Meanwhile on the International front....

When the argument has shifted to "some war crimes are worse than others," it's probably time to just make this a news thread.

 

I did not say that the IDF would willfully and intentionally slaughter people or decapitate captives. There are war crimes and war crimes.

OTOH, it is not uncommon for soldiers in the heat of battle to make snap decisions which they regret for the rest of their lives, be it calling in artillery or tossing a grenade to clear a room only to find that only women and children were sheltering there. There have been many cases where a grenade got tossed in when the soldier *knew* who was in there and did it anyway. I am not accusing the IDF of anything that hasn't happened with any army including our own. Unlimited war in a small urban space will inevitably produce horrors.

 

No, some war crimes are worse than others. The Holocaust was far worse than My Lai. This did not mean that My Lai wasn't also a war crime.

 

That doesn't justify a comparison of what the IDF might to do the tactics of Hamas or Nazi Germany. If that isn't what you meant in this post, I apologize.

 

Going to war even knowing that will mean there will be unintended civilian casualties is vastly different from targeting civilians with a terrorist attack. That is the primary difference between what Israel is doing and might do and what Hamas did and will do again if it continues to exist.

 

As many posts as I have made on this board, or hell, on this thread, you know better. You're over the top angry, I get that, and I understand why. I knew that using that example would likely piss off a couple of the most inflamed recent posters. It was a deliberate choice to make you stop and think. If you don't want such comparisons made, don't act in such a way as to invite them. Thus far Israel has shown restraint. It has allowed time for diplomacy to attempt to find a way out other than going in there and killing everyone who is so much as suspected of being involved. Full credit for that choice. I know it isn't easily done.

That said, going into the Strip in unlimited urban warfare is a choice that will all but inevitably lead to excesses, whether they are the choice of soldiers or commanders or the simple result of the law of averages and the number of shells and bombs. Hamas is a small percentage of the population, and you can bet that most of the planners will have gotten their asses well clear by now if they could.

 

I appreciate that clarification. The problem is that the definition of "an acceptable level of unintended civilian casualties" is going to vary widely according to who is making that judgement. If Israel's level exceeds that of the world at large too much (and Israel has a history of not caring much about outside opinions in such matters) it risks alienating its biggest international supporters.

 

Not to belabor the point, but the IDF used white phosphorous artillery rounds over civilian positions in Gaza in 2009, and was caught doing so.

https://www.hrw.org/video-photos/ph...re-israels-unlawful-use-white-phosphorus-gaza

In 2010 and again in 2013 it said it had stopped using WP.

Israel to limit use of white phosphorus in conflicts - CNN.com

Israel 'to stop using white phosphorus shells'

So it's relevant to the discussion here - not only about violence or horror or war, but about the utter futility of those things to resolve conflict.

As has been said, an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind.

 

Notice I didn't use the word acceptable. I would never refer to civilian deaths as acceptable, regardless of the situation or number.

 

It isn't an eye for an eye unless they start to target, torture, and slaughter civilians in the most brutal way possible, including beheadings and chopping off limbs.

 

Before anything else, Israel denied it. How many times do we need to go through this? I've heard over and over on this thread and elsewhere about all of Israel's war crimes: The imminent genocide when they first amassed troops for a ground invasion that nearly 2 weeks later is still on hold; the targeting of a hospital slaughtering 500+ innocent Palestinians. I saw the pictures, but I also saw pictures of the leveled hospital that turned out never to have been destroyed.

 

The comparisons are not justified, regardless of the reason. That's not anger. That is my evaluation of what is happening and what may come next. Just because I say that the comparison is out of line doesn't mean I'm angry or hold it against you. Your post isn't what is making me angry, but it comes close enough to what is drawing my ire that I can see why you might think so.

Make no mistake. I am angry. First and foremost, I'm angry at what Hamas did. I'm angry that Israel left itself more vulnerable due in large part to the selfishness and failures of Netanyahu. I'm angry that there are some hateful bigots in this country using this as an excuse for their anti-Judiasm. I am angry at ignorant jackasses protesting Israel without understanding that it is Hamas committing atrocities, then hiding behind Palestinian civilians. I am angry those jackasses don't understand that it is Hamas betraying its own people and getting them killed. I'm angry that they don't understand that Hamas's goal isn't a safe and secure homeland for Palestinians. It is the destruction of Israel and slaughter of Jews. I'm disgusted by hearing Americans chanting about driving Jews into the sea, many of them not even realizing that is what they are doing. I'm angry about Republicans misrepresenting all of this for political gain.

Yeah, I'm pissed, as I should be.