The next step is up to them to figure out, but "commit war crimes" isn't an acceptable answer. Those pointing out the war crimes don't have to pitch an alternative to war crimes and hope the idea is accepted or whatever. Just stop killing civilians, then reassess.
Just to clarify exactly where I sit morally: I do not find it acceptable to kill 10 civilians in retaliation for 1 civilian being killed, nor do I find it acceptable that such 10x revenge killing of civilians is allegedly done in the name of saving civilians. Such statements tell me that the ones making them, don't view Palestinians as civilians to be saved. Whereas I don't believe 1 Palestinian civilian life is any more or less important than 1 Israeli civilian life.
The solution to getting international law implemented is enforcement, just like any other law. Enforcement ... on Hamas. And that is totally lacking. Hell, what the IDF is doing is the only thing being done. Everything you suggest comes down to punishing Israel for attempting to enforce international law, BECAUSE Hamas kills civilians. Does it really need to be stated that this will achieve the opposite of your stated aims? That it will lead to much more death in the future?
> The next step is up to them to figure out, but "commit war crimes" isn't an acceptable answer.
Firstly, Israel is not committing war crimes. IF infrastructure is used for military purposes, it can be targeted. Hamas uses hospitals, mosques, UN compounds, ... as bases to launch attacks from, to kidnap and store hostages.
Secondly, clearly committing warcrimes is OK. Simply put: your suggestion would forgive war crimes by Hamas (and Palestinian civilians), and encourage more of them, by giving a LARGE reward to war crimes. How can you make this statement and say it is against war crimes?
> I do not find it acceptable to kill 10 civilians in retaliation for 1 civilian being killed, nor do I find it acceptable that such 10x revenge killing of civilians is allegedly done in the name of saving civilians.
The problem, of course, is that it's really Hamas, not Israel, that's killing civilians. Palestinian civilians are forced, at gunpoint, to stay in buildings that are about to be bombed.
You suggest letting this tactic (which is a war crime, of course) stand.
To put it simply: the UN (the WHO specifically) helped Hamas execute wounded people brought into the emergency room at Al Shifa hospital. This has gone without consequences for Hamas, but it was also a war crime on the part of WHO doctors. And before you say this sounds like a conspiracy ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Shifa_Hospital...
At its core, your one-sided argument attempts to reduce the issue to a "with Israel or with Hamas" false dichotomy, which doesn't help the discussion here. I am pro civilian, and the civilians deaths are, as we speak, racking up in Palestine, so that is where we need to look to literally stop the bleeding. Preventing future harm (ensuring safety) to civilians in Israel and in Palestine is something we can discuss how to do after we stop the ongoing harm to them.
Purely political ultimatums, like insisting on destroying Hamas before the civilian bombings stop, don't help the peace process, and they're made by people who openly reject peace via an equitable, 2 state solution.
So, I'll reiterate: Israel is currently bombing civilians, and should stop, so aid can enter and the civilians can be helped and perhaps peace can someday be achieved. But bombing Palestinian civilians (read: NOT Hamas, mostly civilians) only harms the chance of peace (which is why Bibi is doing it).
No amount of twisted excuses justifies dropping a JDAM on a residential apartment building full of civilian men, women, and children. No, not "every single building we collapsed was launching rockets". Implausible. No, not "we got a cell phone ping from a Hamas dude inside the building". Does not justify the bombing. No, not "we warned people via the Internet we cut off from them". They have a right to remain in their home, unbombed. No, not "they had a human shield". The goal is to save all civilian lives, not just Israeli ones, and "human shield" lives are worth exactly as much as any other life, Israeli or otherwise, so killing the human in question is also unacceptable.
Maybe there are no good options, but that isn't an excuse to commit war crimes via indiscriminately bombing civilians. The ground troops currently killing Hamas fighters seem totally reasonable, were they not paired with attacking civilians, blocking of international aid, indiscriminate bombing, etc. Perhaps a better one would have been to appeal to the UN before killing over ten thousand civilians via terror bombing. Israel may think itself the judge, jury, executioner, and enforcer for international law, but it is not. Indeed, the consensus of the international community is that Israel should stop acting out of emotion and Bibi's politics, and stop their terror bombing, so we can all take a breath and see what peace or resolution can be found by the international community.
As an aside, in the following quote, you're literally talking about Israeli bombs exploding children and collapsing entire apartment buildings on entire families, so obviously a sensitive subject. Your heated feelings aside, I think it's inappropriate for you to try to gaslight people on such a grim matter:
> The problem, of course, is that it's really Hamas, not Israel, that's killing civilians
I doubt the victims would agree with such a hurtful lie, were they not exploded by a JDAM. Consider what the victims would have preferred Israel do. Really put yourself in their shoes, we are all human beings here: suppose a Hamas fighter really did flee into a tunnel which passes under your huge, multistory apartment block. Would you be alright with Israel leveling the whole block, killing you, your entire family, your neighbors, your friends?
Ok. Please explain how you'll get Hamas to stop firing. They have sworn not to stop firing, literally never. Even if Israel surrenders and lets them kill all Israeli (their stated intention) they would still not stop. They've actually gone on TV to say that.
Israel is not bombing civilians. IDF is bombing terrorist targets. The reason civilians die is that Hamas is forcing these people, at gunpoint, to stay in buildings Hamas KNOWS will be bombed, while firing at IDF soldiers from within those buildings.
So please explain what will make Hamas stop firing? Because if the answer is enforcement, you're just suggesting doing what the IDF is doing ... Do you seriously have the slightest doubt Hamas will have any qualms about shooting at whoever "the international community" happens to be?
> ... and see what peace or resolution can be found by the international community.
The international community will help rebuild Hamas, because it'll get them political wins. After which much more people will die.
> ... Would you be alright with Israel leveling the whole block, killing you, your entire family, your neighbors, your friends?
You don't get how Hamas works at all. They don't incidentally run behind civilians. Hamas is not hiding behind civilians. Hamas is using human shields. They are shooting at Palestinians, regularly killing a bunch of them (it'll be blamed on Israel anyway, and even if it isn't ...) forcing them to stand between them and IDF soldiers, locking them up, without food, in buildings they are operating from.
Given what happened to Israeli soldiers, and what Hamas has done in the past, YES, I would like the army to use weapons to attempt to blast us out, knowing the potential consequences. Compared to being tortured and put in full harms' way, constantly threatened by terrorists, yes, I'd prefer the "shorter pain".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_Hospital#2007_Fatah%E...
Hamas threatened the WHO doctors to help them execute people brought into the emergency room. Yes, I like to fantasize that that would be past my limits and I'd actually prefer to be executed, even try to kill someone asking me that, rather than help.
As for your demands, nobody has to explain how to get Hamas to do anything, because that is a goal whose priority is secondary to preservation of civilian lives against the terror bombing of civilians which is ongoing as we speak. Israel must stop, and only THEN can we discuss how to deal with the next issue. The priorities are, in order of highest to lowest
1. Stop violence currently being perpetrated against civilians (address most immediate ongoing harm)
2. Stop blocking aid to civilians (address less immediate ongoing harm)
3. Discuss/Negotiate security for civilians (address future harm)
3 doesn't come before 1 or 2.
Not just the civilian casualties on /one/ side of the wall, /right/?
These are actually simple questions (yes or no format):
> We're discussing how to minimize the civilian casualties happening as we speak, right?
> Not just the civilian casualties on /one/ side of the wall, /right/?
If your goal isn't that, you should speak up, because that is currently the goal of most of everyone else. Security considerations and guarantees for Palestine and Israel from each other don't come until after that goal is achieved.
I'm going to write that again for emphasis, since you've tried to change the topic to it twice now:
--> Security considerations and guarantees for Palestine and Israel from each other don't come until after that goal is achieved. <---
As it is, you seem a bit distracted from the goal of minimizing the ongoing civilian casualties happening as we speak. Focus. We can discuss your question after, and only after, the civilian deaths stop racking up.
===> Security considerations and guarantees for Palestine and Israel from each other don't come until after that goal [of stopping ongoing civilian casualties happening as we speak] is achieved. <===
For now, please take the time to read the post you just responded to, as it directly addresses that subject, and you seem to have ignored it, based on your lack of answers for the 2 questions contained within, and your 2-sentence reflexive reply to a multi-paragraph post.
How could 2 sentences contain a thoughtful response? In this case, they don't. If you read the whole post, your reply will contain 2 yes-or-no answers. If not, it won't. Please read the whole post before reflexively responding again.
You have no proof of that. This is also pretty much ahistorical model of the world. Wishful thinking won't bring peace.
>>How could 2 sentences contain a thoughtful response? In this case, they don't. If you read the whole post, your reply will contain 2 yes-or-no answers. If not, it won't. Please read the whole post before reflexively responding again.
Because you are dodging my question by replying with questions.
This makes no sense. I am stating the consensus of the world. The goal is not to "bring peace", it is to stop the ongoing killing of civilians happening as we speak. Your personal goal of "peace" is lower priority, and we (the world) may be willing to discuss it after the aforementioned higher-priority goal is achieved. But I see no reason to reward terror-bombing of palestinian civilians, especially while the terror-bombing of palestinian civilians is still ongoing. You are free to try to convince the world otherwise, as is israel, but thusfar, you have both failed at the task.
You can disagree, but righteousness is defined by the majority here, and the majority of the world says israel needs to stop its terror bombing campaign against palestinian civilians, regardless of any questions you or israel may have for what comes next. Indeed, whatever your answer to your question (what should israel or palestine do when attacked by the other), "continuing to terror-bomb civilians in palestine" isn't an acceptable answer, as judged by the world. You will have to come up with a new one if you wish to no longer be the villain of this story, according to the world.
>you are dodging my question by replying with questions.
In order to answer your question, I'm first asking clarifying questions which you yourself are dodging. Your dodging of clarifying questions, combined with your history of short, combative posts, illustrates that you aren't interested in clarity, or an answer, or even honest discussion, but rather just to argue. Well, you can continue arguing with yourself, frothing with rage at the fact that the world rejects israel's shallow excuses for terror-bombing palestinian civilians and executing israeli civilian hostages found in gaza. I'll no longer be a party to your bad faith attacks and arguments.
How gracious of you. Where did you (the world) had that meeting where you decided which goals are more important?
>> But I see no reason to reward terror-bombing of palestinian civilians, especially while the terror-bombing of palestinian civilians is still ongoing.
But indiscriminate bombing of Israeli cities is reasonable and kidnapping, raping, mutilating, torturing of Israeli civilians is fine? The moment Israel stops before Hamas is destroyed all that will immediately resume.
>> In order to answer your question, I'm first asking clarifying questions which you yourself are dodging. Your dodging of clarifying questions, combined with your history of short, combative posts, illustrates that you aren't interested in clarity, or an answer, or even honest discussion, but rather just to argue. Well, you can continue arguing with yourself, frothing with rage at the fact that the world rejects israel's shallow excuses for terror-bombing palestinian civilians and executing israeli civilian hostages found in gaza. I'll no longer be a party to your bad faith attacks and arguments.
Nice ad hominem and straw man building.
Without Hamas, all that was in Hebron / E Jerusalem will promptly resume, including apartheid and ethnic cleansing. The latter looks increasingly likely.
> But indiscriminate bombing of Israeli cities
Ceasefire agreements are put in place for a purpose. If pursued earnestly, it can lead to permanent peace (see: Israel-Egypt). Otherwise, if the costs of the on-going war are okay, countries should have at it. Having lived through wars, the costs to me appear rarely justifiable.
Hamas controls Gaza and not the West bank.
Thanks, yeah. Some folks are entitled enough that they feel their opinion outweighs the world. Russia's war on Ukraine is another example of someone thinking their opinion outweighs that of the world. So I appreciate your gratitude and humility in recognizing yours doesn't. The results of the world vote on the immediate (without preconditions) ceasefire is here: https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/12/1144717
> Nice ad hominem and straw man building.
Aw, and you were making such great progress before it turned into another short, combative post.
Anyways, I was happy to help you find that vote, you're welcome! Have a good one!!