What should be done about "bad guys" that shelter among civilians?

Something proveably historical please.

 

Hamas is certainly not concerned about minimizing Palestinian casualties. Thats valuable influence currency. And Israel seems keen on giving them all they could ever want.

 

Reminding people that Hamas is bad, is being way behind the curve, here; that is neither being questioned, nor is it relevant to the particular aspect of the Israeli offensive, we are discussing: reasonably providing for the safety of civilians, by:

1) establishing truly safe zones, which will not be struck by Israeli military, and which will be livable spaces, with water, food, medical services, & so forth;

2) giving civilians ample opportunity to make their way to these safe zones, without coming under Israeli attack.

It might be more practical for Israel to even provide guarded transportation. As this is a huge job, the sensible approach would be for Israel to accept the assistance of aid agencies, which is being offered to it. It would also be helpful, to encourage people to leave their homes, if Israel guaranteed they would be allowed to return, after the fighting. Many fear that, as in 1948, once they move, they won't be permitted to return, and that Israel will just confiscate the land.

Lastly, as the U.S. is now officially calling upon Israel to do, Israel should allow in vital supplies for those who have been caught in the fighting, such as the disabled, the elderly, families with young children, and those in hospitals, who are too sick or injured, to be transported to a refugee camp. Though Hamas brought on the situation, it is still Israel's choice as to how it manages its response. And it is an utterly false argument that, in order to respond, Israel's only option requires an ignoring of collateral civilian losses.


During the U.S. and our allies' fight against ISIS, there was one particular city in which ISIS held up, and did prevent the citizens from escaping. This was Mosul. In 9 months of the most devastating urban warfare since WW2, there were 9,000 civilian deaths in that city, in the campaign to defeat ISIS. We have already seen about 9,000 civilian deaths, in just 3 weeks, of Israel's campaign against Hamas.

While considering the civilian death toll does complicate the equation for Israel, it does not prevent their responding; this is not a valid excuse, for Israel to ignore that aspect of their offensive.


<Google Snip>
Described by some military commanders as the deadliest urban combat since World War II, the battle to drive ISIS out of Mosul was brutal and grueling. Shot over the course of the nine-month battle, “Mosul” follows four young Iraqi soldiers tasked with leading the fight.
https://www.pbs.org › documentary
Mosul | FRONTLINE - PBS
<End>

 

@modernpaladin

It had been kind of last minute, that I'd tried to include an actual video clip from the FRONTLINE documentary on Mosul. I ended up copying the entire, 38 minute film, then ran out of time, before I could get just the trailer. I don't know if you're interested in either but, in case the whole thing is too long, but you wouldn't mind taking a look at the trailer, here it is:

 

By the title of thread I knew exactly what you were getting at. There is no simple answer… but the fact is that the good guys have to do what’s necessary to insure good prevails over evil. At all costs? Yes, sad but true. Does that bring us down to their level?…. possibly, but they started it and should know that pay-backs are hell

 

Why?

 

Wrong, according to most of the world-- though maybe North Korea, Iran, Russia, and a couple others may agree with you. One with that attitude, of willing acceptance of "at all costs," tends to view whatever seems the quickest & easiest method, to be synonymous with "what's necessary," when, in truth it is often more the convenient, rather than the necessary, course.

The Geneva Conventions do not preclude the killing of civilians: they only require the incorporation of considering PROPORTIONALITY, which means weighing the strategic military advantage gained by any action, against the expected, collateral costs. IOW, they do not prevent an army from doing whatever it truly needs to, in order to prevail. They do require recognizing that not every operation is essential to the overall success of the war effort, if the military advantage gained is slight, but the civilian cost is heavy. It also requires that an army be willing to look at alternative options for achieving an end, beyond those which might kill the most non combatants. To be of the mindset that anything that has any effect at all on one's enemy, no matter how high the civilian cost, is automatically justified, because you are the "good guys," is an uncivilized approach to war (as much as civilized warfare may seem an oxymoron), and will insure that, in your conflict, there will be no good guys.

 

your solution to the Hamas attacks on Israel?

 

The winners will be the "good guys" and the losers will be the "bad guys". That is simply how history plays out more times than not. This is just a plain old-fashioned war of the roses we need to stay out of. The entire Middle East is going to have to find their own way to modernity, and it will be brutal.

 

You have such a low opinion of the Israeli military, that you do not think they are capable of destroying Hamas unless they violate the Geneva Conventions?

 

Are you seriously trying to align me with some of the evilest nations on Earth… you need to get a life.

 

I like your optimism, but I see you have a clue that it won’t be pretty

 

your solution? Have you had any experience in this area?

 

It was you, who'd said that the supposed "good guys," need to do whatever they think "necessary, to insure good prevails over evil. At all costs." FYI-- EVERYBODY thinks of themselves as "the good guys." So you just laid out the recipe for no-rules warfare. IOW: YOU aligned yourself with the evilest nations on Earth (not me).

You should either to give more thought to your arguments; give more consideration to the arguments replied to your argument, before responding; or get a conscience.

 

WTF-- Does world history since the Second World War, count? Are Hamas the first military group, to hide among civilians? How would you respond to the proposition that, during the Vietnam war, since it was impossible to tell, among civilians, who might be V.C. (Viet Cong), the American soldiers had the right to burn to the ground every village they came across, and kill every inhabitant: man, woman, or child? If not-- what is the difference?

Or, are you familiar with a more recent war, on a group named ISIS? Were you aware that they kept captive, the citizens of Mosul, which the allies then needed to assault to take, street by street, leaving the city, by the end, in ruins? That battle took 9 months. Do you know how many civilian casualties it generated? The same number as have been killed by Israel, in the first three weeks of their campaign: 9000. And Israel is just now preparing to enter their first city, with ground troops. So please, Mr. purported expert, crunch those numbers for me, and explain how they are not "excessive."

 

I think I need to sleep… I have to work for a living and replying to you is so damn irrelevant in my little world.

ETA and BTW: Hope you all don’t mind if I make some comments about posts here. Just remember that doesn’t mean I’m looking for an everlasting debate.

 

All I did, was reply to your post; FYI-- best to be prepared for that possibility, when you post your argument, in a debate thread.

Maybe you'd feel more comfortable, sticking with the "Casual Chat," forum.

 

The civilians need to inform IDF forces of the location of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad forces.

Unless the civilians are collaborators, in which case their collaboration is putting them in grave danger.

 

Arm more Israelis. Where the Israelis were prepared to defend themselves, Hamas didn't get very far.

 

Their collaboration with Israel puts them in greater danger. To get them helping Israel, Israel needs to do whatever it can to make that as safe as possible for them. It also needs to try to win their hearts and minds as much as possible. Israeli public officials equating Palestinians generally to Hamas and calling them animals doesn't help.

Israel has a right to protect itself. It has a need to protect itself. Protecting itself requires more than military force. It requires swaying people away from rather than pushing them towards radicalization into Hamas thinking.

 

We even teach our children a sneak attack on Christmas day was a good thing.

 

Really? You live in the Democratic Republic of the Congo?

That's kind of odd, I was never taught that it was a good thing but a tactic used in the war by General Washington.

 

that works for the jihadist terrorists that attacked in hang gliders etc. won't stop the rockets

 

I assume you wouldn't be so cavalier about human beings you give a damn about, including children, being blown to bits.

 

Are you referring to Israeli citizens who support Netanyahu's government?