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

It's a distinction without a difference. Hamas is the governing authority in Gaza and has been effectively acting as a state since it received a majority of the vote in Gaza in the 2006 Palestinian election. In fact a valid argument can be made that although it was not formally recognized as such Gaza became an independent Palestinian state when Israel completely withdrew from the strip in 2005.

 

The hostages are kept in homes of Gazans. Hamas is embedded in hospitals and schools.

I’m not convinced there is a clear distinction between Hamas and (many) Gazans.

 

Ok, so what you are arguing is that Hamas aren't actually terrorists, or committing acts of terror, they are just a legitimate state government pursuing a war of aggression, like the empire of Japan. But let me guess, you wont agree with that, because you want to have it both ways, so that civilian deaths are excusable.

 

This is obviously totally open to debate and semantics. They are intending to harm Hamas, but doing so knowing a whole whole lot of women, children and civilians are in the way, and will die.

Intent isn't the sole consideration. If I punch your wife in the face a few times to clear the way to gain access to a deserving miscreant, many people would find fault with such a course of action.

 

It is impossible to harm Hamas without harming Gazans. That is by design.

 

Even if you want to believe that, do you think dropping bombs on those places is a good way to get back hostages?

 

Israeli design too, if they choose to fight by Hamas's rules

 

Not that it changes much of anything, but it appears,at least according to one of the hostages, that the Gazan homeowners are paid a handsome fee for hosting the hostages.

 

The difference is and it's rather significant is that Iraq played absolutely no role in the 9/11 terrorist attack. After initially trying to tie Iraq to 9/11 even the Bush Administration gave up on using 9/11 as a pretext for the Iraqi invasion and instead used the largely unsupported myth the Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction. The October 7 terrorist attack on Israel was launched from Gaza and it was an operation of Hamas, the governing authority of the Gaza strip. In fact, the leadership of Hamas actually took credit for the attack of October 7.

 

To varying degrees, depending on varying tactics.

For example, one might have questioned my hypothetically punching your wife in the face in order to get to the criminal. One might have advocated different tactics. This might have included the very emotionally unrewarding necessity of a bit of waiting. But debating my tactics would seem pretty rational to all ,no?

 

If I had a suicide bomber vest with a detonator in my hand and my wife was preventing authorities from neutralizing me, then she’s fair game.

 

Great. And now make the analogy more realistic, please.

If there were a suspected terrorist who fit a profile, but probably hadn't been confirmed to have actually done anything, and was NOT wearing such a vest, then it might be reasonable to employ different tactics than physically harming your poor wife, just to enjoy the immediate satisfaction of doing something right NOW.


And next we can expand the analogy to children. Shall we chop the heads off of children behind whom criminals are physically standing?

The point is clear; there are rational amounts of tolerable collateral damage.

 

Hamas as an organization carried out the attack. There weren’t some lone wolves.

Are you denying this happened?

 

@l_boy auditioning for that lead role in "I'm gonna bury my head in the sand, sucka!!"

 

LOL, denying what happened? That Israel killed 10s of thousands of civilians, including women and children, in retaliating to a brutal terrorist attack?

What a weird question. Since when does questioning the tactics of an event equate to denying that an antecedent to that event happened? Odd.

 

So as long as your pretext is not a complete fabrication, you can pursue your colonial/imperial ambitions? Lots of nations have suffered terrorist attacks, very few have pursued war in the way the Russia (in Chechnya), US or Israel have. In either case, it didnt matter. The US can act in violation of international law (or lie to get around it), and so can Israel, because they are a client state of the people that will allow them to violate international law.

 

When you attack enemies there is collateral damage, especially if the enemy is imbedded in the population. This isn’t difficult.

Why do you hold Israel to a different standard in war?

 

Do you think the people critical of Israel are like "but its ok when we do it?"

 

There's no evidence to make you think Israel is being held to a standard different from anyone else. That's simply not a rational thing to say.


Let's get back to our analogy where a criminal is standing behind your wife. I am justified to punch your wife in the face several times in order to get to the criminal because there IS some collateral damage in fighting crime, correct?


Or we could avoid my analogy and your arguments justifying the Israeli war crimes and get right to the heart of the real argument; just like in my analogy, the collateral damage is excessive, indicating a need for different tactics.

 

What is Israel’s goal here? If it’s to create another generation of Terrorists hellbent on destroying the Jewish state. They are succeeding beyond belief.