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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.