Looks like a new Gaza war has started

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can’t fight a guérilla war with normal tactic and expect to win. There are going to be civilian casualties. That’s part of why war is awful. The whole idea that there are « rules » for war is so naive. War is war. The only thing that matters is who wins. In this case it is my best interest for Israel to win. If I have to choose between Israeli civilians or Palestinian civilians, I’m choosing the Israelis because they are the people least likely to want to kill me and destroy what America is and stands for. Easy choice.

Bingo. I've read several pages and I have no idea what people are talking about. Have they never taken an international relations class? There are no such thing as international laws, standards, etc when it comes to war. We can argue whether there should be and what those should look like, but no one else cares.

I have a degree in international relations and one of the very first things I learned was that there are laws of war, and in particular laws governing the treatment of civilians in wartime. See the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Civilized states are expected to comport with the Geneva Conventions. This is the legal basis on which we condemn rogue state actors, like Russia, for its treatment of civilians in Ukraine (see Bucha, Mariupol, etc.). If you don't know about this and are asking if others have taken an IR class, you have zero credibility.

Ask our allies about Yemeni civilians about laws of war and US allies. We condemn countries that we view as competitors and look away when allies kill civilians. International laws and war crimes are for African stats without international clout (just look at the ICC docket). Powerful countries or countries with powerful allies are free to disregard

Of course the U.S. has violated the laws of war. I don’t think it’s any better when we do it. I think we should stop doing it ourselves and decline to provide a public show of support and a blank check to countries (currently, Israel) who do it.

Do you want to play by the « rules »
Or do you want to win? That’s the only question that matters.

Winning is not justifiable if the price is millions of civilians in collateral damage. That’s why we have a nuclear taboo. So if the price of eradicating Hamas is the civilians in Gaza, then Israel needs to pursue a more limited goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting:
Israel wants to depopulate Gaza, drive everyone out. If that is not true, then let them take refuge in one of Israel’s deserts



What is happening now in Gaza is an attempt to force civilian residents to take refuge and migrate to Egypt, which should not be accepted," Abdul Fattah al-Sisi said.

He warned that were this to happen, the Egyptian people could "go out and protest in their millions".

Cairo has already warned that if Palestinians left their land, it could "liquidate" Palestinian hopes of statehood.

But it would also be very dangerous for the Egyptian government if it was seen as complicit in any such deal – igniting public anger in the Arab world.

Any influx of people would also deepen Egypt’s current economic crisis and raise security fears in its restive Sinai region.

Sisi suggested that as Gaza is in effect under Israeli control, Palestinians could instead be moved to Israel’s Negev desert during its offensive against Hamas "till the militants are dealt with"

You seriously think Israel should open the Negev up to Gazans?!

Do you realize what would happen if they did that?

Tell me please
What will happen if they leave everyone to suffer and die where they are

I can’t believe I have to spell this out.

Hamas fighters will leave in the crowd and begin their attacks again, just like on October 7th.

So they will loose their human shields and you will be able to track down every single one

Yes because Hamas fighters walk around with a sign around their neck saying “Hamas.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can’t fight a guérilla war with normal tactic and expect to win. There are going to be civilian casualties. That’s part of why war is awful. The whole idea that there are « rules » for war is so naive. War is war. The only thing that matters is who wins. In this case it is my best interest for Israel to win. If I have to choose between Israeli civilians or Palestinian civilians, I’m choosing the Israelis because they are the people least likely to want to kill me and destroy what America is and stands for. Easy choice.

Bingo. I've read several pages and I have no idea what people are talking about. Have they never taken an international relations class? There are no such thing as international laws, standards, etc when it comes to war. We can argue whether there should be and what those should look like, but no one else cares.

I have a degree in international relations and one of the very first things I learned was that there are laws of war, and in particular laws governing the treatment of civilians in wartime. See the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Civilized states are expected to comport with the Geneva Conventions. This is the legal basis on which we condemn rogue state actors, like Russia, for its treatment of civilians in Ukraine (see Bucha, Mariupol, etc.). If you don't know about this and are asking if others have taken an IR class, you have zero credibility.

Ask our allies about Yemeni civilians about laws of war and US allies. We condemn countries that we view as competitors and look away when allies kill civilians. International laws and war crimes are for African stats without international clout (just look at the ICC docket). Powerful countries or countries with powerful allies are free to disregard

Of course the U.S. has violated the laws of war. I don’t think it’s any better when we do it. I think we should stop doing it ourselves and decline to provide a public show of support and a blank check to countries (currently, Israel) who do it.

Do you want to play by the « rules »
Or do you want to win? That’s the only question that matters.

Winning is not justifiable if the price is millions of civilians in collateral damage. That’s why we have a nuclear taboo. So if the price of eradicating Hamas is the civilians in Gaza, then Israel needs to pursue a more limited goal.

Like what? And how should they pursue it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can’t fight a guérilla war with normal tactic and expect to win. There are going to be civilian casualties. That’s part of why war is awful. The whole idea that there are « rules » for war is so naive. War is war. The only thing that matters is who wins. In this case it is my best interest for Israel to win. If I have to choose between Israeli civilians or Palestinian civilians, I’m choosing the Israelis because they are the people least likely to want to kill me and destroy what America is and stands for. Easy choice.

Bingo. I've read several pages and I have no idea what people are talking about. Have they never taken an international relations class? There are no such thing as international laws, standards, etc when it comes to war. We can argue whether there should be and what those should look like, but no one else cares.

I have a degree in international relations and one of the very first things I learned was that there are laws of war, and in particular laws governing the treatment of civilians in wartime. See the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Civilized states are expected to comport with the Geneva Conventions. This is the legal basis on which we condemn rogue state actors, like Russia, for its treatment of civilians in Ukraine (see Bucha, Mariupol, etc.). If you don't know about this and are asking if others have taken an IR class, you have zero credibility.

Ask our allies about Yemeni civilians about laws of war and US allies. We condemn countries that we view as competitors and look away when allies kill civilians. International laws and war crimes are for African stats without international clout (just look at the ICC docket). Powerful countries or countries with powerful allies are free to disregard

Of course the U.S. has violated the laws of war. I don’t think it’s any better when we do it. I think we should stop doing it ourselves and decline to provide a public show of support and a blank check to countries (currently, Israel) who do it.

Do you want to play by the « rules »
Or do you want to win? That’s the only question that matters.

This perfectly sums up the US's view on international law and war crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act

[Anonymous]

From the Guardian. Israel/USA will sponsor an ethnic cleansing campaign in the Gaza Gheto.

Israel’s foreign minister, Eli Cohen, hinted that Israel may annex part of Gaza in a radio interview on Wednesday.

Cohen was reported by the Times of Israel as saying:

At the end of this war, not only will Hamas no longer be in Gaza, but the territory of Gaza will also decrease.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can’t fight a guérilla war with normal tactic and expect to win. There are going to be civilian casualties. That’s part of why war is awful. The whole idea that there are « rules » for war is so naive. War is war. The only thing that matters is who wins. In this case it is my best interest for Israel to win. If I have to choose between Israeli civilians or Palestinian civilians, I’m choosing the Israelis because they are the people least likely to want to kill me and destroy what America is and stands for. Easy choice.

Bingo. I've read several pages and I have no idea what people are talking about. Have they never taken an international relations class? There are no such thing as international laws, standards, etc when it comes to war. We can argue whether there should be and what those should look like, but no one else cares.

I have a degree in international relations and one of the very first things I learned was that there are laws of war, and in particular laws governing the treatment of civilians in wartime. See the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Civilized states are expected to comport with the Geneva Conventions. This is the legal basis on which we condemn rogue state actors, like Russia, for its treatment of civilians in Ukraine (see Bucha, Mariupol, etc.). If you don't know about this and are asking if others have taken an IR class, you have zero credibility.

Ask our allies about Yemeni civilians about laws of war and US allies. We condemn countries that we view as competitors and look away when allies kill civilians. International laws and war crimes are for African stats without international clout (just look at the ICC docket). Powerful countries or countries with powerful allies are free to disregard

Of course the U.S. has violated the laws of war. I don’t think it’s any better when we do it. I think we should stop doing it ourselves and decline to provide a public show of support and a blank check to countries (currently, Israel) who do it.

Do you want to play by the « rules »
Or do you want to win? That’s the only question that matters.

This perfectly sums up the US's view on international law and war crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act

Well would you rather someone else be in charge? Who then?

[Anonymous]

Who is for death by starvation of a million children?

Linda says: "Me!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From the NYTimes:

American officials say they have multiple strands of intelligence — including infrared satellite data — indicating that the deadly blast at a Gaza hospital on Tuesday was caused by Palestinian fighters.

The intelligence includes satellite and other infrared data showing a launch of a rocket or missile from Palestinian fighter positions within Gaza. American intelligence agencies have also analyzed open-source video of the launch showing that it did not come from the direction of Israeli military positions, the officials said. Israeli officials have also provided the United States with intercepts of Hamas officials saying the strike came from forces aligned with Palestinian militant groups.

“While we continue to collect information, our current assessment, based on analysis of overhead imagery, intercepts and open-source information, is that Israel is not responsible for the explosion at the hospital in Gaza yesterday,” said Adrienne Watson, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council.

Other U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive information, cautioned that the analysis was preliminary and that they were continuing to collect and analyze evidence. Multiple officials said the evidence gathered so far refutes claims that Israeli forces were responsible for the blast and was strong enough for President Biden to make comments supporting Israel’s account of events.

NYT is fake news lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From the Guardian. Israel/USA will sponsor an ethnic cleansing campaign in the Gaza Gheto.

Israel’s foreign minister, Eli Cohen, hinted that Israel may annex part of Gaza in a radio interview on Wednesday.

Cohen was reported by the Times of Israel as saying:

At the end of this war, not only will Hamas no longer be in Gaza, but the territory of Gaza will also decrease.

As I’ve predicted, Egypt is already signaling they will get involved if Israel annexes Gaza .

This is really bad

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who is for death by starvation of a million children?

Linda says: "Me!"

She even has the look of shame and embarrassment while she’s doing it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden just said he has a deal with the Israelis to allow aid to flow into Gaza from Egypt.

What do the pro-Hamas people say now?

No one here is pro-Hamas.

Are you disappointed that some civilians won’t die? You seem a little agitated.

Are you joking? Mad?

You must be either kidding or insane. The attacks here on Israel are clearly pro Hamas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can’t fight a guérilla war with normal tactic and expect to win. There are going to be civilian casualties. That’s part of why war is awful. The whole idea that there are « rules » for war is so naive. War is war. The only thing that matters is who wins. In this case it is my best interest for Israel to win. If I have to choose between Israeli civilians or Palestinian civilians, I’m choosing the Israelis because they are the people least likely to want to kill me and destroy what America is and stands for. Easy choice.

Bingo. I've read several pages and I have no idea what people are talking about. Have they never taken an international relations class? There are no such thing as international laws, standards, etc when it comes to war. We can argue whether there should be and what those should look like, but no one else cares.

I have a degree in international relations and one of the very first things I learned was that there are laws of war, and in particular laws governing the treatment of civilians in wartime. See the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Civilized states are expected to comport with the Geneva Conventions. This is the legal basis on which we condemn rogue state actors, like Russia, for its treatment of civilians in Ukraine (see Bucha, Mariupol, etc.). If you don't know about this and are asking if others have taken an IR class, you have zero credibility.

Ask our allies about Yemeni civilians about laws of war and US allies. We condemn countries that we view as competitors and look away when allies kill civilians. International laws and war crimes are for African stats without international clout (just look at the ICC docket). Powerful countries or countries with powerful allies are free to disregard

Of course the U.S. has violated the laws of war. I don’t think it’s any better when we do it. I think we should stop doing it ourselves and decline to provide a public show of support and a blank check to countries (currently, Israel) who do it.

Do you want to play by the « rules »
Or do you want to win? That’s the only question that matters.

Winning is not justifiable if the price is millions of civilians in collateral damage. That’s why we have a nuclear taboo. So if the price of eradicating Hamas is the civilians in Gaza, then Israel needs to pursue a more limited goal.

Like what? And how should they pursue it?

I’m not a military planner. But let’s be honest, Hamas committed a brutal terrorist attack and spews vile and hateful rhetoric but it’s not an existential threat to the state of Israel (just as Al Qaeda wasn’t an existential threat to the U.S.). The goal should be taking out their leadership, hobbling their ability to commit future attacks, improving their own counterterrorism capabilities, and cutting off funding sources. Not raining death and destruction on innocent civilians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the Guardian. Israel/USA will sponsor an ethnic cleansing campaign in the Gaza Gheto.

Israel’s foreign minister, Eli Cohen, hinted that Israel may annex part of Gaza in a radio interview on Wednesday.

Cohen was reported by the Times of Israel as saying:

At the end of this war, not only will Hamas no longer be in Gaza, but the territory of Gaza will also decrease.

As I’ve predicted, Egypt is already signaling they will get involved if Israel annexes Gaza .

This is really bad

Does that mean Israel will end up with the Sinai again? Is Israel supposed to be intimidated by Egypt? They've tried twice and neither time ended very well for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can’t fight a guérilla war with normal tactic and expect to win. There are going to be civilian casualties. That’s part of why war is awful. The whole idea that there are « rules » for war is so naive. War is war. The only thing that matters is who wins. In this case it is my best interest for Israel to win. If I have to choose between Israeli civilians or Palestinian civilians, I’m choosing the Israelis because they are the people least likely to want to kill me and destroy what America is and stands for. Easy choice.

Bingo. I've read several pages and I have no idea what people are talking about. Have they never taken an international relations class? There are no such thing as international laws, standards, etc when it comes to war. We can argue whether there should be and what those should look like, but no one else cares.

I have a degree in international relations and one of the very first things I learned was that there are laws of war, and in particular laws governing the treatment of civilians in wartime. See the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Civilized states are expected to comport with the Geneva Conventions. This is the legal basis on which we condemn rogue state actors, like Russia, for its treatment of civilians in Ukraine (see Bucha, Mariupol, etc.). If you don't know about this and are asking if others have taken an IR class, you have zero credibility.

Ask our allies about Yemeni civilians about laws of war and US allies. We condemn countries that we view as competitors and look away when allies kill civilians. International laws and war crimes are for African stats without international clout (just look at the ICC docket). Powerful countries or countries with powerful allies are free to disregard

Of course the U.S. has violated the laws of war. I don’t think it’s any better when we do it. I think we should stop doing it ourselves and decline to provide a public show of support and a blank check to countries (currently, Israel) who do it.

Do you want to play by the « rules »
Or do you want to win? That’s the only question that matters.

Winning is not justifiable if the price is millions of civilians in collateral damage. That’s why we have a nuclear taboo. So if the price of eradicating Hamas is the civilians in Gaza, then Israel needs to pursue a more limited goal.

Like what? And how should they pursue it?

I’m not a military planner. But let’s be honest, Hamas committed a brutal terrorist attack and spews vile and hateful rhetoric but it’s not an existential threat to the state of Israel (just as Al Qaeda wasn’t an existential threat to the U.S.). The goal should be taking out their leadership, hobbling their ability to commit future attacks, improving their own counterterrorism capabilities, and cutting off funding sources. Not raining death and destruction on innocent civilians.

Taking out their leadership and cutting off funding means war with Qatar and Iran. Is that your idea?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can’t fight a guérilla war with normal tactic and expect to win. There are going to be civilian casualties. That’s part of why war is awful. The whole idea that there are « rules » for war is so naive. War is war. The only thing that matters is who wins. In this case it is my best interest for Israel to win. If I have to choose between Israeli civilians or Palestinian civilians, I’m choosing the Israelis because they are the people least likely to want to kill me and destroy what America is and stands for. Easy choice.

Bingo. I've read several pages and I have no idea what people are talking about. Have they never taken an international relations class? There are no such thing as international laws, standards, etc when it comes to war. We can argue whether there should be and what those should look like, but no one else cares.

I have a degree in international relations and one of the very first things I learned was that there are laws of war, and in particular laws governing the treatment of civilians in wartime. See the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Civilized states are expected to comport with the Geneva Conventions. This is the legal basis on which we condemn rogue state actors, like Russia, for its treatment of civilians in Ukraine (see Bucha, Mariupol, etc.). If you don't know about this and are asking if others have taken an IR class, you have zero credibility.

Ask our allies about Yemeni civilians about laws of war and US allies. We condemn countries that we view as competitors and look away when allies kill civilians. International laws and war crimes are for African stats without international clout (just look at the ICC docket). Powerful countries or countries with powerful allies are free to disregard

Of course the U.S. has violated the laws of war. I don’t think it’s any better when we do it. I think we should stop doing it ourselves and decline to provide a public show of support and a blank check to countries (currently, Israel) who do it.

Do you want to play by the « rules »
Or do you want to win? That’s the only question that matters.

Winning is not justifiable if the price is millions of civilians in collateral damage. That’s why we have a nuclear taboo. So if the price of eradicating Hamas is the civilians in Gaza, then Israel needs to pursue a more limited goal.

Like what? And how should they pursue it?

I’m not a military planner. But let’s be honest, Hamas committed a brutal terrorist attack and spews vile and hateful rhetoric but it’s not an existential threat to the state of Israel (just as Al Qaeda wasn’t an existential threat to the U.S.). The goal should be taking out their leadership, hobbling their ability to commit future attacks, improving their own counterterrorism capabilities, and cutting off funding sources. Not raining death and destruction on innocent civilians.

How do you take the leadership out in a way that’s different than they’re doing it?

See, it’s easy to lob criticisms but much harder when someone asks you for your alternative plan.