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

How many Germans in Dresden voted for Hitler? They're not being bombed because they voted for Hamas, they're being bombed because Hamas used Gaza to launch a murderous attack on Israeli civilians, and has said they'll do it again and again.

If Gazans haven't risen against Hamas like the Arab Spring to stop them from keeping that promise, then Israel is legally entitled to go into Gaza to destroy Hamas. And if Hamas then uses Gazan citizens as human shields to protect its own soldiers from the IDF, that's Hamas' responsibility rather than Israel's.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I haven't said that, and I also think that might be illegal under international law, as it would be punishing civilians for Hamas' actions.

What is legal is for the IDF to go after Hamas, and (within some very strict restrictions, which I can't say for sure that Israel has always followed - but neither can anyone here say for sure that they haven't), if civilians are killed, then that is tragic but it's what happens when civilians are in a war zone. Just like tens of thousands died under the Allied bombs dropped over Germany, or in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And those aren't considered war crimes for the same reason that Israel dropped leaflets or phoned certain individuals to tell them to evacuate buildings before they attacked them - because they obeyed the criteria about warning civilians etc.

I've been to Cambodia too, and Palestine and other places where human rights have and are being been openly abused. People like SeanW clearly haven't been there nor have they interacted with people from these places, and have admitted it previously, and are just perpetuating stereotypes they have come across in whatever they have read online.

Should be both sides but your attempts at edgy posts miss nuisances like that.

I agree that more civilians will live if Israel after to a cease-fire.

but Hamas will still hold Israeli hostages and will still fire rockets into Israel and have already stated that they will attack Israel again just like Oct 7th.

So how does calling on Israel to agree to a ceasefire make sense?

Well, I would agree, but it seems all calls for a cease-fire, are appealing to Israeli forces

Absolutely - if it's true.

Unlike Hamas, where posters on here are calling them a resistance organisation, ie defending people who deliberately murdered babies on ethnic grounds.

actually no, they are being bombed because israel is a genocidal terrorist expansionist state who want to ethnically cleanse the gazans so as to take the territory of gaza for itself.

israel wants as much territory it can take and will not stop until it gets what territory it wants.

it is israel's responsibility if civilians are killed as israel generally deliberately target civilians as a matter of policy, regardless of whether hamas is there or not.

hamas is israel's creation so israel has no intention of destroying hamas, not that it can anyway, because hamas being around serves it's interest.

I know nothing about reliefweb, but I do know that the UN has a terrible record of rape of the very women it was supposed to be helping, as well as blocking staff who tried to investigate the fact that the UN was bringing cholera to Haiti, where cholera had never been present before (Haiti had been spared very little in its history, but it hadn't had cholera before that - with the results on a previously unexposed population in poor conditions that one can imagine), and the UN was ignoring the harm it knew it was doing.

https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1909&context=hrbrief

Whatever about them after WW2, I'm very dubious about the UN today.

Yes, I think a better case can be made for Dresden to he declared a war crime than the bombing of Gaza by Israel post Oct 7th.

But, the Jews, apparently.

In my original post, as you quoted it, I did say you didn't say that. Then I edited it and that bit got deleted. So I apologise if I misrepresented your position. That was not my intention.

I'm not sure if I'm reading you right - WWII bombings were not covered by war crimes legislation because leaflets were dropped, ergo Israeli bombings are the same - ie legitimate?

i also think others here posted that WWII bombings were not war crimes because they predated the legislation?

And this is the Irish republicans view of the Israeli state.

I certainly agree that the terms of any ceasefire should include unequivocal release of hostages and a complete cessation of all hostilities.

A ceasefire (as the UN is debating) would not be one sided. It would have to be agreed by all parties (others than Hamas may be conducting hostilities and firing rockets - I'm not sure). It should also lay down the strict terms on what is considered a breach (by all parties) and the consequences of such breaches.

I certainly was not saying a ceasefire for Israel only. That would not be equitable.

im not an expert on military law but I always thought a ceasefire was an agreement between/amongst warring parties. If it applied to only one party, I think that might be a forced surrender? That is certainly not what my original question was about.

I agree, but what people have been marching for in London and elsewhere is a unilateral ceasefire, ie for Israel to stop. Hamas have already said they will continue more Al Aqsa Flood operations (Oct 7th) until Israel no longer exists.