Hezbollah pager explosions

I don't know why so many posters supporting Hamas are unable to see this as anything other than black and white. I've been very clear that there is a lot in Israeli politics and many Israeli actions that I don't agree with at all, particularly wrt the WB. However, fundamentally, it does come down to whether Israel is entitled to defend its citizens against attacks on its own soil. Hamas cannot make the same claim because they have chosen not to run Gaza as a country but rather as a giant military barracks. That is really really tough on ordinary Gazans, but not Israel's fault.

On the WB it's more complex.

But what really shows the true opinions of posters who claim not to support Hamas against Israel but only to be concerned about civilian lives (well, apart from their blithe lack of concern about Yemeni or indeed Iranian lives) is their fury at Israel's brilliantly targeted attack on Hezbollah pagers. The truth is that in their view, Israel can do nothing right, other than cease to exist.

It was already pointed out to you. They left to go to a place where they would be given carte blanche to steal and kill and rape if they wanted to partake in any of those "activities".

Neither is Bibi and his far right ministers according to Israeli officials who spoke to the Israeli press.

Members of Israel's negotiating team expressed frustration at Bibi for not agreeing to a deal.

uhh.. the fact you are sending your 500 kg unguided warhead towards a ten story high rise, with the surrounding high rise buildings affected as well. If you cannot determine the guy with the RPG is the only person in the area you are not bombing that site to rubbles. the 40.000 innocent deaths dictate otherwise unfortunately.

Israel knowingly killed civilians in order to take a few HAMAS fighters.

And have you read anything about the history of, say, Armenia or Turkey, or any of the various North African or middle eastern countries which also had a large period during which they did not exist? Some of them in fact have no previous historical existence ever. That doesn't invalidate their existence now.

Gaza is traditionally Egyptian, and many of the Arabs in what is now considered to be Palestine are descendants of Egyptians and other Arab states, who moved there in the early 20th century because the economy was booming mainly thanks to Jewish immigrants.

But that makes them immigrants too. Only, because they have browner skin (according to someone upthread) they're more "local". Not that that's even a tiny bit racist. Oh wait.

Israel killed three of their own soldiers earlier on in their genocide and their official IDF spokesman excused it as "they were dressed like Palestinian civilians"………..them being stripped to the wait and holding up their arms. You couldn't make it up

There should be none left at all, if Sean is right. There should be no Synagoues left in Iran. I see you left out the part where the businessman was suspected of spying and therefore seen as a threat to the state. You wouldn't have any problem with Israel taking out someone deemed a threat to its security. So what's the difference here.

Furthermore we know mossad doesn't operate inside Iran. So he can't possibly have been a spy . The Iranians are so incompetent they can't detect any spies- and anyone who denies being a spy is always telling the truth- that includes the Israeli citizen arrested recently for being an Iranian spy.

Here’s an idea though: none of those comparisons work for a country set up as a refuge for a people who were the target of repeated pogroms over hundreds of years plus an attempt at total extermination.

A people whose existence predated the creation of the modern nation by many centuries of not millennia - as the pogroms demonstrate. How many Americans were the target of violent attacks or mass deportation in medieval times?

Armenians might be about the closest I suppose.

The original pilgrims to the US were fleeing what they considered religious intolerance.

As were the bulk of the original "Irish" who went to the US. The ones who distinguished themselves from the later waves by renaming themselves as "Scots Irish". Lads from up your way.

I don't support Hamas or Hezbollah or their backers in Iran, and think I am capable of nuance. Israel do have the right to defend themselves (let alone exist!), but that is not some catch all that justifies any/all military responses because they were attacked in Oct. last year and because Hezbollah/other Iranian tools are still firing missiles into Israel.

I am glad you can admit that much of what Israel is doing now and the quite dark turn their politics is taking (basically the red mist has come down and rage and fear are driving everything IMO) is bad.

(Getting back to what thread is supposed to be about…) while the exploding devices attack was very clever and has been highly successful I am not sure it was a great idea to do it right now. Those allies I mentioned (US) are possibly pulling their hair out over it.

The only thing it makes sense is as an attempt to ratchet the tension up and escalate things further, goad Hezbollah/Iran into a bigger response, or as preparations in advance of initiating a wider war themselves (disrupt the enemy command and control).

Looking at what is likely to be coming, I doubt Israel is actually going to solve much by wrecking Lebanon, depopulating the south of it and perhaps rubble-ising Beirut to deny it as a base of operations to Iran's patsies, but we will see soon I suppose.

They must be very bad at it.

so indiscriminately lobbing dumb ordnance on a densely populated area resulting in over 40.000 civilian deaths is not genocide ……. got it

EDIT:

For the sake of discussion we could also go for crimes against humanity and urbicide

Whatever makes you more comfortable in defending

No no no you don't get to walk back on that. What you said was quite clear, the jews that left Iran went to kill steal and rape.

Neither want a ceasefire. You can make all the excuses you want for Bibi, but he wants the war to continue to avoid his day of reckoning. The one thing Bibi's supporters and critics seem to agree on is he he'll bent on remaining in power.

At least half of that no. are combatants. But say it is only 40% combatant .

That's a lot of dead but that is urban warfare, especially against an enemy using people as shields .

It just makes it a tough and hard war.

Iran, it's proxies Hezbollah. Other friends if Hamas have been main protagonists in wars in the region that have killed somewhere between 1 and 1.5mn and there was no accepting collateral damage in those wars. It was target civilians first and soldiers after.

No one cared about Arab civilians then but as soon as a Yarmulke is seen, the hackles go up and the jooos must receive fire but never return it and if they do they must have the first war in history where only combatants die.

In Lebanon so far it is overwhelmingly combatants that are being killed but o good then either, look at the lunatics on social media trotting out the same.

The fundamental problem is that the Israelis don't have the decency to just sit their and let their throats be cut.

No problem with those claims either.

The urbicide one. The pretension to go with that.

300 Hezbollah sites hit already today.

Iranian foreign ministry threatening that Iran will be pushed to intervene. Tehran is seriously worried that Hezbollah are going to be torn asunder.

At least if Iran are worried about Israeli retaliation they can't be murdering women for uncovering their hair. I think that is a good thing, others here disagree.

Higgins is the type that thinks the Chief Rabbi of Ireland poisoned his dog.

Some posters don't have consistency when it comes to these operations. With this in mind Jonathan Concrius( a former IDF spokesman) said if Hezbollah carried out a simliar attack on the IDF it would be fair game. I have a feeling Danzy would agree with Concrius, but a lot of other Pro Israelis would see it as a terrorist act rather than a legitimate strike against an enemy in ongoing war. They'll hide behind the IDF is a legitimate army therefore the exact same act is terrorism. So what if another state did it. What is the difference then? If their rationale is the same as Israel that it's pre emptive self defense? I think the Israeli attitude is summed up on the strike that took out Dief: the attack was only authorised when it was known there was no Israeli Hostages around him, when it was established that there were Palestinians civilians nearby it was deemed acceptable. Contrast that with the Americans often calling off air strikes due to the risk of collateral damage being too great. Again the Israeli apologists will see no issue with it; it's all hamas fault, but if a building was struck in Tel Aviv that killed the top figures in the IDF , but also killed 30 or so Israeli civilians in the process, who were in adjacent buildings, would Cordell blame the IDF or those who fired the missiles for the civilians deaths?

i was quite pro Palestinian for much of life

Yes me too. It was really the gratuitousness of the Oct 7th attack, which had no military aim but was literally just a pogrom, that finally decided me as to what the Palestinian leadership actually want. None of them want peace, they want the destruction of Israel.

As someone who always supported a two-state solution, I have to say I have no idea whether that is possible for as long as the current Palestinian leadership exists. The PA might be one possibility - but they are mostly hated by Palestinians.

Do you think a war is only legal if zero civilians are harmed by it? Could you name one where that has happened?

And while you're at it, which of the articles in the Geneva convention, or elsewhere, specify "zero civilian deaths required"?