...So proportionality applies only to Israel and not the US in 1941? Why do you apply this principle so selectively?

Hamas aims to eliminate Israel/Jews; Israel aims to eliminate Hamas. Perfectly proportional. In the long run it works out better for the Palestinians who will no longer be oppressed by Hamas. Call it liberation. — BitconnectCarlos

Of course you have a good point and of course your opponents won't address it. America and UK killed so many women and children in WW2 they make Israel look like pikers. Were these Allied bombings disproportional? Maybe. Does it matter? No. The Axis started the war and they reaped the consequences. Same with Hamas.

But if you press the Hamas sympathizers here on who should have won WW2, you won't get an answer. The logic of their position forces them to be silent on that, for obvious reasons. Whereas the pro-Israel side can answer confidently, "Yes, the Allies should have won WW2", which is of course the right answer.

If you truly think they are comparable, you are out of your mind.

So what? Israel is limited to inflicting 1200 deaths on Hamas/Palestine but the US isn't when it's attacked?

Who should have won WW2? The Axis or Allies?

:up:

:rofl:

That's not a reasonable question to ask. And, I didn't indicate i approved of the Hiroshima./Nagasaki bombings anyway. The level of assumptions you're making to even ask these question is bizarre. Calm down.

I don't care. It was seventy years ago, and I wasn't there, nor do i have accurate understanding of the circumstances beyond the macro, and in the macro, it doesn't matter. The allies won.

↪RogueAI I don't care. It was seventy years ago, and I wasn't there, nor do i have accurate understanding of the circumstances beyond the macro, and in the macro, it doesn't matter. The allies won. — AmadeusD

Like I said, they won't answer that very simple question: who should have won WW2?
That tells you everything about their position.

Who should have won WW2? The Axis or Allies? — RogueAI

What's the relevance to the current Israel-Hamas conflict?

If you showed something resembling a reasonability to the subject, you might be getting answers.

Currently you're behaving like a derranged Twitter user that thinks a kafka-trap is an argument.

I don't know who should have won WWII, because I don't have the requisite information to answer the question. It's also 100% irrelevant and an indication that you mildly deranged by this topic

If an admission of a gap in knowledge sufficient to answer a glib, stupid question is a problem for you please feel free to continue that utterly indefensible nonsense you call an argument on your own.

That tells you everything about their position. — RogueAI

Sorry, this is a great indicator you have absolutely no interest in anything but finding enemies to be pissed off at. Not my circus.

How do you want Israel to respond when 1200 of its own are murdered by a terrorist group? Consider that the US went to war after 9/11. I don't see anything outlandish about Israel's response here when compared with the US.

Why would I consider that? I haven't given any opinion on it whatsoever, and it isn't relevant.

Equivocating between several completely disparate retaliatory military actions sin't very helpful.

But for what it's worth I was at the time, and continue to be convinced the war in Iraq was a moral mistake.

I don't see anything outlandish about Israel's response here when compared with the US. — BitconnectCarlos

What does this matter?? It simply doesn't matter. It is an entirely different topic with almost nothing to be read across.

It sounds as if you're saying the USA sets the benchmark and we should work from that as 'correct'. I reject that entirely, so you're not asking questions that make any sense to me.

Not Iraq, Afghanistan. Invading/striking afghanistan was the immediate response to 9/11, Iraq came 2 years later - and was completely uninvolved in 9/11. I do see parallels between 9/11 and 10/7 but the two are certainly not the same.

I was stupidly imprecise, and was meant to impugn "the war on terror" such as it was.

I'm getting tired. If you were the leader of Israel or America or any given country, and a horde of barbaric criminals crossed into your border to murder 1200 of your civilians and raped and mutilated along the way what is the proper response? Consider that the leader of the horde vows to repeat the massacre as much as possible.

, US, Britain carry out strikes against Houthis in Yemen, officials say (Reuters)

Looks like the next step towards escalation. I doubt it was unexpected by the Houthis and Iran, and I wonder what their reaction will be.

Hosea's warning, "For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind" (Hosea 8:7) comes to mind. The consequences of an act may exceed proportionality.

The warning cuts both ways. Who sowed the wind and who will reap the whirlwind? Israel, Hamas, or both of them?

Israel's response to the Hamas attack on October 7 is disproportionate. Disproportionate retaliation is always a risk in war. When Israel began its retaliation, some people were saying that Israel was playing into Hamas's plan. If Hamas wanted an overwhelming response, we ought not complain about them getting it.

Israel's retaliation is proportionate in the context of its history. It is engaged in a long struggle to establish for itself a secure homeland. Previous attacks on Israel have resulted in at least vigorous Israeli armed self-defense. Hamas was surely aware of what would happen to them and to Gaza after the massacre they carried out.

The purpose of a disproportionate retaliation is to strongly discourage future attacks.

Maybe Israel is reaching the end of useful disproportionality. Literally destroying every last standing building in Gaza on its way to killing every last Hamas fighter would be, may already be, disproportionate--think diminishing returns. Has Israel killed enough Hamas fighters? Who knows? Killing them all will result in many MORE civilian deaths -- something that was inevitable from the getgo in a densely populated territory with Hamas as an embedded enemy.

I can answer that: moral and cultural superiority means Israël can do whatever it wants because they're the good guys. All allied war crimes are excused and were justified because the Nazis were the bad guys.

Zion-über-alles! :strong:

There's not much reason to take the WWII comparisons seriously anyway. If people want to argue Israel and Hamas are engaged in total war, they have no basis to condemn Hamas' actions because it is simply fighting according to the rules by which such a war is fought.

Deliberate targeting of civilians would still be illegal/unethical though and there is a right to reciprocate. But Israel clearly escalated beyond any reasonable proportionality.

Hamas aims to eliminate Israel/Jews; Israel aims to eliminate Hamas. Perfectly proportional. In the long run it works out better for the Palestinians who will no longer be oppressed by Hamas. Call it liberation.

Liberation if they survive as a people.

Whether the Gazan’s as a people survive this offensive seems not to matter to the Israeli’s. The collective punishment and limiting of aid demonstrates this.

To starve an entire captive population so as to restrict the resources of a small number of militants is disproportionate. To reduce a whole country to rubble for the same reasons is disproportionate.

And counterproductive.

they have no basis to condemn Hamas' actions because it is simply fighting according to the rules by which such a war is fought. — Tzeentch

And the rules are? Give me two of them as precisely as you can.

But Israel clearly escalated beyond any reasonable proportionality. — Benkei

And the reasonable proportionality formula is? In your immense wisdom, do you have an equation to show us?

The dictates of public conscience. I'm sorry for you if you think this needs quantifying. Maybe find a moral compass before asking moral questions.

public conscience — Benkei

"Public conscience" of which country? Should there be a referendum to establish it? Or a phone survey is enough? How large is the sample?

Maybe find a moral compass before asking moral questions. — Benkei

Maybe in your immense wisdom you can try to explain to me what that even means. What is the moral compass one needs BEFORE asking moral questions. Show me yours.

If Israel were rational, they would just call it a "victory" and just stop the damn thing. — Manuel

Witnesses told Reuters that the raids targeted a military base adjacent to Sanaa airport, a military site near Taiz airport, a Houthi naval base in Hodeidah and military sites in Hajjah governorate.

Note one thing missing here:

The U.S. said Australia, Bahrain, Canada and the Netherlands supported the operation, and sought to present the strikes as part of an international effort to restore the free flow of trade in a key route between Europe and Asia that accounts for about 15% of the world's shipping traffic.

This shows how incompetent the Biden administration, and US diplomacy in general, has become and how the US isn't able to take the leadership role.

So the US and British attack Houthi sites.

What about France?

France is also protecting it's vessels and has also shot down drones, but apparently frustrated at the pace (and obviosly where the US is just protecting it's own vessels, the NATO country is now working on it's own.

What about Norway? Or Denmark?

Tiny nations, but the Danish Maersk is the one of the largest (if not the largest) container shipping firms in the World and Norway already onboard the operation Prosperity Guardian.

What about the EU in general?

The EU had it's operation Atalanta there to fight Somali piracy, and actually Somali piracy stopped in 2017 until this year as the Houthis picked up their campaign. How difficult would it have been to get the EU support this operation?

What about India?

India was pissed of from attacks close to it's borders and Indian forces have been active in fighting piracy (or privateers perhaps in this case).

All above simply show the degeneration of US foreign politics and the unability to create large scale alliances. Long time has gone from the time when the US could bolster an awesome alliance to get Iraq out of Kuwait with UN resolutions and all that. It simply the total lack to do that. Haven't seen the foreign secretary going to countries to get nations around this. To simply talk about free navigation of shipping could in my view easily have gotten countries like Japan, the EU countries and South Korea, perhaps even India to commit to this. And this is very perilous, especially if (and when) Trump comes to be the next president.

* * *

Btw now the whole Arab league is supporting South Africa's legal case:

The Arab League has voiced support for South Africa's genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over its deadly military offensive in the Gaza Strip.

So I guess that's the end for Biden's attempts to "normalize" relations between Saudi-Arabia and Israeli in the continuation of the Abraham records. Accusing a country of genocide and then normalizing relations doesn't go hand in hand. :snicker:

As I said, if this isn't apparent to you, I'm not wasting my time answering dumb questions.

Read the Geneva and the Hague conventions if you have problems wrapping your head around which principles are involved. Or alternatively grow a conscience.

Read the Geneva and the Hague conventions if you have problems wrapping your head around which principles are involved. Or alternatively grow a conscience. — Benkei

Even if I read those conventions, you may question my understanding of them. So, in your immense wisdom, point me where exactly the Geneva and the Hague conventions specify the reasonable proportionality formula or equation. Or where "public conscience" to establish "reasonable proportionality" is specified for proper assessment.

Or alternatively grow a conscience. — Benkei

Help me grow it with your immense wisdom, Holy Benkei. If it was enough your injunction "grow a conscience" to make grow one in somebody, we would be living in a moral paradise already, wouldn't we?

No. And you haven't read those conventions or you would already have the answer. But nice try hiding your ignorance behind sarcasm.

neomac
No. And you haven't read those conventions or you would already have the answer. But nice try hiding your ignorance behind sarcasm. — Benkei

Yep you really gave me a lesson, Holy Benkei. I tried so hard to hide my immense ignorance. But you, in your immense wisdom, showed to the world how immense your wisdom is, didn't you? But what if I claimed I read them and the answer is NO, THERE IS NO EQUATION NOR FORMULA TO ASSESS REASONABLE PROPORTIONALITY OR PUBLIC CONSCIENCE IN THOSE CONVENTIONS! Prove to the world that I'm a liar, Holy Benkei.

Stop acting like a dumb shit. Let's go back to: I'm sorry for you if you think this needs quantifying.

The Martens clause leads interpretation.

Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued, the High Contracting Parties think it right to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity and the requirements of the public conscience.

The Geneva Conventions exclude breaking its rules even if the other party does (unless specifically stated otherwise) right there in article 1 and 3 of the convention. So Israel has a right to (counter)attack but not a right to breach the conventions. The disproportionality is apparent in the means chosen, collective punishment and deliberate targetting of civilians, which are all prohibited under the various conventions. Put in other words, excessive violence when acting in alleged self-defence, even if we accept a case of self-defence, is still illegal under international law and therefore disproportional.

More on reciprocity in humanitarian law: https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/S0020860400022178a.pdf

However, the real problem here is that you need laws to tell you what is ethically abundantly clear to anyone with a conscience (that's how it ended up as law, because people with a conscience realised it had to be written down). So this is my last reply to you as I don't want to engage with murderous idiots here or in real life.