you didn't even remember your own post but let me give you some context - this is the post that started the discussion



it was the proposal of a siege and starvation of all gazans - the discussion isn't about whether or not it is happening, it is about the strategy itself and whether it's acceptable. we went on to discuss ihl rule 55, the geneva convention and the principles of proportionality / distinction...to which proximity ultimately posted their response around the strategy being absurd

you then responded to that post saying you didnt understand the argument and questioned why israel should be responsible for gazans well being - you didn't say that you don't believe it is happening which i think what your post is saying now? i'm not trying to twist your words here
just to clarify so that we can align and continue this discussion, when it comes to the strategy itself of starving a civilian population, do you think that is within israel's right and aligned to the principle of proportionality?

Lol... I don't remember the content of every post I make, and the reason I asked for you to quote it is because I knew you were mischaracterizing it, which you were.

The post I responded to did not quote the post you quoted. The guy didn't quote anything. The thread is hundreds of pages long, why would you assume I read all of it?

Why didn't you just quote that post when our little spat started? It would've made more sense to me. I don't know that proportionality would be relevant because Hamas murdered and raped civilians but ManyName's proposal obviously would include war crimes.

I like sparring intellectually but you started with a false premise... in the future you should try to clarify the arguments, as I think I have. I asked for clarification on proportionality/distinction and it took a few posts for you to reveal that the situation was hypothetical.

This post was edited by IceMage on May 12 2024 06:30pm

1. i'm not sure i understand your first point about mischaracterizing - what was i mischaracterizing? that we were talking about many name's proposed starvation strategy? if so, how did you know i was mischaracterizing it if you weren't aware of their earlier post?

2. you're the one who misinterpreted proximity's comment from an ongoing discussion - even they replied with just an lol, why would i assume anything different? and your response to that comment doesn't make it apparent that you were questioning whether or not it was happening - maybe you should try to familiarize your self with the ongoing discussion posts in the future so you dont misinterpret a comment from an ongoing discussion that has been going for the last few pages.

3. you mentioned "I don't know that proportionality would be relevant because Hamas murdered and raped civilians" - why wouldn't the principle of proportionality be relevant and why are you basing that determination on war crimes committed by hamas?

4. also if you can answer my earlier question about whether you think the strategy is within israel's right with a yes or no that would be great

1. You were mischaracterizing because you falsely believed my post was aligned with that guy, even though I never referred to his post, and the post I responded to never quoted his post.

2. Uhh... this is a political forum. When you respond to something, you quote it. This guy didn't. So the confusion on your part is a result of that.

3. I guess my point is that Hamas doesn't abide by normal rules, like proportionality or distinction. So holding Israel to that standard doesn't really make sense.

4. What strategy?

maybe you should go back and read your own post? even with proximity's comment as a stand alone, your post does not make it sound that you are disagreeing that it is happening but rather why it seems acceptable: "Why is Israel the actor responsible for protecting Palestinian life? If the Palestinians elected Hamas, and chose to remain with them after the attempted genocide on Israel, they should accept the consequences." - you're the one who is trying to back pedal now and twist your own words.

and again, you said you knew i was mischaracterizing it - how did you know if you never referred to the post or if it wasn't quoted by proximity?

as i mentioned earlier, one party committing war crimes does not excuse the other from performing them as well - it's not about what makes sense to you, it's what the international law, rulings and conventions state

you asked for a serious response and look how you answer the 4th question - you're a waste of time, i'm not interested in this nonsense - especially from someone who has no idea what's going on or how to properly articulate their ideas

Yuck

I'm probably closer aligned with John Fetterman than I am with Mehmet Oz, at any rate

Virtually the entire population of North Korea has lived under the rule of the Kim family without a single democratic election, and yet clearly if Kim Jong Un were to decide to invade South Korea tomorrow a lot of otherwise innocent North Koreans would have to die. It's impossible to prosecute a war without collateral damage. From a Hamas-apologist point of view, it was wrong to invade Germany at the tail end of WWII and a negotiated peace with the Nazi party was the appropriate answer. They should own that but they won't.



Your link clearly states that Hamas is the democratically elected government in Gaza. It then goes on to spin this as Bush's fault specifically because Bush allowed for a democratic election in Gaza and didn't manipulate the democratic process by banning Hamas. I.e. Hamas wasn't democratically elected but it was also Bush's fault that Hamas was democratically elected. Absolutely insane double-think.

This post was edited by bogie160 on May 12 2024 09:58pm

Why should moral culpability enter the equation to begin with? If we judge the world on their beliefs and willingness to embrace terrorism or genocide, there are plenty more than just hamas and the palestinians. Most of the Arab world now aligned loosely with Israel because of their common Persian threat would still gladly throw a Jew down a well. It is incumbent upon Israel to minimize collateral damage and protect Palestinian lives no matter whether they are worthy or not, any noncombatants no matter if they are sworn blood enemies. When you conquer a place, you become responsible for it and its people, and I'd like to think the Knesset won't approve building pyramids of skulls like the mongol horde once did

Are there many dead Gazans from famine yet ? I keep hearing and reading about it here for over two month now so I’m wondering if it’s still a thing ? Are people buying the Palestinian propaganda?