Hamas strike on Israel - mod warning in OP updated 19/10/23

scottser

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053524#Comment_122053524

Well now. You might believe such utter lies but please don't assume the rest of us are as trenchantly ignorant of the basic facts of the situation as you are. The IDF has admitted that there are an acceptable number of civilian casualties when taking out a suspected Hamas target. It could be up to 1,000 to take out one suspect. Why do you think they were using 1,000 lb bombs? Civilian casualties don't mean anything to Israel, because Israel do not see Palestinians as human.

And while casualties are usually inevitable in war, protagonists on both sides are bound to do their utmost to limit civilian deaths. The people Israel weren't allowed to bomb or shoot, they are starving to death instead.

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053843#Comment_122053843

I don't know if you just don't see the lack of logic or you do see it but you're arguing in bad faith.

riffmongous

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053814#Comment_122053814

That's just infantile logic tbh, 'by any means necessary', really?? You've just justified wiping out the state of Israel to make Palestinian lives safer, well done.

Its madness how many of the extreme Israel supporters have Hamas logic in their heads, they just happen to be on the other side. Like the other guy sayings it's fine that Palestinian detainees were beaten to death, sickening.

Odhinn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053762#Comment_122053762

So how does Israel using blackmail to turn gay Palestinian into informers sit with you?

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053720#Comment_122053720

No, it's not. It is lawful to use WP against personnel and equipment both. It's extremely unpleasant, and so most Western nations tend to restrict its use as a matter of general policy for political purposes and its unlawfulness has turned into something of a common myth as a result, but there is no convention which prohibits its use in such a manner.

There may have been times Israel used it unlawfully, but no more or less so than any potentially unlawful use on any other weapon such as bombs which fall under generally the same rules of responsibility to minimise civilian casualties. The one exception is the use of air delivered incendiaries on military targets within concentrations of civilians, those are blanket prohibited under protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (same convention which covers booby traps, coincidentally). Since I haven't seen a single reference, however, to WP being delivered by any form of Israeli aircraft, that specific prohibition does not apply.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053814#Comment_122053814

define safe. Until everyone else is dead? Half? 100,000? A million?

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054179#Comment_122054179

No more rockets launched from Gaza would be a good start. Until that happens no one have the right to tell Israel to stop.

Grayson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053907#Comment_122053907

I'm not arguing in bad faith. You don't seem to get it. You say it doesn't matter how many civilians are killed so long as results in Hamas being Killed. You are arguing that the end justifies the means. And therefore any means can be used. You literally said "By any means necessary". So where does that stop for you? Is it chemical weapons? Would it be ok to drop toxins on them?

Is it ok to starve millions? Is it ok to cut off water from millions of civilians in a desert environment? Is it ok to bomb as many civilians as possible on the off chance someone from Hamas might be present? How many children's deaths are ok?

What war crimes do you think is acceptable? Because you literally said "By any means necessary" and I'm wondering if you mean it literally.

Potatoeman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122044024#Comment_122044024

I really can’t let this one go. So they’ll deliver post to rapists, murders and pedos in this country but won’t deliver post to or from anyone in Israel from Ireland. This is indefensible. Are our post office overlords going to decide what political parties are allowed to send fliers through the post next? This is a very slippery slope.

Odhinn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054799#Comment_122054799

Possibly, but people feel the need to act when there's inaction towards a grave injustice.

Potatoeman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054829#Comment_122054829

Postal workers really don’t have the right to make that call and keep their jobs. It doesn’t matter how firmly they believe in any cause it’s far outside their remit. Even the most abhorrent criminal is entitled to receive and send mail it should be screened as appropriate by the relevant authorities not some busybody.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054829#Comment_122054829

Not acting - it's virtue signaling, accomplishing nothing.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054798#Comment_122054798

"Again ignoring Israel was firing rockets first in all this"

That's news. Israel's been firing rockets into Gaza since 2001?

thomas 123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054672#Comment_122054672

Maybe Israel should leave if it cant get on with its neighbours? - Since we are throwing out stupid suggestions.

Or maybe Israel could treats her captives as equals, by captives I mean the Palestinian people she keeps locked up in Gaza and the others in the west bank who are treated as third class citizens at best, just before Israel decides to steal more land and give it to some fat American who wants to reconnect with their god - how holy of them. An unbelievably ironic group of land grabbing a-holes(Israelis' who agree and benefit with current policy NOT THE JEWISH PEOPLE they are not the same) especially considering the history.

tayto lover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054964#Comment_122054964

The Postal workers will feel better by boycotting the Israeli mail.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054235#Comment_122054235

Two items:

1. The initial post I responded to flatly stated that the use of WP as a weapon was banned. This is not the case, and the text you quote does not refute this.

2. When discussing authorised ways to kill and maim people, Amnesty International (At least, that's what the text googles back to) may be just a teensy bit biased. When discussing international law, it's always better to go look at… well.. the law.

https://geneva-s3.unoda.org/static-unoda-site/pages/templates/the-convention-on-certain-conventional-weapons/PROTOCOL%2BIII.pdf

If you read only AI's text, you might get the impression that "it is […] prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons". However, the very next words of the law are "except when…". You can certainly make an argument (non-definitive, mind), that Israel has not been keeping to the 'except when' caveats as applied, but as a matter of international law, Amnesty's interpretation in that paragraph (at least as taken in isolation as quoted) is not correct. You can't argue with the text of the treaty.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054672#Comment_122054672

So Israel has an inalienable right to commit genocide (which they describe as "self defense"), but the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves? Make it make sense.

Grayson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054799#Comment_122054799

Since you used the words "Slippery slope" it's only fair that I post the wiki article about it so you can see what bull a slippery slope argument is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

TokTik

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053119#Comment_122053119

Who is going to teach them?? I think the clue is in their name “TEACHERS for Palestine.”

TokTik

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053715#Comment_122053715

Was Hamas hiding in the car with Hind when Israel murdered her? We they using the doctors and other medical staff being used as human shields when Israel bound their hands behind their backs and executed them? What about the Catholic nuns murdered by Israeli snipers, did they have Hamas hiding under their habits??

You’re excusing the worst one of the worst genocides since The Final Solution. History won’t be kind to you.

Sir_Name

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054026#Comment_122054026

Related to the use of white phosphorus - under article two - point 2 & 3 is quite clear in this definition.

Two fundamental components of Protocol III are often overlooked, and this has added to the confusion regarding WP and Protocol III. First, Protocol III does not ban the use of incendiary weapons during armed conflict, but it proscribes their use in four specific ways, which are described below. Second, Protocol III’s four specific limitations on the use of incendiary weapons are designed to protect civilians, not combatants.

Article 1 of the protocol defines an “incendiary weapon” as “any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target.” Article 1(b)(i) excludes from the definition munitions “which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling [sic] systems.”

White phosphorus is primarily designed to take advantage of its smoke-producing properties to mark or illuminate targets, mask friendly force movement, and the like. The incendiary effects of WP are incidental to the illuminant and smoke effects it is designed to produce. Thus, WP munitions fall squarely into the exclusions of Protocol III’s definition of an “incendiary weapon.”

Napalm is the most infamous example of an incendiary weapon that is governed by Protocol III. Napalm is specifically designed to set things on fire. However, while napalm meets the definition of an “incendiary weapon,” its use, like all other Protocol III-governed weapons, is not per se prohibited but is only subject to the four specific and narrow limitations found in Article 2.

Article 2, titled “Protection of civilians and civilian objects,” prohibits four uses of incendiary weapons:

- Making civilian or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.

- Attacking a military objective located within a concentration of civilians with air-delivered incendiary weapons.

- Attacking a military objective located within a concentration of civilians with a non-air-delivered incendiary weapon, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken to minimize collateral damage.

- Making forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives.

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122055026#Comment_122055026

Maybe Israel should leave if it cant get on with its neighbours? - Since we are throwing out stupid suggestions.

Maybe you should find some stupid person to reply to your stupid question.

Or maybe Israel could treats her captives as equals, by captives I mean the Palestinian people

They tried, but there's no living in peace with people who wants the destruction of Israel.

ELM327

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122054221#Comment_122054221

Israel existed for thousands of years. Hamas (and their funding from Iran, amongst others) is probably around for 50 years. There is no fully recognized palestinian sovereign state, nor has there ever been (british colonial holdings or ottoman provinces don't qualify). I'm willing to bet that Hamas fired the first shot. Not that that matters. Israel is a sovereign state, hamas is a bunch of terrorist morons who hide behind the population that elected them.

thomas 123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122056041#Comment_122056041

it’s perfectly valid and if the party names were swapped it would have great support.

They didn’t try, if they wanted to try they would stay within their own borders and not continue to steal land on the West Bank and continue to impose an open air prison in Gaza.

Potatoeman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122055248#Comment_122055248

It’s not a strike they are selectively deciding who they will and will not deliver mail to and from. What if they decide to do this to a political party? What about black people? This is a dangerous precedent and will bit them and you in the ass when someone picks a different target you won’t agree with.

tayto lover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122056138#Comment_122056138

There's only one state bombing and murdering innocent civilians in Gaza and the Postal workers are taking actions to let them know that its entirely wrong. No others, blacks etc involved in this genocide.

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122056081#Comment_122056081

It's not an open air prison, it's secure borders. If a two state solution would be reached it will still require a secure border. Free travel Schengen like arrangements are only possible between countries who don't hate each other and share common values. Israel did try for peace, two state solution and they completely withdrew from Gaza 20 years ago, and yet rockets were still being launched. Palestinians will not settle for a two state solution, and Israel got burned trying to give them that, so here we are.

Gerry T

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122056076#Comment_122056076

I though Israel was formed as a state in '48, maybe you could clarify

Hamas are thugs, we agree.

Palestine has been around a long time, the British ruled there before that gave part of it to form Israel.

Does it matter who fired the first shot ? If Israel stopped bombing that would help. Do you know who attacks and kills more people in each others country ? is it Israelis in Palestine or Palestinians in Israel ?

I think more people support Hamas because of what Israel does, I wonder when the penny will drop.

Odhinn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122056373#Comment_122056373

"Israel did try for peace, two state solution"

Nope.

"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace
process," Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser Dov Weisglass
has told Haaretz.

"And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a
Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the
borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the
Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed
indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and
permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of
both houses of Congress." Weisglass,
who was one of the initiators of the disengagement plan, was speaking
in an interview with Haaretz for the Friday Magazine."The
disengagement is actually formaldehyde," he said. "It supplies the
amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a
political process with the Palestinians."

https://www.haaretz.com/2004-10-06/ty-article/top-pm-aide-gaza-plan-aims-to-freeze-the-peace-process/0000017f-e56c-dea7-adff-f5ff1fc40000

ELM327

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122056452#Comment_122056452

Israel was the name given to the state created after the ottoman empire was defeated in ww1, after the british left and the united nations balfour declaration was followed. The british called their colony palestine, but have you looked at the palestine that existed then? It bears no resemblence to those using the palestine name today. Their olympic team in the 30's was predominantly jewish for instance.

Israel, and the kingdom of israel, has existed since before Islam existed as a religion, let alone before the hebrew land was colonised by the islamic settlers a few centuries ago. Around about the same time that the british began to colonise ireland.