Current WAR CRIMES Israel - Hamas - Hizbullah - Houthis

[sherb]

That is exactly what happened! October 7 was planned by Iran, carried out by Hamas. And Hezbollah weighed in, in the north, lobbing 9000 rockets and driving out 70,000 residents from their homes. What other options did Israel have, after 1400 rapes, murders, beheadings, burnings, kidnappings, and promises of more until Israel is gone?

You're saying Israel should have just said, give us back our people and we'll let it go. Or even, ok, you win, we'll pack up and leave the Middle East. Hamas were perfectly prepared for reprisals and embedded themselves among the people they are supposed to represent. That's the war crime. Then civilian deaths have been used to reduce support for Israel among the international community.

Mind you, all along, Iran has underestimated Israel's determination NOT to be wiped out, that's where they have made a big mistake. As they will find out.

What's this continued practice of putting words in people's mouths? I'm not saying that at all. I'm simply saying that Israel is responsible for the nature of its response. And that bombing the shit out of innocent people and Gaza itself wasn't the only option.

They could have sent troops in from the start. Or they could have selectively bombed and sent troops in. Both those options were open if they chose to retaliate.

Or, yes, they could have shown restraint, negotiated for hostage release and an ongoing ceasefire, worked out what went wrong with their defences & rectified it. And, to go further, they could have decided to be open to finding a solution to sorting this problem out once and for all. Now, of course, that is a long term strategy but such strategies have to start somewhere.

Now, before you come back at me and tell me all the negatives involved in what I have written, that's not my point - which is that the "mass murder and destruction" option wasn't the only option available to Israel. And that strategy is hardly full of positives anyway -
*40,000+ dead
*Much of Gaza razed, with someone eventually going to have to rebuild it
*The terrorists won't be eliminated - they will regroup and come back, either as Hamas or a new outfit
*Turning much of the world and the local region against Israel
*Ensuring a generation, or multiple generations, of Palestinians hate them
*Putting their own civilians' lives at risk due to a regional war becoming a real possibility
*And overall, as a result of the above, ensuring that the cycle of hatred and violence will go on and on

You don't eliminate terrorists using Israel's current method. It's like cutting out a cancer - unless you get rid of it 100%, it grows back. So not only are Israel going to fail to totally cut the cancer out, they are giving it nutrition in the form of feeding the hatred that it thrives on. You have to stop giving terrorists the oxygen to breathe, by stopping behaviour that creates legitimate (in other peoples' eyes) grievances. Anyway, that's bigger picture stuff I guess.

In summary, Israel has chosen this response and a lot of people have paid, are paying and will be paying the price as a result.

 

[ZEV]

They could have sent troops in from the start. Or they could have selectively bombed and sent troops in. Both those options were open if they chose to retaliate.

Chose to retaliate?

You do realise the only reason Hamas stopped killing Israeli's is because the IDF killed all the ones in Israel.

Good idea, let terrorists continue to launch rockets against you...

Of course you highlight the option that would have resulted in the most IDF casualties.... and even more Gazan deaths.

Or, yes, they could have shown restraint, negotiated for hostage release and an ongoing ceasefire, worked out what went wrong with their defences & rectified it. And, to go further, they could have decided to be open to finding a solution to sorting this problem out once and for all. Now, of course, that is a long term strategy but such strategies have to start somewhere.

No defence is impenetrable. It just buys time.

Or you know Hamas could have just not done it.

Now, before you come back at me and tell me all the negatives involved in what I have written, that's not my point - which is that the "mass murder and destruction" option wasn't the only option available to Israel. And that strategy is hardly full of positives anyway -
*40,000+ dead
*Much of Gaza razed, with someone eventually going to have to rebuild it
*The terrorists won't be eliminated - they will regroup and come back, either as Hamas or a new outfit
*Turning much of the world and the local region against Israel
*Ensuring a generation, or multiple generations, of Palestinians hate them
*Putting their own civilians' lives at risk due to a regional war becoming a real possibility
*And overall, as a result of the above, ensuring that the cycle of hatred and violence will go on and on

I note that Hamas does not distinguish between civilian and militant casualties. Either do you.

Most of them will be. Very hard for terrorists to terrorise without their infrastructure and weapons.

When in history has that ever not been the trend?

Hamas and UNRWA have done a fantastic job of that without the need for Israeli intervention.

As opposed to just being bombed and attacked without retaliating?

You don't eliminate terrorists using Israel's current method. It's like cutting out a cancer - unless you get rid of it 100%, it grows back. So not only are Israel going to fail to totally cut the cancer out, they are giving it nutrition in the form of feeding the hatred that it thrives on. You have to stop giving terrorists the oxygen to breathe, by stopping behaviour that creates legitimate (in other peoples' eyes) grievances. Anyway, that's bigger picture stuff I guess.

Israel has just rewritten the book on eliminating terrorists.

It has done in three weeks what the US has been able to do in over 40 years.

You and I both know that Islamist extremists will never stop until they are dead. ***

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I note that Hamas does not distinguish between civilian and militant casualties. Either do you.

This is weird. Why does Israel keep saying 1200 dead on Oct 7, when approx 500 of them were military?

Why doesn't Israel distinguish between civilian and military casualties?

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Ok sorry if I misrepresented your reply but I’m absolutely sure you don’t know better than Israel what is the best response to terrorists, that don’t play by Penny Wong’s roolz and have promised to repeat October 7 “over and over again”. That wasn’t a throwaway line, it’s in their charter!

What would we (Australia) do if we suffered a similar attack? Would we do everything possible to destroy the threat? I would hope so!

A rogue organisation does not play by rules and should not be negotiated with (never negotiate with terrorists is a long-held truism) or appeased in any way with “deals”. These are regarded by terrorist regimes as weakness.

Let’s face it, we can’t imagine what it’s like over there, we don’t appreciate the magnitude of the consequences. The threat is much wider than just to Israel. It’s easy to oversimplify, we see the answers so clearly! Why can’t they?

Reply was to sherb

 

[Jazny]

Hizbullahs paramilitary wing has been listed as a terrorist organisation since 2003. It's only more recently, after a campaign by Israel and it's local interests (Zionist Federation of Australia, AIJAC, Executive Council of Australian Jewry) that it's legitimate civilian political and social branches were included under that designation in Australia.

This gives Israel a pseudon-legal justification to target these civilian entities directly, and have those attacks supported and cheered here. As we can see with Israel deliberately targeting the Islamic Health Unit facilities and staff while attempting to rescue victims of attacks. War crimes, completely ignored. Israel can carry out extrajudicial killings of political leadership, security officials with no military role and reservists (non-combatants) and have mouthbreathers clap their hands.

It gives them cover for their Dahiya doctrine being carried out currently in Beirut, and in Dahiya itself. 3,000 building destroyed or damaged in Lebanon in 2 weeks.

View attachment 2132617

Australia's classification of all of Hezbollah as terrorist organisation in no way at all, ever, in any world, changes Israel's legal responsibilities under IHL. You can call Hezbollah terrorists, invaders or freedom fighters and it changes nothing. I know the various Jewish lobbying groups are the bogeyman to conspiracy theorists, but as if they are going to waste their time lobbying Australia to change their stance on Hezbollah to provide no cover at all to any Israeli attack on Hezbollah. These things are in no way related. They have other domestic motivations for having their input into the review.

I realise you said "pseudo-legal", but it doesn't even do that. Where are any "Jewish lobbies" arguing that Israel now has a right to disproportiantely bomb Hezbollah due to Australia's listing of the entire group as terrorists? Where is anybody saying this?

Hezbollah in general are listed as terrorist organisations already by the US, UK, Canada, and a bunch of other countries, Australia changed it to be in line with their security partners. I don't know how you call their "civilian political and social branches" legitimate. There seems to be no great separation between them and they are considered terrorists by our key allies as well as the Arab League.

There Is No Distinct Hezbollah 'Military Wing,' So Why Ban It?

Focusing on just one facet of Hezbollah is a political distinction of convenience that will limit efforts to target the group's finances, but the EU ban is still a useful step.

www.washingtoninstitute.org

 

[jason_recliner]

It’s not justification it’s fact.

What's the point you're trying to make?

 

[Demons09]

What's the point you're trying to make?

I’ve made the point a few tines i’m not going to explain it to you read through the previous posts.