Israel under attack from Hamas
- Thread starter JamieDimonsBalls
- Start date
I then asked how the UN could ever be objective considering the divergent interests of its members. But ya missed that because you are such a team player.
Pro tip: actually knowledge > winning the day here
It appears they also fired at the USS Carney (Arleigh-Burke-class destroyer)
The objective of sanctions isn’t to “isolate them into submission”. The objective is to stop funding surrogate terrorists and their atrocities. If sanctions are so ineffective, why is Iran pushing Biden so hard for sanctions relief?
We should retaliate in a fashion that is not proportional at all.
Exactly. This whole idea of “proportional response” is dumb as hell. I don’t know where that comes from. All it does is perpetuate killing. The response should be overwhelming and convincing if you want to stop the killing.
It would be unfair of us or Israel to bring a disproportionate response. We're first-world colonial nations and have an unfair advantage.
It's more important to be fair than to stop the violence.
I like the comment that we can't respond forcefully because too many teenagers on Tic Tok would object.
But that's the actually the reason we don't.
2 missiles fired from Yemen in the direction of U.S. ship, officials say
Two missiles were fired in the direction of the USS Mason, which was responding to a distress call from M/V Central Park, a commercial tanker.
www.cbsnews.com
From last Sunday…ballistic missiles impacted in the direction of the USS Mason. The Defense Department acted as though they weren’t aimed at the ship. Hmm
Isn't proportional response directly from the Code of Hammurabi applied to nations? We have often viewed nations acting outside that code poorly. Specifically Germany on 2 world wars. In WW1. The Germans in 1 made it clear that any guerilla activity would result in entire Belgian villages being destroyed. That played a huge role in turning the US against Germany. Were we wrong then, overwhelming non-proportional response is now heartily endorsed?
The principle of proportionality - Diakonia International Humanitarian Law Centre
A central notion under IHL is the principle of proportionality: even if an attack is allowed, it must not be excessive.
www.diakonia.se
The rule does not apply to military targets. If you go to war, and one nation sinks one sub, the rule does not prevent you from destroying their entire navy or armed forces. And having collateral damage--even known collateral damage--isn't forbidden by the rule, as long as it is not "excessive" in relation to the "anticipated military advantage." Those words are vague and can be argued about forever.
The point is, armies should be fighting armies, not butchering unarmed civilians (like Hamas did).
Israel would gladly fight Hamas out in the open and only target them. But they can't because Hamas uses civilians as shields. So the notion of proportionality becomes much more difficult to apply and that is entirely, 100% Hamas's fault. Israel should get some leeway here (not totally off the leash, do whatever you want leeway).
Also, it's worth asking: if one side (Hamas) habitually violates several rules of international war, why should the other party be held to a different standard?
The principle of proportionality - Diakonia International Humanitarian Law Centre
A central notion under IHL is the principle of proportionality: even if an attack is allowed, it must not be excessive.www.diakonia.se
The rule does not apply to military targets. If you go to war, and one nation sinks one sub, the rule does not prevent you from destroying their entire navy or armed forces. And having collateral damage--even known collateral damage--isn't forbidden by the rule, as long as it is not "excessive" in relation to the "anticipated military advantage." Those words are vague and can be argued about forever.
The point is, armies should be fighting armies, not butchering unarmed civilians (like Hamas did).
Israel would gladly fight Hamas out in the open and only target them. But they can't because Hamas uses civilians as shields. So the notion of proportionality becomes much more difficult to apply and that is entirely, 100% Hamas's fault. Israel should get some leeway here (not totally off the leash, do whatever you want leeway).
Also, it's worth asking: if one side (Hamas) habitually violates several rules of international war, why should the other party be held to a different standard?
Because one party is an actual country, enjoys full Western backing, has a developed economy, developed institutions, and should know it’s been baited into overreacting?
The principle of proportionality - Diakonia International Humanitarian Law Centre
A central notion under IHL is the principle of proportionality: even if an attack is allowed, it must not be excessive.www.diakonia.se
The rule does not apply to military targets. If you go to war, and one nation sinks one sub, the rule does not prevent you from destroying their entire navy or armed forces. And having collateral damage--even known collateral damage--isn't forbidden by the rule, as long as it is not "excessive" in relation to the "anticipated military advantage." Those words are vague and can be argued about forever.
The point is, armies should be fighting armies, not butchering unarmed civilians (like Hamas did).
Israel would gladly fight Hamas out in the open and only target them. But they can't because Hamas uses civilians as shields. So the notion of proportionality becomes much more difficult to apply and that is entirely, 100% Hamas's fault. Israel should get some leeway here (not totally off the leash, do whatever you want leeway).
Also, it's worth asking: if one side (Hamas) habitually violates several rules of international war, why should the other party be held to a different standard?
The problem is we aren't talking army on army, a whole lot of civilians die. This isn't Napoleon meeting in open battle. So it matches with my German comparison as they were angered by Belgians shooting from houses and the like in captured areas, the Germans had no idea who was doing the shooting. So they used collective punishment, 10% would be killed and the town destroyed.
We (the nations of world) have actually made collective punishment a war crime.
I have concerns about total proportional response, and have often linked Jeb Bartlett's argument in West Wing against it. But for me it isn't "you attacked and killed 1000 so our response is limited to 1000" but it also isn't "you attacked and killed 1000 so we are wiping out 2 million". There is a response that is strong enough to offset the cost of doing business problem without reverting to ancient traditions of killing everyone and sowing the ground with salt.
Every day combat lasts, this is moving in a direction we should be uncomfortable with. I am not saying we are there today, 3 weeks ago, 3 weeks from now. That is different than my point. But how many innocent Palestinians dying is an appropriate response to innocent Israelis dying is a fair question.
Israel Risks ‘Strategic Defeat’ If It Doesn’t Protect Civilians, Austin Says
US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said Israel risked “strategic defeat” in its war with Hamas if it fails to heed warnings about the mounting civilian death toll.
www.bloomberg.com
“Strategic defeat”
“America’s strong and steady leadership”
Austin definitely knows about strategic defeat.
Allowing nations to lob missiles at your warships and neutral shipping in international waters says anything but “strong and steady leadership.”
Israel Risks ‘Strategic Defeat’ If It Doesn’t Protect Civilians, Austin Says
US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said Israel risked “strategic defeat” in its war with Hamas if it fails to heed warnings about the mounting civilian death toll.www.bloomberg.com
“Strategic defeat”
“America’s strong and steady leadership”
Austin definitely knows about strategic defeat.
Allowing nations to lob missiles at your warships and neutral shipping in international waters says anything but “strong and steady leadership.”
I wouldn't listen to them about winning a war (finishing off your enemy) either. Their methods lost us Afghanistan as well.
The US sucks at winning insurrections.
His actions have put us on the wrong side of the IQ bell curve.
I can't believe you, of all people, claim it's Israel's fault for 'innocent Palestinians dying'.
You know damn well Israel isn't putting a number on how many civilians they kill. It is entirely the responsibility of Hamas to stop hiding among civilians and avoid their killing.
No one is talking about 'proportional response' except for Hamas apologists.
Austin needs to stay the fvck out of politics.Israel Risks ‘Strategic Defeat’ If It Doesn’t Protect Civilians, Austin Says
US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said Israel risked “strategic defeat” in its war with Hamas if it fails to heed warnings about the mounting civilian death toll.www.bloomberg.com
“Strategic defeat”
“America’s strong and steady leadership”
Austin definitely knows about strategic defeat.
Allowing nations to lob missiles at your warships and neutral shipping in international waters says anything but “strong and steady leadership.”
Return the hostages, lay down weapons, surrender and this is all over.
I would continue to bomb and destroy until that occurred or those living under bombardment brought me the bad guys themselves.
I haven't said it is their "fault", but like it or not civilians are dying. But they are dying. I suspect you have heard this too, but for pretty much my entire life I have heard the problem in fighting guerillas is that when innocent people are killed their relatives blame the plane that dropped the bomb, not the guerilla hiding.
I have no reason to doubt that, even the book on Hackworth mentions him saying it several times. He may not have started the comment that every guerilla killed creates two more (largely because innocents are often hit too), but he said it. He often said we need to "out G the G" (where G = Guerilla). I think Israel is in that boat. They are guaranteeing the people of Gaza hate them for another generation. The movement made by Saudi Arabia and others to soften their relations with Israel has stopped and started retreating.
So out G the G. Find ways to conduct covert operations to go in and kill Hamas leadership using rifles (hell polonium if need be). Find Palestinians susceptible to bribes to work with (or ones that just don't like Hamas). Yes, it takes longer, but it is more accurate. Blowing up a 10-story building because some are Hamas fighters isn't very efficient. I'm touting the scalpel now. At some point going in was needed to get to the tunnels. I don't know what they have done in the tunnels, but I would hope C-4-laden robots have traveled down them and laid waste as much as possible.
Hackworth said the knife was the best anti-guerilla tool, it is almost impossible to kill the wrong people. Given the knife's limitations, he wanted small arms. He said the worst tools were planes and artillery. He didn't have modern targeting, but again, the relatives of people in that 10-story building don't really care that only the building was targeted and not the other buildings. There might be high enough value targets to warrant hitting a building like that, it isn't universally a bad idea. But there are plenty of photos out there showing what looks more like 1945 Berlin. There shouldn't be THAT many high-level targets.
And I don't know if they are doing it, but C-4-laden robots bringing down the tunnels should be SOP.
Blowing up tunnels with C4 that are built under those same apartment buildings would likely make them susceptible to collapse as well.
Just assassinating the leaders doesn't work. That has been tried for decades and we are still here. Everything you suggest was done leading up to 10/7. There is almost no goodwill left in Gaza for the Israelis anyway (they don't like the US just as much). The blueprint for changing a populace that is virulently hateful and antagonistic to its neighbors exists and it doesn't involve targeted strikes. It involves killing a whole bunch of people and then taking complete control of whomever is left and forcing them into a new political and civilizational paradigm.
US Destroyer Shoots Down Drones As Attacks Hit Red Sea Shipping
An American destroyer shot down multiple drones on Sunday while assisting commercial ships in the Red Sea that were targeted by attacks from Yemen, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) said.
www.barrons.com
Israel isn’t killing everyone, isn’t setting out to impose collective punishment as a deterrent to future attacks, and won’t kill near 2 million people.
Israel is carrying out a military mission to ensure it is safe. It is telling the innocent to leave and giving warning (very unlike your German example). If Hamas and the Palestinians ensure a lot of civilian deaths to bolster their argument of disproportionate response, that’s their fault, not Israel’s.
Interesting discussion regarding the conflict.
I was yelling out loud in my car about how wrong I think this guest’s thinking is, what’s important, etc. But after listening, it’s hard not to come away thinking Israelis think differently than we do in America about nationhood, tribalism, etc.
I was yelling out loud in my car about how wrong I think this guest’s thinking is, what’s important, etc. But after listening, it’s hard not to come away thinking Israelis think differently than we do in America about nationhood, tribalism, etc.
The host was encouraging the author/guest to give the Palestinian view, so I didn't take that as him being 'wrong'. Actually, I think the discussion was pretty much in line with much of the discussions we have here on the Cooler.
I have to say, none of what was discussed from an historical standpoint should have been a surprise to anyone who is even a little familiar with the area.
And yes, I listened to the whole thing. I guess something I didn't realize was how fractured Israeli society was before 10/7. Like pilots refusing to train others? WTH? Sounds a lot worse than what I heard reported. I mean, I knew about the Israeli Supreme Court situation, but didn't realize there was rioting and fighting.
I seriously doubt the Palestinian relatives of those killed could blame and hate Israel any more than they did on 10/6, a day before the massacre.
That wasn't the part I was screaming about. It was the parts (sprinkled throughout) treating "the Jews" or "Israel" as a thing, to be thought of as a timeless moral agent with desires and achievements and responsibilities, rights, etc. It is a tribal view that treats the tribe as an actual thing, not just a pragmatic linguistic shortcut.
I don't buy that. I think it is a gross logical error.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Funny.. DM & MW Both Lose To Illini By 20 @ Home- Latest: Big Red Crimson Buffalo
-