Netanyahu tells Israel ‘We are at war’ after Hamas launches an unprecedented attack, killing at leas

If that's the only difference you see, I suggest you move to one of these shitholes. And if Gaza is a no-go for you because of the warzone, by all means go to Iran. See how that works out for you.

 

Well written piece. The right wing posts here make more sense after reading.

Republicans respond to attack on Israel by demonstrating their unfitness

There’s no doubt that, in the face of this disaster, the US needs to rethink its approach. But Republicans have used the crisis to indulge in monstrously irresponsible lies and inflammatory conspiracy theories that seem designed to hobble peace efforts and encourage dissension, confusion, and war.

Shortly after news of the Hamas attacks, leading Republicans settled on a talking point. They claimed, utterly without evidence, and contrary to fact, that the US has been funding Iran, and that these funds had been used by Iran to provide Hamas with the rockets launched at Israel.

GOP leaders almost certainly know that the money released in September doesn’t come from American taxpayers, was restricted to humanitarian purposes, and couldn’t have been funneled to Hamas in time to be used in what appear to be long-planned attacks in any case. In short, these Republican leaders are deliberately lying.

But the GOP’s latest lies make their utter indifference and irresponsibility even clearer. They mainly want to find a way to link Biden to Hamas, because the GOP base is extremely Islamophobic — three quarters of white evangelicals, core Trump voters, supported his ban on Muslim immigrants.

 

I mean we the people of these United States elected leaders who took down Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya.

 

Well another difference is the US military has killed way more civilians than Hamas ever will, so that wasn't the only one

 

Our military is not run by terrorists raping people, kidnapping children, and knocking door to door slaughtering families.

 

Then leave dude. If you can't see the difference, put your money where your mouth is and move to one of these shitholes.

This kind of nonsense is where moral relativism inevitably leads. One day there are rules, until the rules become inconvenient, eventually there are no more rules, no morality... nothing matters. It's a complete and utter failure of an ideology and will be the downfall of the West.

 

I get what you are saying, but who do you think dealt more death and destruction to civilians: the US military in FOUR nations, or Hamas the other day.

Hamas is the same kind of evil as Russia, Khanate Mongolia, Rome, etc. in treatment of civilians. Just careful placing blame on a populace because of who they elected-ish.

 

That is simply a question of strength, which I do not hold against the US.

The US could instigate Armageddon tomorrow if it wanted to, yet it doesn't, because it doesn't want to and it chooses not to.

If Hamas had its way, every Jew on the planet would be dead tomorrow, and Israel would not exist, they just don't have the means to accomplish this. But sorry, they don't get brownie points for being weak or incompetent.

 

There is actually a pre-existing analytical framework for the question everyone is wrestling with in terms of bombing Gaza City. Under Just War Theory, noncombatants are never legitimate targets under the principle of discrimination. What I was trying to find more detailed discussion of, but could not quickly with a Google search, is due discrimination. Roughly translated, what lengths do you have to go to avoid unintended casualties to noncombatants in what is an otherwise valid targeting of military objectives?

The link below is the best discussion I could find quickly. But there is a lot more detailed discussion I've come across in reading that is applicable here. More specifically, Hamas will surround themselves with civilians and will not provide an opportunity where civilians are not at risk. What is legitimate under those circumstances? Also proportionality. How many civilians can put at risk for single valid target?

There's a lot more that can be said but I have other things to do. But this is the analytical framework. No one in this current discussion believes Israel should target civilians. If the Israelis could avoid civilians even at the cost of reduced effectiveness, I would argue they have the obligation to do so. The question is what you do when it is unavoidable - what choices do you make? The Israelis do try to give advance warnings to buildings before they are targeted.

However, civilian deaths are sometimes unavoidable, and the practicalities of war may require that the absolutist conception of non-combatant immunity be abandoned. The term "collateral damage" refers to destruction unavoidably incurred in the act of destroying a target deemed to be of military significance.[12] Many believe that targeting a military establishment in the middle of a city is permissible, even if there is collateral damage, because the target is legitimate.

The doctrine of double effect suggests that civilian casualties are justifiable so long as their deaths are not intended and merely accidental.[13] Targeting a munitions factory, for example, aims to destroy military capabilities and not to kill munitions workers. This is a way of "reconciling the absolute prohibition against attacking noncombatants with the legitimate conduct of military activity."[14] Any harm to noncombatants must be a secondary result, indirect and unintentional.[15]

Some just war theorists have added the further stipulation that the foreseeable threat posed to civilian lives be reduced as far as possible and every effort taken to avoid killing them.[16] Most agree that the deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target. Thus, munitions workers, or others employed in industries associated with the war effort, are legitimate targets while at work in the factory. But they are not liable to attack when in their homes. However, others believe that noncombatants do not require such extreme protection if the war is just. "Where the war is just, collateral killing of noncombatants in connection with a legitimate military operation is to be allowed," and this evil can be limited in terms of the jus ad bellum criterion of proportionality.[17]

In some cases, forces must override the accepted immunity of noncombatants in order to protect the very values that ultimately guarantee the safety of such persons.[18] Noncombatants are then regrettably, mournfully, made the subjects of attack. The question of how to balance military objectives and civilian casualties is no doubt a difficult one.

Jus in Bello

 

This thread is a good example of where moral relativism leads, justifying evil to stop evil, thinking it makes those actions righteous.

 

Noted. And good point.

 

Nobody is justifying evil. You are characterizing self-defense as evil which is entirely incorrect.

The use of human shields is certainly evil, but that's on Hamas, not Israel.

 

We must always value life, and we must always mourn the dead. The day we stop doing that is the day we've lost our humanity.

 

If you're saying Palestinians as a whole share some blame then you are holding them responsible, at least in a way that ostensibly provides moral license for Israel to kill civilians despite not being part of Hamas.

Where should these civilians go, exactly?

 

They spilled our blood. We have to answer that in some direct way, apart from supporting Israel. Off the top of my head, I think we go directly after the Hamas-affiliated groups in the U.S. that hide behind the old “we’re just with the political wing, not the military wing” BS. Seize their funds, bring whatever charges we can under the law, etc. I want to put some legitimate legal fear into the groups in NYC et al publicly celebrating Hamas sawing off babies’ heads.

 

Israel doesn't have a moral license to kill Palestinian civilians, but it does have a moral license to kill Hamas even if some civilian lives will be lost in the process.

Away from the highrises, the outskirts of Gaza, ideally to Egypt if Egypt were taking refugees, but they aren't.

 

Outside of material support, no real legal basis. But we are responding. And yes, spilled blood demands a response. Right now we are letting the Israelis take the lead, but I have a feeling that we will be hitting Hezbollah shortly. Worry about ASMs

 

Human shields? They just live in the same place. That's just a justification for killing civilians.

 

How do you know what Hamas wants? Maybe this is the problem, you've just decided they are nihilists, its a good way to not have to deal with root causes. Seems to be how we fail at solving most of our problems. Poverty is deserved, some people are inherently criminal, terrorists are just evil and have no political motivations, and if they did we certainly cant entertain them or admit it. Nothing ever changes.