Hamas attacks Israel - Part 2

[NationalTitles18]

FWIW, I was going to post the same opinion before I saw NT18's post.

The question should not be who would be more likely to prosecute: rather, how likely would either be to prosecute. After reading TW's second post, it's obvious Israel would be more likely to prosecute.

I was unaware that Hamas is worse than Nazis. I can't imagine how anyone could possibly be worse than the freaking Nazis, but I'm taking TW's word for it and am thankful for the information.

We all want Hamas destroyed, but the Israeli's are coming perilously close to being an evil entity themselves. I'm trying to give the Israeli's the benefit of the doubt, and realize the press will portray them in as poor a light as possible, but shooting grandmothers is beyond the pale.

Of the three options presented, I think the most likely is the grandmother was shot by an Israeli. If this is indeed the case, I seriously doubt that he/she will be prosecuted.

Our thoughts align closely.

I do grow tired of any and every time that someone questions the actions of the Israeli military and leadership they are automatically and reflexively designated as calling for genocide by some and supposedly stating that Hamas is just a boy scout type organization by others (slightly exaggerated). It's ridiculous, duplicitous, and , by now, old.

 

[crimsonaudio]

If Israel wanted to, they could indiscriminately wipe out all of Gaza, killing every single person. They've not.

That's doesn't mean they're perfect, or that they've not violated international laws wrt war crimes. They have.

For the most part, Israel has shown tremendous restraint - or the death toll would be far greater.

 

[crimsonaudio]

We all want Hamas destroyed, but the Israeli's are coming perilously close to being an evil entity themselves. I'm trying to give the Israeli's the benefit of the doubt, and realize the press will portray them in as poor a light as possible, but shooting grandmothers is beyond the pale.

I suspect if we had real-time access to on-the-ground war coverage in the past we'd see these things happen in every war. Not excusing it, just saying that there are records of these sorts of atrocities in every war I've (even lightly) studied.

 

[Go Bama]

If Israel wanted to, they could indiscriminately wipe out all of Gaza, killing every single person. They've not.

That's doesn't mean they're perfect, or that they've not violated international laws wrt war crimes. They have.

For the most part, Israel has shown tremendous restraint - or the death toll would be far greater.

The first paragraph is obvious. I don't think anyone has any argument.

The second paragraph I also agree with.

The third statement I strongly disagree with. My idea of restraint does not include anything short of genocide.

 

[Tidewater]

I hope I am proven to be wrong, but he has allowed it to continue.

I do not know how much time you spent in the military. I did 25 years. I was involved in two courts martial.
In both cases, the two prime considerations were to enforce the law while bearing in mond that a soldier's career was at stake and everybody on the court martial (prosecution, defense, jury) wanted to give the accused a fair trial.
Nobody ever said, "How will the President view this case?"
Now, the Israeli army is a lot smaller than the US military, but the Israeli soldiers I have worked with (in the UN and elsewhere) I bet would approach a court martial much the same. Nobody would care what Bibi wanted. They want to pursue justice while giving the accused a fair trial.

In my cases, career soldiers were dismissed from the service, losing their livelihoods, and forgoing their military pensions, so it was a serious matter. But a court martial also has to keep an eye on the "good order and discipline of the service." So a CM has to enforce the law, while trying to ensure the accused is not railroaded.

 

[Tidewater]

I suspect if we had real-time access to on-the-ground war coverage in the past we'd see these things happen in every war. Not excusing it, just saying that there are records of these sorts of atrocities in every war I've (even lightly) studied.

When I was in Kuwait after the liberation,
Kuwaitis were not happy with the Palestinians (Yassar Arafat had sided with Saddam Husein and Hussein had promised the Palestinians that they could have Kuwait).
I went to a grocery store. Two Kuwaiti soldiers were accosting a Palestinian grandma. I asked them what was going on. They told me she was a Palestinian, and the Palestinians had stabbed Kuwait in the back.
When one of them punched her, I whipped out my notebook. The Kuwaitis asked what I was doing. I said I'm making notes for when I report this up the American chain. I asked the Kuwaitis their names, and they quickly told the Palestinian grandma to beat it.
That is how you deal with problems like this. Transparency, honesty, and with moral clarity and impartiality.

 

[Go Bama]

I was involved in two courts martial.

Way off topic, but I am curious.

I would have said court martials. Is "courts martial" a typo or the correct plural of court martial?

 

[Go Bama]

I suspect if we had real-time access to on-the-ground war coverage in the past we'd see these things happen in every war. Not excusing it, just saying that there are records of these sorts of atrocities in every war I've (even lightly) studied.

I hope that hospitals and schools are not targeted in every war.

 

[Tidewater]

Way off topic, but I am curious.

I would have said court martials. Is "courts martial" a typo or the correct plural of court martial?

One court martial. Two courts martial.
This is one of the cases in English in which the adjective follows the noun being modified. It is a military (or "martial") court.
"One Attorney General," "two Attorneys General" is another one.

 

[NationalTitles18]

I do not know how much time you spent in the military. I did 25 years. I was involved in two courts martial.
In both cases, the two prime considerations were to enforce the law while bearing in mond that a soldier's career was at stake and everybody on the court martial (prosecution, defense, jury) wanted to give the accused a fair trial.
Nobody ever said, "How will the President view this case?"
Now, the Israeli army is a lot smaller than the US military, but the Israeli soldiers I have worked with (in the UN and elsewhere) I bet would approach a court martial much the same. Nobody would care what Bibi wanted. They want to pursue justice while giving the accused a fair trial.

In my cases, career soldiers were dismissed from the service, losing their livelihoods, and forgoing their military pensions, so it was a serious matter. But a court martial also has to keep an eye on the "good order and discipline of the service." So a CM has to enforce the law, while trying to ensure the accused is not railroaded.

Never served in the military (not that that is relevant in any way), just as you've never served in the Israeli military (that I've seen you mention - not that it's relevant). We are both outsiders looking in.

Bibi has deviated from norms, including trying to dismantle the Israeli court system.

He's always been a hardliner of sorts, but he has lurched ever more in that direction (my view from the outside based on multiple reports from both friendly - to him - and not friendly).

I await he and the Israeli military putting a stop to these atrocities and bringing anyone in their ranks to justice.

The proof won't be in what either of us say, but in what they do.

 

[Tidewater]

I hope that hospitals and schools are not targeted in every war.

In the bombing campaign to isolate Normandy in 1944, the Allies killed 38,000 French civilians. The Allies targeted none of them.

 

[Tidewater]

I hope that hospitals and schools are not targeted in every war.

If jus gentium were to establish the principle that when combatants commit warlike acts and then run to occupy protected sites (hospitals and mosques/synagogues/churches), then those combatants could not be struck and would, by virtue of occupying a protect site, gain some kind of combatant immunity, what do you think would happen to the conduct of war?
You would find combatants waging war from within (or near only) protected sites and wars would drag on forever because no side could ever win.

 

[NationalTitles18]

If jus gentium were to establish the principle that when combatants commit warlike acts and then run to occupy protected sites (hospitals and mosques/synagogues/churches), then those combatants could not be struck and would, by virtue of occupying a protect site, gain some kind of combatant immunity, what do you think would happen to the conduct of war?
You would find combatants waging war from within (or near only) protected sites and wars would drag on forever because no side could ever win.

I don't envy anyone who has to make a decision in such a situation.

There will always be "collateral damage" in war, where innocent noncombatants will be killed.

But after WWII the world powers changed the landscape of acceptable war practices in 1949 with the Geneva Convention treaties.

I don't think anyone should want a repeat of the fire bombings and all the rest that happened in WWII and much of that would be considered war crimes in today's world.

 

[crimsonaudio]

I hope that hospitals and schools are not targeted in every war.

Well, they have been, at least more than you'd probably think.

And while I've not followed the details of this war closely, so far i don't recall a hospital or school being targeted that wasn't being used as cover by hamas. I know of at least two hospitals destroyed that were initially blamed on the Israelis only to later be shown they were indeed massive hamas weapon storehouses.

But again, I readily admit there may well have been some that were targeted that were not. I'm not here to defend Israel, but I know for a fact that these hamas primates need total eradication, and that will only happen with 'collateral damage' as these cowards hide behind civilians.

 

[Tidewater]

I hope that hospitals and schools are not targeted in every war.

Imagine this. Picture the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan showing the landings on Omaha. Over every German bunker has a crucifix and a sign that says, "Bunker 47 Lutheran Church," "Bunker 48 Episcopal Church," etc.
Every machine gun position has a tent with a red cross on it and a sign saying, "Widerstandsneste 78 Medical Clinic."
And every artillery firing position said, "352nd Artillerie Museum."
Further, imagine the Allies complied with the "combatants fighting from a protected site cannot be engaged."
The Americans land on Omaha, and say, "Oh no! That's a church! And that machine gun is shooting from inside a hospital. We can't fire back. Bummer."
Such an interpretation would disadvantage those seeking to comply jus gentium on protected sites and would give an overwhelming advantage to those willing to exploit that. The Nazis would win and go on killing Jews presumably until they ran out of Jews to kill. Then homosexuals, then Slavs, etc., etc.

That is, in effect, the position that Hamas is asserting, at least implicitly. Of course, that is an ethically ludicrous position.

The ethical policy it that protected sites are protected until a combatant enters the protected site, at which time it is no longer a protected site. And as long as combatant is engaging other combatants not civilians, then he is complying with the Law of Armed Conflict.

 

[Go Bama]

Imagine this. Picture the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan showing the landings on Omaha. Over every German bunker has a crucifix and a sign that says, "Bunker 47 Lutheran Church," "Bunker 48 Episcopal Church," etc.
Every machine gun position has a tent with a red cross on it and a sign saying, "Widerstandsneste 78 Medical Clinic."
And every artillery firing position said, "352nd Artillerie Museum."
Further, imagine the Allies complied with the "combatants fighting from a protected site cannot be engaged."
The Americans land on Omaha, and say, "Oh no! That's a church! And that machine gun is shooting from inside a hospital. We can't fire back. Bummer."
Such an interpretation would disadvantage those seeking to comply jus gentium on protected sites and would give an overwhelming advantage to those willing to exploit that. The Nazis would win and go on killing Jews presumably until they ran out of Jews to kill. Then homosexuals, then Slavs, etc., etc.

That is, in effect, the position that Hamas is asserting, at least implicitly. Of course, that is an ethically ludicrous position.

The ethical policy it that protected sites are protected until a combatant enters the protected site, at which time it is no longer a protected site. And as long as combatant is engaging other combatants not civilians, then he is complying with the Law of Armed Conflict.

I literally laughed at the mental image of showing up on Omaha Beach and every bunker is marked as a church.

I agree with everything you are saying. The question is should the hospitals and schools be leveled by a rocket, or should ground forces do the job to hopefully spare the lives of innocent patients and school children.

In my best Rod Serling voice, imagine if you will a school shooting in Uvalde, Tx. Why would you level the school rather than sending in a SWAT team or local LEO’s to rescue the children.

Another example, you wouldn’t bomb Mandalay Bay even though the shooter was still active and firing from inside the hotel.

Israel’s ethics have been called into question because there are by anybody’s estimates thousands of dead innocent Palestinian civilians. Israelis have to do what they have to do. I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but only up to a point. Of course, we only have limited information.

I don’t possess your military experience or knowledge of warfare, so I do value your opinions.

 

[twofbyc]

I hope that hospitals and schools are not used as operational bases and hiding places by terrorist organizations in every war.

FIFY

 

[Tidewater]

I literally laughed at the mental image of showing up on Omaha Beach and every bunker is marked as a church.

I agree with everything you are saying. The question is should the hospitals and schools be leveled by a rocket, or should ground forces do the job to hopefully spare the lives of innocent patients and school children.

In my best Rod Serling voice, imagine if you will a school shooting in Uvalde, Tx. Why would you level the school rather than sending in a SWAT team or local LEO’s to rescue the children.

That's a really good point.
Sending infantry in to clear the building room by room, however, is not cost-free, especially when Hamas leaves behind booby traps.
How many Israeli soldiers is Israel willing to lose in order to avoid killing noncombatant Palestinians? If saving 100 noncombatant deaths increased the IDF's death toll by 50 would it be worth it? How about 20 IDF KIA? (For the record, I am not saying the ratios are anywhere near reality; I just don't know.)

I do not stay in touch with any of the Israelis I served with, but I would guess their attitude is "We did not start this, but we darn sure are going to finish it" (or however one might say that in Hebrew).

 

[twofbyc]

What some may be overlooking- and this is difficult in war, my brother served in ‘Nam- is what qualifies as an “innocent civilian”? My brother was OD one day riding in a jeep and a a boy that was maybe four feet tall ran into the road in front of him and pointed a .45 at him. He doesn’t know why the kid didn’t pull the trigger, just ran off into the crowd.
We have criminal laws in this country against “aiding and abetting”. It applies to minors (with obviously different punishment). I say this because…
One of the freed hostages recalled her time as a hostage, when she was stashed with a Palestinian “family”. Her recounting of her conversations with them strongly indicate that, while maybe not complicit in the capture, were definitely not against holding them as hostages.
In my mind, if that’s my family member, they are complicit in the crime and deserve a similar fate to that of the captors. I do not buy for a second there was any “short term” coercion involved, and I’m not sold on the brainwashing aspect, either. They have simply grown up hating Israelis, and I won’t even try to justify or vilify that hate.
But I see no way you can consider that family innocent. And I’m in no way justifying the slaughter of sick/injured who are hospitalized; but in some instances we’ve seen, Hamas bears some responsibility for some of those attacks.
So you hide a platoon of high level soldiers in a small neighborhood where the civilians are staying of their own free will, and the ‘hood gets leveled by enemy fire targeting the soldiers. Tragic? Absofreaking-lutely. But I consider that collateral damage.
I have a question about genocide:
If a group (ethnic, religious, racial) that espouses and acts to eliminate completely your group (same criteria), and commits acts of barbaric terrorism with the stated intention of removing your group, how can your retaliation in an attempt to completely eliminate the threat be called genocide? Don’t you have the right to protect your group until either the other group capitulates and rescinds their goal of totally eradicating your group, or they themselves are eliminated?
I boil it down to a personal level: if someone took that position against me and my extended family, for example, and started by brutally killing/mutilating/raping/kidnapping some of them, what am I going to do? LEO’s are reactive , they won’t protect us.
I think there might be a “few” instances where someone (Israeli) might could be accused of acts of genocide; I find it interesting, after the proclamations and actions of Hamas, that none of them have been thusly accused (to my knowledge(.
FTR - I think Netanyahoo should have been put in prison long ago; and unlike Palestinian support for Hamas, support for him amongst Israelis isn’t overwhelming.

 

[crimsonaudio]