IDF VS HAMAS

[Soukuw]

I think I might have learned enough to argue! LETS GOOOO

I'm pro IDF somewhat but pretty damn supportive of them.

[Ad Bot]

[Foxscotch]

you're insane

[Soukuw]

you're insane

Open ended! So many ways to respond, for sure a comment made in good faith.

I'd assume you're talking about my interest in internet debate! Id agree! Taking your comment any other way might make me think you're an unreasonable moron.

[Ladios]

I think I might have learned enough to argue! LETS GOOOO

I'm pro IDF somewhat but pretty damn supportive of them.

So are you actually open to changing your opinion or are you just looking for someone to use as an ideological punching bag so you can feel intelligent about defending genocide?

[Snaffle J. Bean]

I think I might have learned enough to argue! LETS GOOOO

I'm pro IDF somewhat but pretty damn supportive of them.

this is such good bait it's such a shame this forum is too dead for it to launch a classic 50+ page no holds barred free for all flamewar like message boards used to get on a regular basis back in the good old days

[Trogtor]

epic rap battle

[Soukuw]

So are you actually open to changing your opinion or are you just looking for someone to use as an ideological punching bag so you can feel intelligent about defending genocide?

Yeah because his comment was absolutely made in good faith and I shouldn't defend myself at all while he personally attacks me. 3 posts in and we're already acting like crybully victims huh.

Care to define genocide? Or am I supposed to just feel bad because it's the word "genocide" and I should take it at face value? I'd argue the fact Gaza isn't glass is a sign that Israel might not actually be committing "genocide". They sure do seem to take quite a few actions to avoid civilian casualties. Unlike Hamas who targets civilians, kills civilians kidnaps civilians and stores munitions under their own civilians.

The automatic assumption I condone killing civilians seems a little odd, that's exactly the reason I don't like Hamas.

[Ladios]

Yeah because his comment was absolutely made in good faith and I shouldn't defend myself at all while he personally attacks me. 3 posts in and we're already acting like crybully victims huh.

I was quoting your original post. I was not commenting on your response to someone making an attack unrelated to your post.
If you notice, what I instead ask is:

So are you actually open to changing your opinion or are you just looking for someone to use as an ideological punching bag so you can feel intelligent about defending genocide?

I nowhere in that statement said you are not allowed to defend yourself.

Care to define genocide?

the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.

For more examples:
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

Israeli leaders have explicitly stated that their goal is to kill all of the Muslim population in Israel.
Israeli parliment member, Nissim Vaturi, was quoted as saying their goal is to "Wipe Gaza off the face of the Earth", which is easily verifiable with a quick google search. Such statements by government offcials has lead other countries to call for the UN to recognize the attempted genocide of the Palestinian people. For Example.

am I supposed to just feel bad because it's the word "genocide" and I should take it at face value?

It certainly should be cause for alarm and perhaps further assessment of your opinion.

I'd argue the fact Gaza isn't glass is a sign that Israel might not actually be committing "genocide".

Because they haven't resorted to nukes? I want to know if that is your actual defense.
They have intentionally targeted hospitals. Which is a war crime. They have intentionally destroyed food supplies left by humanitarian organizations. Which is a war crime. They have specifically shot and killed marked members of the press and medical corps. Which is a war crime.

They have systematically driven the Gazans into smaller and smaller locations, saying oh this next area you are being restricted to is going to be the safe zone, and then less than a week later bomb said safe zone.

This is not a conflict of Israel vs Hamas. It is Israel vs. the Palestinian people. At least Thirty-Thousand innocent civillians have been killed and over Seventy-One-Thousand greviously injured since this most recent string of attacks against civilians.

They sure do seem to take quite a few actions to avoid civilian casualties.

See above statistics

Unlike Hamas who targets civilians, kills civilians kidnaps civilians and stores munitions under their own civilians.

Hamas was not created in a vaccuum. They were created and continue to gain recruits out of the despiration of people who have suffered nearly a hundred years of western-sponsored occupation.
Of course it is wrong to target civillians, and one should not excuse those in Hamas for doing so. However, such talking points are always brought up in response to people pointing out Israeli attrocities. They kidnapped 253 people, in an attempt to use them as leverage for Israel to return the 4400 political prisoners being held, 160 of them being children. Can you justify holding a child as a hostage? Not when Hamas does it? Ok. What about when Israel does it?

stores munitions under their own civilians.

It is very convenient how nearly every building in gaza, including medical and food supply depots, every single one, also serves as a munitions stockpile. I wonder how they get all these weapons?

The automatic assumption I condone killing civilians seems a little odd, that's exactly the reason I don't like Hamas.

I nowhere stated that you condone killing civilians.

Again all I asked was:

So are you actually open to changing your opinion or are you just looking for someone to use as an ideological punching bag so you can feel intelligent about defending genocide?

So I will put it more plain. Are you actually wanting to have a conversation where you will accept evidence against your belief, or are you just trying to raise an argument for the adrenline with no intention of changing because that would take the fun out of arguing?

[Defendor]

I think I might have learned enough to argue! LETS GOOOO

I'm pro IDF somewhat but pretty damn supportive of them.

same bro! I love how they keep targetting civilian infrastructure like hospitals, as well as bombing roads where civilians are trying to flee through while Hamas are mostly in tunnels! IDF rocks!

[ultimamax]

I think I might have learned enough to argue! LETS GOOOO

AKA "i read wikipedia for an hour and became an expert"

Care to define genocide? Or am I supposed to just feel bad because it's the word "genocide" and I should take it at face value? I'd argue the fact Gaza isn't glass is a sign that Israel might not actually be committing "genocide". They sure do seem to take quite a few actions to avoid civilian casualties. Unlike Hamas who targets civilians, kills civilians kidnaps civilians and stores munitions under their own civilians.

The UN definition:
"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

    Killing members of the group;
    Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
    Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
    Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
    Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
"
every aspect of this definition besides forcible transfer of children (though maybe jailing hundreds of children through military courts with a 99.9% conviction rate counts) applies to Israel.
notably, "glassing" Gaza is not a prerequisite to calling it a genocide. a definition of genocide that only applies after there's nobody left to be saved would be completely useless.

[Swholli]

Israel: White Phosphorus Used in Gaza, Lebanon

[Soukuw]

I was quoting your original post. I was not commenting on your response to someone making an attack unrelated to your post.
If you notice, what I instead ask is:  I nowhere in that statement said you are not allowed to defend yourself.

Fair enough, moving on.

Israeli leaders have explicitly stated that their goal is to kill all of the Muslim population in Israel.
Israeli parliment member, Nissim Vaturi, was quoted as saying their goal is to "Wipe Gaza off the face of the Earth", which is easily verifiable with a quick google search. Such statements by government offcials has lead other countries to call for the UN to recognize the attempted genocide of the Palestinian people. For Example.

I'm going to be good faith here and actually interpret what you meant but before moving ahead: Around 18% of Israel is Muslim, weird genocide.

You understand that's 1 person out of a 120 member parliament right? Does a single member of congress dictate the absolute views of the USA? Again, if Israel was actually attempting to genocide the Muslim population they sure are doing a lot to try to get them out of the areas they need to bomb.

Oct 7th was an attack intended to kill as many civilians as possible, this was the mission, the only mission. A terror attack.

Because they haven't resorted to nukes? I want to know if that is your actual defense.

Sorry I used the word "glass". I'll replace it here with "rubble"

They have intentionally targeted hospitals. Which is a war crime. They have intentionally destroyed food supplies left by humanitarian organizations. Which is a war crime. They have specifically shot and killed marked members of the press and medical corps. Which is a war crime.

"At least 20 out of 22 hospitals identified by CNN in northern Gaza were damaged or destroyed in the first two months of Israel's war against Hamas, from October 7 to December 7, according to a review of 45 satellite images and around 400 videos from the ground, as well as interviews with doctors, eyewitnesses and humanitarian organizations."

"A hospital can lose its special protected status only if it is used by an armed group for acts that are “harmful to the enemy.” But, even if a hospital loses its special status, the wounded and sick inside are still protected by the principle of proportionality. A warning must be given, and time for safe evacuation, before carrying out an attack."
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2024/01/middleeast/gaza-hospitals-destruction-investigation-intl-cmd/


CNN talking about the tunnel and a video showing hostages taken through the hospital.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/20/middleeast/gaza-tunnel-shaft-al-shifa-hospital-intl-hnk/index.html

Are they targeting hospitals? I don't know. But Hamas seems to be using them to hide.

IDF discusses the burning of a food truck
"Asked by CNN about the videos, the Israel Defense Forces did not dispute their veracity, location or that IDF soldiers were involved. It condemned the soldiers’ behavior, which it said does not align with its rules, adding that the perpetrators will be punished. "
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/15/middleeast/israeli-soldiers-burningfood-gaza-intl/index.html

As for medical and press, you're gonna have to source that.

They have systematically driven the Gazans into smaller and smaller locations, saying oh this next area you are being restricted to is going to be the safe zone, and then less than a week later bomb said safe zone.

Since Oct 7th? Or are you talking about all of history? If it's since Hamas hopped the border with the sole mission of killing as many civilians as they could I'd assume you'd would be able to understand this is a developing situation.

This is not a conflict of Israel vs Hamas. It is Israel vs. the Palestinian people. At least Thirty-Thousand innocent civillians have been killed and over Seventy-One-Thousand greviously injured since this most recent string of attacks against civilians.

As I've said before, I believe many more would be dead if this was a real and intended genocide. You make the bed you lie in.

"Despite the devastation, 57% of respondents in Gaza and 82% in the West Bank believe Hamas was correct in launching the October attack, the poll indicated."
https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-palestinians-opinion-poll-wartime-views-a0baade915619cd070b5393844bc4514

What is Israel supposed to do? They need to eradicate Hamas as they've stated is their goal.

Hamas was not created in a vaccuum. They were created and continue to gain recruits out of the despiration of people who have suffered nearly a hundred years of western-sponsored occupation.
Of course it is wrong to target civillians, and one should not excuse those in Hamas for doing so. However, such talking points are always brought up in response to people pointing out Israeli attrocities. They kidnapped 253 people, in an attempt to use them as leverage for Israel to return the 4400 political prisoners being held, 160 of them being children. Can you justify holding a child as a hostage? Not when Hamas does it? Ok. What about when Israel does it?

You know jewish people started buying land in the 1880s right? There were problems before the west was involved at all with the Ottoman empire Edit: Not entirely true, Palestinians did start attacks on already established jews in 1917 though after the Balfour Declaration. The ottoman empire already had Jewish people living in it and they did have issues prior to this.

You know they took a 4 year old hostage right? and a 70 year old, from a music festival.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67477240

The Palestinians arrested are literally criminals in many cases. Is it perfect? Probably not at all but to try to compare these two things is a joke. They're not the same at all.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2023/12/01/palestinian-prisoners-released-israel/71760915007/

Do you see no issues with capturing civilians during a terror attack to negotiate as long as there's enough to gain?

It is very convenient how nearly every building in gaza, including medical and food supply depots, every single one, also serves as a munitions stockpile. I wonder how they get all these weapons?

See above.

I nowhere stated that you condone killing civilians.

You told me I was defending genocide.

Again all I asked was:
So I will put it more plain. Are you actually wanting to have a conversation where you will accept evidence against your belief, or are you just trying to raise an argument for the adrenline with no intention of changing because that would take the fun out of arguing?

More automatic bad faith assumptions.

More loaded ass phrases please, we're still missing one. We have "Genocide" and "War Crime" but there's one more you guys are missing.

AKA "i read wikipedia for an hour and became an expert"

https://forum.blockland.us/index.php?topic=328258.msg10083192#msg10083192

forget yourself. More bad faith. Not gonna respond to you I think I've already covered it above.

same bro! I love how they keep targetting civilian infrastructure like hospitals, as well as bombing roads where civilians are trying to flee through while Hamas are mostly in tunnels! IDF rocks!

See above.

Israel: White Phosphorus Used in Gaza, Lebanon

Using white phosphorus isn't a war crime handicap.
"Human Rights Watch also reviewed two videos from October 10 from two locations near the Israel-Lebanon border. Each shows 155mm white phosphorus artillery projectiles being used, apparently as smokescreens, marking, or signaling."

[Camel]

this is such good bait it's such a shame this forum is too dead for it to launch a classic 50+ page no holds barred free for all flamewar like message boards used to get on a regular basis back in the good old days

A damn shame what we lost, by page 30 the original argument would be completely incomprehensible, the quotes would be running wild, someone would post a 5000 word megablock of text thinking they just won the thread and then get immediately filtered, eventually someone would get banned for flaming and the next 15 posts would be reaction gifs. Better times.

[Ladios]

So I do not currently have the energy to collate all of the information you are requesting, so I want to address, yet again my question:

So are you actually open to changing your opinion or are you just looking for someone to use as an ideological punching bag so you can feel intelligent about defending genocide?

To which you said:

More automatic bad faith assumptions.

If you paid attention, you would note that I did not say you are arguing in bad faith, which, seeing as you use the phrase, I assume you understand to mean, arguing without any intention to hear the other side or allowing for yourself to be swayed.
I will thus simplify my question: What is the point of this thread?
To be more specific:
Are you intending for engaging in a debate where you are willing to change your opinion if presented valid evidence? Is there a threshhold of evidence, (appearantly beyond multiple governments denouncing Israel for genocide) that will persuade you to consider the possibility that Israel is commiting genocide? Or, conversely, did you create this thread only because you knew people would passionately argue against you, without any intention to hear their arguments? That is my question. I made no accusations.

I am not going to put in the effort to write essentially a five page essay to address your grievences unless I can have some assurance that you are willing to consider that you may, in fact, be incorrect.

However, one brief note to leave on that I noticed in passing:

Using white phosphorus isn't a war crime handicap.

Please at least do a minimum of research, particularly before you use disparaging slurs in response to someone _{(weren't you the one who got touchy at someone who called you insane)}

"While in general white phosphorus is not subject to restriction, certain uses in weaponry are banned or restricted by general international laws: in particular, those related to incendiary devices.Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons 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 2 of the same protocol prohibits the deliberate use of incendiary weapons against civilian targets (already forbidden by the Geneva Conventions), the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against military targets in civilian areas, and the general use of other types of incendiary weapons against military targets located within "concentrations of civilians" without taking all possible means to minimise casualties. Incendiary phosphorus bombs may also not be used near civilians in a way that can lead to indiscriminate civilian casualties."

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/13/what-is-the-white-phosphorus-that-israel-is-accused-of-using-on-gaza

The rights group said late on Thursday that it had verified Israel’s use of white phosphorus munitions through interviews and videos showing the chemical substance was fired on two locations along the Israel-Lebanon border and over the Gaza City port.

“White phosphorous is unlawfully indiscriminate when airburst in populated urban areas, where it can burn down houses and cause egregious harm to civilians,” Lama Fakih, Middle East and North Africa director at HRW, said in a statement.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/12/israel-white-phosphorus-used-gaza-lebanon

he use of white phosphorus in Gaza, one of the most densely populated areas in the world, magnifies the risk to civilians and violates the international humanitarian law prohibition on putting civilians at unnecessary risk.

“Any time that white phosphorus is used in crowded civilian areas, it poses a high risk of excruciating burns and lifelong suffering,” said Lama Fakih, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “White phosphorous is unlawfully indiscriminate when airburst in populated urban areas, where it can burn down houses and cause egregious harm to civilians.”

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/lebanon-evidence-of-israels-unlawful-use-of-white-phosphorus-in-southern-lebanon-as-cross-border-hostilities-escalate/

The Israeli army fired artillery shells containing white phosphorus, an incendiary weapon, in military operations along Lebanon’s southern border between 10 and 16 October 2023, Amnesty International said today. One attack on the town of Dhayra on 16 October must be investigated as a war crime because it was an indiscriminate attack that injured at least nine civilians and damaged civilian objects, and was therefore unlawful, said the organization.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/12/questions-and-answers-israels-use-white-phosphorus-gaza-and-lebanon

From December 27, 2008, to January 18, 2009, during Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli military fired approximately 200 ground-launched white phosphorus munitions into populated areas of Gaza. Israeli forces relied particularly on 155mm M825E1 artillery projectiles, which send burning phosphorus wedges 125 meters in all directions, giving them a broad area effect. Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that the Israeli military used the shells only to create smokescreens. Whatever their ostensible purpose, however, Human Rights Watch found dozens of civilian casualties in the six incidents it documented. The white phosphorus shells also damaged civilian structures, including a school, a market, a humanitarian aid warehouse, and a hospital.

I am responding to this point because it took literally 2 minutes to collect that information.
No, white phosphorus, when used as a illumination or smoke source, away from possibility of inflicting harm directly on persons, is not a war crime.
The use of incendiaries of any sort, including white phosphorus, when used in a way that will directly harm human lives, is forbidden under the geneva convention, making it a war crime.

You can feel free to rephrase your argument on this point if you wish. I will address your other concerns later if it seems worth it.

[Soukuw]

So I do not currently have the energy to collate all of the information you are requesting, so I want to address, yet again my question:

I'm very sorry you are tired. You could always post tomorrow like I waited to do.

If you paid attention, you would note that I did not say you are arguing in bad faith, which, seeing as you use the phrase, I assume you understand to mean, arguing without any intention to hear the other side or allowing for yourself to be swayed.
I will thus simplify my question: What is the point of this thread?
To be more specific:
Are you intending for engaging in a debate where you are willing to change your opinion if presented valid evidence? Is there a threshhold of evidence, (appearantly beyond multiple governments denouncing Israel for genocide) that will persuade you to consider the possibility that Israel is commiting genocide? Or, conversely, did you create this thread only because you knew people would passionately argue against you, without any intention to hear their arguments? That is my question. I made no accusations.

I am not going to put in the effort to write essentially a five page essay to address your grievences unless I can have some assurance that you are willing to consider that you may, in fact, be incorrect.

That was pretty much a "Do your parents know you're gay".

I answer Yes, you tell me I'm horrible for supporting genocide, I answer No and you tell me I'm just here to fight.

Since you reworded the question I am willing to answer the first part. See next quote:

Are you intending for engaging in a debate where you are willing to change your opinion if presented valid evidence?

Absolutely. As heavily implied in the OP. "I think I've learned enough" and "I'm pro IDF somewhat". I'd also like to point out how I'm the only one in this topic so far to imply uncertainty about my opinions and previously I straight stated I don't know enough to argue.

Please at least do a minimum of research, particularly before you use disparaging slurs in response to someone (weren't you the one who got touchy at someone who called you insane)

"The Israeli army fired artillery shells containing white phosphorus, an incendiary weapon, in military operations along Lebanon�s southern border between 10 and 16 October 2023, Amnesty International said today. One attack on the town of Dhayra on 16 October must be investigated as a war crime because it was an indiscriminate attack that injured at least nine civilians and damaged civilian objects, and was therefore unlawful, said the organization."

Good. It should be investigated to see IF it's a war crime. I do not care if someone calls me a handicap if they give me something to research. I do care if the only thing they say is "errr ur dumdum"

https://www.hrw.org/report/2009/03/25/rain-fire/israels-unlawful-use-white-phosphorus-gaza
This article supports your claims it's been used as a weapon and says there has been deaths from it. But the deaths are from 2008 (see below for IDFs response)

The attacks generated international and domestic outrage. In 2013, in response to a petition before Israel’s High Court of Justice regarding the Gaza attacks, the Israeli military claimed that it would no longer use white phosphorus in populated areas except in two narrow situations that it revealed only to the justices. In the court’s ruling, Justice Edna Arbel explained that the conditions would “render use of white phosphorous an extreme exception in highly particular circumstances.” Although this pledge to the court did not represent an official change in policy, Justice Arbel called on the Israeli military to conduct a “thorough and comprehensive examination” and adopt a permanent military directive.

Also in 2013, the Israeli armed forces announced it was developing new smoke shells without white phosphorus. It stated it reserved the right to use and stockpile its white phosphorus munitions until it had sufficient alternatives, but explained that “[d]epending on the outcome of this development process, the new shells are intended to gradually replace the current smoke shells as the primary means employed by the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] for screening purposes.”

Israel should be held accountable for the deaths and damage if proven intentional. This would absolutely be a war crime. I would be interested to see if there are more deaths after 2013 or only injures. If there's only injures it would kind of imply the IDF has changed their policies and have actively tried to reduce civilian casualties.

The use of incendiaries of any sort, including white phosphorus, when used in a way that will directly harm human lives, is forbidden under the geneva convention, making it a war crime.

Principle of proportionality comes into effect here. Pretty sure this isn't true.

The US Field Manual (1956) states:
The use of weapons which employ fire, such as tracer flame-throwers, napalm and other incendiary agents, against targets requiring their use is not a violation of international law. They should not, however, be employed in such a way as to cause unnecessary suffering to individuals.
United States, Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, US Department of the Army, 18 July 1956, as modified by Change No. 1, 15 July 1976, § 36.

The USA still maintains the right to use them under certain circumstances.

There appears to be a reduction in the usage of White Phosphorus by Israel. It should be noted in 2013 the Iron Dome had been online for 2 years. Israel probably feels it's less necessary to use now they can defend themselves better.