An army is a blunt weapon. Send it into a populated area where the enemy doesn't wear a uniform and innocents are going to die. This is happening right now in Gaza. Many people are quick to blame Israel for these deaths, calling them "unnecessary" or even "war crimes."

Lately, Israel has had to endure unguided missiles raining down on its territory. Since they are unguided, the people launching them, Hamas soldiers, aren't conducting surgical strikes. In fact, it appears they  would be happy if they hit schools, hospitals, markets, and other heavily-populated targets.

So, imagine you are Israel. Do you have another way of attempting to put a stop to the daily barrage of missiles?

This is not an invitation to criticize the creation of Israel after WW2. It's not an invitation to criticize policies you think led up to Hamas.

I'm only asking what's the alternative to sending in its troops to attempt to cleanse Hamas out of Gaza?

Tags: Gaza, Hamas, Israel

Views: 1784

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I don't quite understand what you are getting at there.

All the documents were ratified April 2nd of this year, which is well after Hamas came to power in Gaza. And I don't see the link between Hamas ruling Gaza and the accession to the Geneva convention. Additionally, it's the PA (or SoP) that represents the Palestinian government in international affairs.

I doubt if they'd even consider doing so, given that it's part of their raison d'etre to obliterate Israel.

  International humanitarian law is quite clear on this subject.

   Killing non-combatants that are being used as human shields in order to kill am enemy combatant or destroy an enemy installation shielded by said non combatants is a criminal violation of international law.

  It is not debatable at all.

And pretty much unenforceable, too. Like I said elsewhere, rules for war is pretty much like rules for a bar fight: 1) no sucker punching, 2) no kicking in the nuts, 3) no bringing your friends into the fight to gang up on the guy. But what if obeying the rules loses the fight?

The #1 rule of war isn't to obey the Geneva Conventions, it's to win the war with the least cost to your side.

Actually, there are rules in a bar fight.  It's called assault and battery; it's a crime.  If attacked, you can defend yourself within reason, i. e. you can't beat someone to death because they shove you and spill your drink.

Those are not the rules of the fight. Those are rules of a larger jurisdiction. In terms of international conflicts, there really is no even-handed enforcement. Enforcement tends to fall on the losers, as in the Kosovo War.

In virtually all wars, "war crimes" are committed, but can you name an international court that ever prosecuted the winner of any war?

"Actually, there are rules in a bar fight."

What bar?

Where's it located?

Do they charge admission?

Can I get a Bourbon and Coke while the fight is on?

Where can I get a copy of these rules?

Does the owner of the bar have to post the rules?

I don't know Erock rules in a bar fight make about as much sense as rules in a war...none.

So in this bar fight would you grab a bottle of Jack by the neck and repeatedly bash the guy in the temple until his pupil dilates? Why not? It's a bar fight.
Would you break a beer bottle and stab his girlfriend in the neck with it? Why not? It's a bar fight.
Maybe there are SOME rules.
If not, maybe you guys have seen Road House too many times.

It may not be debatable, but you are utterly wrong. 

Arcus, In what way would you say I'm wrong.

So, you're saying that Gen Eisenkot (official head of the IDF_ is not sanctioned by the government that supports him in applying the Dahiya Doctrine? Then why is he still head of the IDF?

Perhaps because they need him? Look, both sides hate each other and say hateful things. Just today, a top-level spokesman for Hamas said that Jews use the blood of Christian babies in their Passover Matzoh bread. But just because someone says something doesn't mean it's a statement of policy.

   International humanitarian law (IHL) defines "utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations”.

    When a soldier grabs a child to hide behind, that child is a human shield. When civilians are forced into an enclosed compound surrounding a military outpost, they are human shields.

  On the other hand, if civilians voluntarily surround a house that they have been told is targeted for attack, it is an act of civil disobedience.

Yeah, like that's how it happens.

"Don't forget, one can't relieve from blame those who intentionally launch attacks from heavily populated areas, forbid the citizenry from evacuating, and (and this is contrary to the rules of war and is a war crime in itself) fight without wearing uniforms to distinguish soldiers from citizens."

  It is Israel that prevents Gazans from evacuating and IHL identified combatants by armament not by uniform. And according to the UN inspectors, international journalists, and medical relief workers, Hamas rockets are not launched from populated areas.

Aside from the fact that that could easily be special pleading (something said in one's own interest to protect oneself), when I google on "evidence that hamas does not launch from populated areas" I get mostly evidence that it does.

Perhap I should direct you to instructions on how to google.

I tried your exact phrase and it appeared that every result pointed back to the same exact video.

RSS

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service