunch advocate of area bombing techniques against Nazi German cities and industry targets intended to reduce the enemy's will to fight in a total war situation. The most dreadful being the bombing of Dresden where thousands of German civilians died in a firestorm. The morality of mass killing of German civilians in WW II is still being debated to this day. The morality of Israel's and Hamas's actions will also probably be debated for decades to come as well.

Yes, like dropping the two Nucs on Japan.    Both saved net lives.    Of this I have little doubt.    

This situation isn’t exactly the same as Germany and Japan in WW-2 but if your neighbor openly professed their desire to kill you and your family and burn your house down, proactive measures are required.

Lest you and yours would be dead.

Another point of contention is differentiating between innocent non combatant civilians and combatant civilian terrorists that are Hell bent on killing you any way they can. I remember that problem in Vietnam.

I forgot to mention above that General Curtis LeMay of the 20th Bomber Command in the Pacific Theater held many of the same views on area firebombing as Arthur Harris.

Locking this article when I sign off tonight , which will be within the next couple of hours.

I think everyone has had their say and gotten their points across. 

Is bombing civilians morally right?  No. There are justifications for accidental killings in times of war and fog of war. Overall, deliberately targeting civilians with bombs is as wrong as taking civilian hostages and using them as shields and killing babies.

This article is now closed, permanently.