Israel/Gaza - Here we go again...

Joat42 wrote:

Robert_A_Woodward wrote:Please define a method on how Israel could find Hamas members in a city without killing an inordinate number of civilians. BTW, any method that requires an army greater than Israel can field will be treated with contempt.

Why should I? It's entirely irrelevant to my question: When is it okay to kill innocent people?

When the likely result is the innocent people who you are sworn to protect being killed instead.

Joat42 wrote:

Arol wrote:Maybe someone could explain to a layman, as to why it is Israel that’s facing the shitstorm???

Because people expect a signatory to the 4th Geneva Convention actually try to minimize civilian causalities.

Let me ask you a question instead: When is it okay to kill innocent men, women and children in pursuit of your adversary and is it something we expect from a civilized country?

Not being conversant with the Geneva Conventions, I’d still be surprised if it doesn’t have something to say about the emplacement of rocket batteries in heavily residential districts!
So when counter-battery fire takes out the rocket battery, causing civilian casualties, who’s the heavy here?
You have a fine choice of whom to vent your ire on:
The counter-battery that had taken out an enemy target that was endangering the lives of Israeli civilians.
Or, the callus cold-hearted Gazan who emplaced a military target knowing that counter-fire would cause civilian casualties?
Then there’s always the ostrich solution of sticking one’s head in the sand, and abrogating the need of taking sides!

zyffyr wrote:

Joat42 wrote:When is it okay to kill innocent people?

When the likely result is the innocent people who you are sworn to protect being killed instead.

If we take your simple answer to its logical conclusion, it's always okay to kill innocent people belonging to an adversary. It also means you have given Hamas a valid reason for what they did.

TL;DR: Your answer leads to an escalation of violence unless the adversary and its associated people are exterminated.

Arol wrote:Not being conversant with the Geneva Conventions, I’d still be surprised if it doesn’t have something to say about the emplacement of rocket batteries in heavily residential districts!
So when counter-battery fire takes out the rocket battery, causing civilian casualties, who’s the heavy here?

It's strange that you managed to post here without access to the internet, a fabulous resource containing all matter of information - like the Geneva Conventions. Since you seem to lack an internet-connection let me quote a bit from the Geneva Convention, Protocol I:

• Articles 51 and 54 outlaw indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations, and destruction of food, water, and other materials needed for survival. Indiscriminate attacks include directly attacking civilian (non-military) targets, but also using technologies whose scope of destruction cannot be limited. A total war that does not distinguish between civilian and military targets is considered a war crime.
• Articles 56 and 53 outlaw attacks on dams, dikes, nuclear electrical-generating stations, and places of worship. The first three are "works and installations containing dangerous forces" and may be attacked only in ways that do not threaten to release the dangerous forces (i.e., it is permissible to capture them but not to destroy them).
• Articles 76 and 77, 15 and 79 provide special protections for women, children, and civilian medical personnel, and provide measures of protection for journalists.

The GC also contains articles about hiding active combatants among civilians, which is forbidden but it's something every major power does.

Now, one of the parties in this war is a signatory and are bound to follow it. They are also bound to uphold the convention against engaged parties that aren't signatories, see GC IV, Article 2. So your question about "who's the heavy here" has a clear answer: Both.

Arol wrote:You have a fine choice of whom to vent your ire on:
The counter-battery that had taken out an enemy target that was endangering the lives of Israeli civilians.
Or, the callus cold-hearted Gazan who emplaced a military target knowing that counter-fire would cause civilian casualties?

I find that intentionally killing civilians, regardless of reason, to be cold-hearted and callous.

Arol wrote:Then there’s always the ostrich solution of sticking one’s head in the sand, and abrogating the need of taking sides!

Which of the innocents is it okay to kill, it decides which side you are on. Personally, I take the side of the innocent people being killed because I'll be damned before justifying the killing of innocents out of ire and expediency because that way lie the madness of total war.

Joat42 wrote:

Robert_A_Woodward wrote:Please define a method on how Israel could find Hamas members in a city without killing an inordinate number of civilians. BTW, any method that requires an army greater than Israel can field will be treated with contempt.

Why should I? It's entirely irrelevant to my question: When is it okay to kill innocent people?

It is entirely relevant. A terrorist organization, embedded in an innocent population (BTW, I am given them the benefit of the doubt), murders a bunch of people. So how is it possible to destroy that organization without fatalities amongst the surrounding population? I can't think of of way to do that. The alternative is allowing that organization to kill and kill again.

I actually saw a senior Hamas spokesman explaining their motivation.
The 7 October attack's aim wasn't directly to kill 1,400 Israeli civillians. It was to provoke the Israeli state into doing exactly what it is doing.
He did imply that the more Palestinian civilians that die the better.
The whole aim of Hamas is to destroy Israel, starting with international condemnation.
Very few good guys here, and no winners.
The latest is that in the current hospital operation, they have found a stack of Hamas equipment and uniforms. How many operatives are now passing themselves off as patients or staff?

Robert_A_Woodward wrote:

Joat42 wrote:Why should I? It's entirely irrelevant to my question: When is it okay to kill innocent people?

It is entirely relevant. A terrorist organization, embedded in an innocent population (BTW, I am given them the benefit of the doubt), murders a bunch of people. So how is it possible to destroy that organization without fatalities amongst the surrounding population? I can't think of of way to do that. The alternative is allowing that organization to kill and kill again.

It's actually totally irrelevant to what I'm asking, aside from the fact that asking me for solution is a way to dodge my question. Either you think killing innocent people is just fine, or you don't. It's a simple question with a difficult answer which has ramifications on how you value different groups of people.

I can only come to the conclusion that a lot of people are rationalizing away the killing of innocent people by saying "Hamas are evil terrorists, they need to be stopped regardless of the cost in lives".

And that makes me ask: If in the process of killing monsters you have to become the monster, who will then come after you and how many more will die?

Israel did exactly what Hamas wanted and are fast becoming the monster, all to Hamas delight.

So I ask again: When is it okay to kill innocent people?

And think about what I'm actually asking, don't make a knee-jerk answer using Hamas as an excuse.

Joat42 wrote:
...The GC also contains articles about hiding active combatants among civilians, which is forbidden but it's something every major power does.

Now, one of the parties in this war is a signatory and are bound to follow it. They are also bound to uphold the convention against engaged parties that aren't signatories, see GC IV, Article 2. So your question about "who's the heavy here" has a clear answer: Both

Let me get this straight Joat42.
Your contention is that Israel had no right; according to your interpretation of the GC, to reply to Gaza’s attack on October seventh, because in so doing, it would endanger civilians? This even if the rockets fired from residential areas was endangering Israeli lives and property?
I don’t know what reality you are living in, but I can’t think of a single nation in this realty that would not have replied if it had the means and opportunity.

Joat42 wrote:I can only come to the conclusion that a lot of people are rationalizing away the killing of innocent people by saying "Hamas are evil terrorists, they need to be stopped regardless of the cost in lives".

You're half right: as long as they are Hamas lives!!!

Joat42 wrote:

Robert_A_Woodward wrote:It is entirely relevant. A terrorist organization, embedded in an innocent population (BTW, I am given them the benefit of the doubt), murders a bunch of people. So how is it possible to destroy that organization without fatalities amongst the surrounding population? I can't think of of way to do that. The alternative is allowing that organization to kill and kill again.

It's actually totally irrelevant to what I'm asking, aside from the fact that asking me for solution is a way to dodge my question. Either you think killing innocent people is just fine, or you don't. It's a simple question with a difficult answer which has ramifications on how you value different groups of people.

I can only come to the conclusion that a lot of people are rationalizing away the killing of innocent people by saying "Hamas are evil terrorists, they need to be stopped regardless of the cost in lives".

(snip)
So I ask again: When is it okay to kill innocent people?

And think about what I'm actually asking, don't make a knee-jerk answer using Hamas as an excuse.

I did not mention Hamas in my reply; I used the expression "terrorist organization". Thus, I hold that YOU are dodging the question, which is how can a country respond to an attack on its population? Allowing the agents that did so to escape consequence and be free to repeat IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE OPTION!!! That is a betrayal of that government's responsibility to its citizens.