Jump to content

Israel, Palestine and Iran


Swerbs

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mic09 said:

I really don't understand this hospital bomb discussion. It is absolutely certain US and Israeli intelligence have exact locations of each missile fired. They have satellites all over it.

If it was indeed a Hamas rocket, why can't they show pictures of where it's come from, it's trajectory, not even mentioning they could show the videos of launch and flight path? 

I know it's intelligence, but surely this argument which questions Israeli morality could be very easily resolved? 

Hamas have multiple launch sites or fire positions around Gaza. If it was a misfire from one of those positions then the IDF have every right to keep that info classified, especially when on the cusp of a ground invasion and potentially looking to attack those targets. You don't reveal what you know unless you need to.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mr_Dogg said:

They want Hamas to surrender what? Everything? Give up their cause and hand themselves over? Do you think the people of Palestine want that? 

Their cause is to rid not just Israel but the entire earth of all Jews. I'd say that's a pretty good cause to want to have given up.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sne said:

Fwiw Israel still has capitol punishment for "crimes against the Jewish people during wartime" and they've not been shy at torturing prisoners according reports. So it's likely torture and death the Hamas terrorists would be surrendering to.

They did it to hundreds of innocent civilians, it's the least Hamas would deserve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

Israel has been bombing south of Wadi Gaza - there are reports that Palestinians have been heading back North because they don't feel any safer in the South than they do there.

 

Once the ground operation begins any civilian south of the Wadi will be much, much safer than those remaining in the north. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fightoffyour said:

No, the ultimate responsibility will always be with the ones doing the killing. Hamas would take their fair share of the blame though in that case.

In your view, is “the fair share of the blame” less than what Israel would take?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

In your view, is “the fair share of the blame” less than what Israel would take?

In a hypothetical situation where one side killed someone, the ultimate responsibility would be with that side even if the other side was partially to blame for provoking the killer yes.

Not really sure how anyone could disagree with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, fightoffyour said:

In a hypothetical situation where one side killed someone, the ultimate responsibility would be with that side even if the other side was partially to blame for provoking the killer yes.

Not really sure how anyone could disagree with that.

I'm confused, I think I agree with that, but possibly not in the way you'd like.

The problem I think in this conflict is that neither side can really remember who killed someone first - it's become a habit, each born to hate the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I'm confused, I think I agree with that, but possibly not in the way you'd like.

The problem I think in this conflict is that neither side can really remember who killed someone first - it's become a habit, each born to hate the other.

Simply that if someone kills someone, the killer is ultimately responsible for their action regardless of the level of provocation. The killer doesn't have to retaliate, eye(s) for an eye, even if the provocation was a previous killing.

In other words, you can't intentionally kill someone and not be ultimately responsible for it. I can't think of such a situation anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, fightoffyour said:

Simply that if someone kills someone, the killer is ultimately responsible for their action regardless of the level of provocation. The killer doesn't have to retaliate, eye(s) for an eye, even if the provocation was a previous killing.

In other words, you can't intentionally kill someone and not be ultimately responsible for it. I can't think of such a situation anyway.

So in this case, it's a hypothetical situation where both sides killed someone, and the ultimate responsibility would be with both sides even if both sides were partially to blame for provoking the other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Awol said:

IDF put out a statement early hours of this morning that the ground operation into Gaza will be aborted, if Hamas releases all hostages and surrenders to the Israeli authorities. 

The BBC seem to be suggesting that the massive international diplomatic exercise in trying to get Israel to exercise restraint might be having some impact on the plans for the ground operation. I'd be surprised if it didn't go ahead at this stage, but there certainly seems to be a lot of pressure from the US and European nations for Israel not to go in.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

So in this case, it's a hypothetical situation where both sides killed someone, and the ultimate responsibility would be with both sides even if both sides were partially to blame for provoking the other?

I don't really have time to repeat the statement again for no reason, so yeah sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, fightoffyour said:

In a hypothetical situation where one side killed someone, the ultimate responsibility would be with that side even if the other side was partially to blame for provoking the killer yes.

Not really sure how anyone could disagree with that.

It’s the specific instance where human shields are involved that I think the blame gets murky.

If it’s necessary to kill someone because of the threat they pose, but they’ve deliberately put a civilian in danger to try to give themselves an advantage, I think in that situation they are more responsible for the death of the civilian than the person doing the actual killing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

It’s the specific instance where human shields are involved that I think the blame gets murky.

If it’s necessary to kill someone because of the threat they pose, but they’ve deliberately put a civilian in danger to try to give themselves an advantage, I think in that situation they are more responsible for the death of the civilian than the person doing the actual killing.

Debatable but a fair point.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

The BBC seem to be suggesting that the massive international diplomatic exercise in trying to get Israel to exercise restraint might be having some impact on the plans for the ground operation. I'd be surprised if it didn't go ahead at this stage, but there certainly seems to be a lot of pressure from the US and European nations for Israel not to go in.

 

No doubt the Israelis have been delayed by third parties, they were set to launch days ago but (I think) there are likely several factors involved:

Other states wanted a chance to get their dual nationals out of Gaza before ground operations began; those coordinating the diplomacy side (primarily the UK) are flying between regional capitols to try and get agreement and support for some new configuration of post-Hamas governance for Gaza; third countries with nationals now being held hostage in Gaza (UK, US, and likely other European states) wanted to try and get them released through negotiations before any assault. 

The pressure on Israel to act ASAP was largely domestic, but delay also gives them the chance to do two important things: first, to properly equip the vast amount of reservists called up for which they didn’t hold sufficient equipment in war stocks (basics like body armour),

Secondly, a number of very senior IDF officers from the Gaza Division we’re successfully kidnapped and taken back into Gaza. They will have been interrogated under torture to discover as much as possible about Israeli operational  plans for a Gaza intervention, which will be longstanding and known to senior commanders. As a result those existing plans will be considered compromised and reworked to minimise the advantage Hamas has gained. 

In my opinion there’s a 99.9% chance that Israel will launch the ground op.

Edit: reference the delay, it also gives the US chance to move sufficient assets into theatre that can provide a credible deterrent to Iran, and hopefully prevent them getting directly involved. 

Edited by Awol
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â