"unless, in Putin Land, conquest ISN'T a bloody, nasty business, and is instead sunshine and rainbows?"

Conquest isn't always bloody. This isn't conquest. This is punitive terror bombing of civilians. You completely misunderstood what I said and keep trotting out this line over and over and over again to deflect from your shameful defense of bombing schools and hospitals.

I said that conquest is a solution to an interminable, repeated, violent series of wars. It was not a call to conquer. It is a way out of a violent conflict.

Now, continue to distort what I said because that's your excuse to deflect.

"Conquest isn't always bloody."

...Uh-huh.

Of course not.

Does anyone take this line of reasoning seriously, WebDippers?

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/67/conquest

He must mean this :-)

Let me just Google that term, Putin...

"con·quest
ˈkänˌkwest,ˈkäNG-/
noun
noun: conquest

the subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force.
"the conquest of the Aztecs by the Spanish"
synonyms: defeat, vanquishment, annihilation, overthrow, subjugation, rout, mastery, crushing; More
victory over, triumph over;
informalbeatdown
"the conquest of the Aztecs"
seizure, takeover, capture, occupation, invasion, acquisition, appropriation, subjugation, subjection
"their conquest of the valley"
a territory that has been gained by the use of subjugation and military force.
plural noun: conquests
"colonial conquests"
the invasion and assumption of control of England by William of Normandy in 1066.
singular proper noun: Conquest; noun: the Conquest"

So...military force...that's not bloody...
The Aztecs and the Spanish, TOTALLY not bloody...
William the Conqueror, well, THAT wasn't a bloody affair at all..
Those synonyms, "seizure, takeover, capture, occupation, invasion, acquisition, appropriation, subjugation, subjection," NONE of those are bloody...

Yep! Truly, conquest is the peaceful, bloodless way out!

LOL. Well, so much for keeping the thread not derailed.
I'm off. Play nice.

Personal challenge to each of you: try to make each post *without* referencing another WebDipper.

obiwan, as in the previous thread where you ignored repeated posts by Chairman about Israel breaking ceasefires, now you are ignoring repeated posts from Putin about the fact that the schools Israel bombed were not the ones with missiles stored in them.

I'll state this again in the hope that you notice it this time, because I think you need to respond to it.

So, once again - Putin has pointed out that the schools which were bombed - and in which sheltering children were murdered - were NOT the same sites as the *abandoned*, empty former UN schools in which Hamas fighters were storing equipment.

Is it your position that if Hamas stores missiles in one school building, that means it's ok for Israel to bomb *every* school?

@ TheMinisterOfWar: I reject your challenge, sorry. In a debate, when one particular contributor makes a statement you feel is wrong, it is quite normal to make reference to them when rebutting it. You might as well ask Ed Miliband to make sure he never mentions David Cameron when speaking in Parliament.

"Another question: how much collateral damage is acceptable in the defense of Israel?"

Few questions are able to be used as a "How often do you beat your wife" question for both sides of the debate. From the palestinian view of course no loss of innocent human life is "acceptable" and if that is your guiding principle Israel would be unable to deal with rocket fire from Gaza or Lebanon with force or the threat of force. A palestinian supporter would say 1 dead is far too much and that whoever that dead is, Israel murdered the individual. While I would suggest that erring toward this side, it is the best for Israel as well as easily the best for humanity, can you expect a democratic state to accept rockets fired unanswered into the vicinity of your friends, family and yourself. You can't. Despite what I feel about the situation Israelis under those conditions are going to elect individuals who respond vigorously which seen in another way, is heartlessly.

On the other hand, an Israeli will ask you the same exact question from another perspective, "Ok... how much collateral damage is acceptable in the defense of Israel" I have seen this exact question used to demonstrate that since there is no threshold that we can point to that is acceptable, Israel must ignore such false metrics when ensuring it's safety. "Is 10 dead civilians alright for the security of my country and its citizens? 100? 1000?: All answers are absurd because death is wrong in any quantity. An Israeli Hawk will answer your question by saying that Israel will accomplish objectives while trying to lower civilian casualties but the only way to ensure Israel's security would be to accomplish those objectives even if it causes casualties. If the goal of Hamas stopping rocket fire/attacks is not agreed to there will be more casualties while attempting to stop Hamas. Yet stepping back as a human, is 1000 dead too much, yes, is 100 dead too much yes, is 10 dead too much yes, is 1 dead too much YES.

Did you really expect a number answer to your question? There are only two answers people will give.

Zero
and
How ever many it takes

Is someone going to say 47, or 100, or 826
No, or if they do they will be shouted down from both sides for selecting an arbtrary number.

Now some people will reach a place where they say that "this is enough!" or "this is madness!" That is related to the way Israeli actions are carried out and justified more than a number. So the onus is on the action, not any bull shit number

So the real question is, what actions are acceptable in the defense of Israel, which leads to the question what actions are effective in the defense of the state of Israel.

The answer to that question is that since the second intifada, military action has not effectively defended Israel in the long term. Every two years this thing happens again.

In the gatekeepers, the nasty men that once led the Shin Bet (that's Israel's domestic spy agency Obi) said unequivocally that there is no Military solution to this crisis, the solution must be political.

Yet what we are seeing is yet another attempt to militarily enforce Israeli security in a way that makes that long term political solution completely untenable.

This campaign was wrong from the first Palestinian who was killed

While that came out as a Machiavellian argument, it wasn't meant to be. I am not saying "If killing lots and lots Palestinians was effective Israel should do it."

+1 Santa. Well said.

Of course I'm not searching for this arbitrary number, but I feel like this reflective question is not really answered enough. Especially in reference to actual military objectives. Because punishing those responsible for the abduction of those three kids, or destroying the tunnels, or making sure no rockets ever land on Israel*, are those goals worth this much innocent lives?

And yes, Hamas has also killed many innocents, among which many Palestinians. And yes, they are a repressive organization that uses and abuses many innocents civilians in Gaza. But it's a pretty weak defense to claim superiority over an organization you claim are murderous terrorists anyway imho.

It reminds me of this whole Ground Zero Mosque thing. People said that a church would never be allowed in Mecca either. THen Bloomberg nailed it in his speech, by saying that that was exactly the difference between Mecca and NY. In NY you can actually build a religious institution, NY has higher standards than Mecca.

Btw, Jamiet, one would hope that if Cameron and Milliband are discussing how to improve Education, they would in fact be more concerned with improving education than being concerned with how many votes they'll get by making a witty and sharp remark about the other person. One can always hope.

*) circle the military objective you prefer

"obiwan, as in the previous thread where you ignored repeated posts by Chairman about Israel breaking ceasefires, now you are ignoring repeated posts from Putin about the fact that the schools Israel bombed were not the ones with missiles stored in them."

Not only have I not ignored them, I felt I already addressed it with my previous comments--

Hamas has used a UN school to hide weapons three times (or at least has been caught doing so three times.)

That makes UN schools suspect in terms of their neutrality.

To illustrate the point I'm trying to make, Jamiet--

Substitute "brush" for "UN schools," and "guerrilla fighters" for "weapons."

Picture yourself on the ground, now, as a soldier...
You've seen at least three times a fighter come out of the brush to shoot a friend...
Does that mean that all the brush contains militants?
No.
Does it mean that you're going to shoot first and ask questions later at the first sign of ANYTHING moving in those bushes?
Probably, or at least your likelihood of doing probably increase.

That's what happens when Hamas fires in civilian areas/hospitals and hides weapons they use to fire at people in UN schools--

ALL such areas become suspect...and even if the UN said "School X is clean," as they didn't know about or else suppressed the other cases of weapons being hidden in schools...how can you trust information coming from a source that, at best, has been fooled repeatedly by the enemy and is therefore deeply fallible and not wholly reliable?

Hamas made those schools targets, and the UN failed and has failed to provide credible intelligence about them, as they've been fooled by Hamas repeatedly and essentially been made to either look complicit or else like fools who don't know what's being stored right under their very noses.

Under such circumstances, every such area becomes a target or POTENTIAL target...and if that seems unfair, recall that brush analogy again--fair or no, do you want to take the chance? Even if you say yes, people on the ground and in a war zone tend to have different priorities...and, thanks to evolution that gives us a sense of self-preservation, faster trigger fingers.

Your analogy is false. We are not talking about soldiers in "the brush", who might be in immediate fear of their lives. We are talking about air strikes.

I have Obi muted .... it is a thing of beauty, the gift that never stops giving :-)

But the uncertainty factor is the same, Jamiet--they don't know what's in those schools...even if they're told one is clean, they've been told that before and the UN was either lying or wrong...

If you're Israel, would you rather take the chance, or not?

It's morally wrong to target a place that's supposed to be neutral, but if you're not sure that it really is, and you think it might destroy weapons that could be used to kill your own people?

I can't fault Israeli command for putting the lives of its soldiers and people ahead of the lives of others...that's Thomas Hobbes State of Nature/Reason to Form a State 101--a state is, first and foremost, for protection...even if that protection comes at the cost of others.

That is NOT moral. It IS understandable thinking, however, that's the difference I've been struggling to make clear for hundreds of posts now...

There's a middle ground between the Netanyahu-worshipping "The Israelis are paragons of virtue unmatched by anyone" and "The Israelis are monsters," as our dear friend Putin came so close to saying.

There's especially a middle ground in war, and especially when the rules of war are broken by both sides...because war, while it's often claimed to be waged on the principles of morality, is in practice anything but moral, so what's "right" and what's "understandable" are too very, very different things, and I'm just asking for more sympathy for/understanding of the latter.

You don't have to like what Israel's doing...but I'd argue to wholly demonize their actions is pretty short-sighted, unless you really and truly think you could do better in their place...and if you could, 1. Well, what's keeping you, go fix the world! ;) and 2. Even so...as many a failed peace negotiator has discovered, it's easy to say, "Well, *I* could fix this, and without the bloodshed!" while divorced from said bloodshed.

It's a very different view of things when the bombs or rockets are coming at you, and thus both sides are not so willing to forgive...not moral, but very understandable.

I love not having anyone muted..

At least THAT way I can say that, no matter how repellent I find someone, I don't shut people out for daring to disagree with me. Must be lonely in an echo chamber...

"they don't know what's in those schools"

They know there are innocent people, including children, sheltering in them, because the UN has told them. And still they take the decision to kill those people, to kill those children.

I reserve the right to wholly demonise that wholly demonic action, just as I reserve the right to call the fire bombing of Dresden by the allies during WWII a war crime.

@ Obi:

Would you consider Israel's actions to be:
1) violations international humanitarian law and/or
2) war crimes?

TheMinisterOfWar

Would you consider Hamas's actions to be:
1) violations international humanitarian law and/or
2) war crimes?

"1) violations international humanitarian law and/or
2) war crimes?"

In both cases I would need:

1. Clarifications as to SPECIFIC actions (as I think classifying every last thing every last Israeli soldier did in this a war crime or violation...and beyond that, I mean specific instances, not just "hitting a school," but all the surrounding instances.)

AND

2. What the motivations vs. what the actual actions were.

"They know there are innocent people, including children, sheltering in them, because the UN has told them."

^That's the problem RIGHT THERE--

The UN is NOT a credible source in this instance from the perspective of the Israelis, because they've been wrong or have lied at least 3 times before...

The UN can say those schools are empty, but what reason does Israel have to actually believe them, when they've either lied or have themselves been duped 3 times already?

"And still they take the decision to kill those people, to kill those children."

I forget if it was you or someone else--it might've been bo_sox?--who asked me if I would torture or kill someone in order to prevent a terrorist attack...

I said if A. there were absolutely, 100% no other way to do it and B. I could be magically guaranteed, 100%, that such an interrogation would work and would stop that attack, that I would do so.

This case is less severe, obviously, but I feel the basic principle still applies--

Are you willing to shell an area/potentially kill someone else in order to ensure other people won't be attacked?

I've already said that, to Israel, the UN's word means nothing...and I think, Jamiet, you'd have to agree that after at least three failures (in the span of a couple weeks, no less, it wasn't they were wrong thrice in an entire decade) you can at least see where Israel's coming from there. And if they can't trust the UN, and know those places are and have in the past been used as weapons haven...

While Israel would rather neither side be hurt, if they have to choose between civilians getting injured and killed in a blast, or a site potentially storing weapons that will kill their people...while their actions (like my torturing/murdering someone to prevent a terrorist attack) would be morally wrong, I cannot blame them for doing the wrong thing when the right thing could cost lives on their end.

I realize that's a really dark and by no means good thing to say...but I also recognize that at the primal, tribal level--and what is this conflict if not, at its core, tribal?--the instinct for preservation of self and tribe outweighs any sentiment of abstract morality.

That's why, again, I don't call it justified but do say it's understandable, because I think most of us can at least understand that instinct--we can, from the safety of our homes and free of a war zone, scorn it and decry it, and it's a sign of our advanced morality that we do so...but we likewise shouldn't lose fact that we're also doing so from a very, very secure position, where we ourselves likely wouldn't have to face tribal warfare and thus wouldn't be nearly so confronted by that instinct, ugly as it is.

That's part of my issue with the term "war crimes," to be honest--

It assumes a clean and "fair" way to persecute war, when war is anything but fair.

^If you're in a tl;dr mood, the last few paragraphs are the portion I'd direct you to first.

"But the uncertainty factor is the same, Jamiet--they don't know what's in those schools...even if they're told one is clean, they've been told that before and the UN was either lying or wrong..."

"
The UN is NOT a credible source in this instance from the perspective of the Israelis, because they've been wrong or have lied at least 3 times before.."

Not that I can get into this now but you need to cite this claim because it's central to your posts and I'm pretty positive it's a lie.

You're also completely ignoring the instances where Israel shells and bombs homes and infrastructure that have nothing to do with Hamas and are not storing Hamas equipment.... your calculus doesn't exactly work there

I am no middle east expert but If I may add. I am an army cadet studying international relations and military tactics. In my studies we often times have to acknowledge the truth of war. We acknowledge that war is an atrocity which should be avoided at all cost, but when it does rear its ugly head it is paramount to remember that war has no rules. There is no wrong and right in war, only wrong and less wrong. Betrand Russell once said "War does not determine who is right - only who is left". Back to the Gaza situation, Israel has a right to "defend" it's interests whatever those should be. Palestine has a right to defend itself from Israel. The point here should not be to debate who is right or wrong but to find common ground for the two sides. The group preventing that common ground is Hamas who refuses to negotiate under any terms besides their own. I suggest that the best thing to do here is to condemn Israel for invading a smaller state and using weapons the US supplied for nefarious purposes, I suggest internationally condemning Hamas and working with Palestine and Israel to dismantle Hamas, I suggest the US recognize Palestine as a state. The US should and could work like a glue to bind Israel and Palestine together; economically, militarily, and politically. But of course that would require american leadership willing to do so, and European allies to support the effort. That is how peace can be found.

"Not that I can get into this now but you need to cite this claim because it's central to your posts and I'm pretty positive it's a lie."

Cite what, that weapons were found thrice? I posted on that already, MULTIPLE times.

"You're also completely ignoring the instances where Israel shells and bombs homes and infrastructure that have nothing to do with Hamas and are not storing Hamas equipment."

And you're completely ignoring the nature of my claim is that, by fighting an urban war, Hamas makes that urban area a target...meaning that from errant shells (and unless anyone here is going to claim they can shoot with 100% accuracy, I'd suggest putting cynicism aside and accepting that as a possibility in at least some of these cases) to not being sure but shooting anyway because you'd rather keep yourself safe than be sorry, the whole Gaza Strip becomes a target when Hamas refuses to leave urban and populated areas alone.

If you don't want civilian casualties, don't fight where civilians are present...because even in instances where there's no Hamas activity--the four boys who were killed on the beach is a good example--there are GOING to be accidents in war...and if you operate out of the entire Strip, then the whole Strip is going to come under fire, which means that the basic law of probabilities dictate that sooner or later, some shells are going to hit targets that aren't intended.

Hamas chooses the battlefield...they can't complain that civilian areas of Gaza are blown apart when they, by their own actions, make all of Gaza into a battlefield.

The Israeli army would be more than happy to meet them in the open, away from civilians...not only would that cut down on bad PR, but given just how damned effective they are, and how well armed, they'd blow Hamas away once and for all. That's why Hamas makes Gaza its battlefield--far easier to hide and fight in the cities, streets, and underground...and if civilians die, as we've seen, that benefits Hamas and costs Israel in the PR war...so why wouldn't Hamas want to put civilians in danger by choosing an urban battlefield and hiding weapons in UN facilities? Either they use what's supposed to be a neutral place to their advantage, or Israel attacks and they get to howl and scream...as all the while civilian deaths benefit Hamas' political cause.

@CommanderByron:

I like a lot of what you say, particularly the Bertrand Russell bit and the fact that there are no rules in the practical state of warfare...

At the same time, while I would love to see Hamas dismantled, given that Iran and Qatar both fund and arm Hamas and "demilitarizing Hamas," as has been Israel's position throughout this war, would likely involve military action as Hamas' greatest political asset is its ability to lose a war but win the PR war and support through a mutual hatred of Israel, and they're not going to give that up without a fight.

What's more, Hamas doesn't view Israel as a legitimate state, and has vowed a genocide against the Jewish people:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/what-would-hamas-do-if-it-could-do-whatever-it-wanted/375545/

"While it is true that Hamas is expert at getting innocent Palestinians killed, it has made it very plain, in word and deed, that it would rather kill Jews. The following blood-freezing statement is from the group's charter: “The Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realization of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: ‘The day of judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jews will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say ‘O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”

And here, a video, vowing to "exterminate Jews until the last one."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJNdDzweqbY

(Still care to say they're not genocidally-minded against the Jews, Putin?)

So I don't see a dismantling of Hamas that doesn't include what we've just seen--violence--because these are people that want to kill Jews, and won't let anything get in the way of that.

And yes, that IS palwatch, Putin...

But the video's from Hamas' own TV station, Al-Aqsa.

""Our belief about fighting you [Jews] is that we will exterminate you, until the last one, and we will not leave of you, even one. For you are the usurpers of the land, foreigners, mercenaries of the present and of all times. Look at history, brothers: Wherever there were Jews, they spread corruption... (Quran): "They spread corruption in the land, and Allah does not like corrupters." Their belief is destructive. Their belief fulfills the prophecy. Our belief is in obtaining our rights on our land, implementing Shari’ah (Islamic law) under Allah's sky.""

You're right...they're not Anti-Semitic or genocidal AT ALL!

"Hamas chooses the battlefield...they can't complain that civilian areas of Gaza are blown apart when they, by their own actions, make all of Gaza into a battlefield."

Are the Hamas complaints sincere? When Hamas provokes Israel into turning Gaza into an open war zone full of civilian casualties, and Israel obliges by doing just that, Hamas wins. Apart from the obvious disproportionate suffering being inflicted by Israel, I have no idea what Israel's decision makers even think this accomplishes.

"Apart from the obvious disproportionate suffering being inflicted by Israel, I have no idea what Israel's decision makers even think this accomplishes."

1. Destroying those tunnels, as those ARE a violation of national sovereignty,
2. Getting rid of thousands of rockets so they're not fired at Israel,
3. Protecting Israelis from #1 and #2.

"When Hamas provokes Israel into turning Gaza into an open war zone full of civilian casualties, and Israel obliges by doing just that, Hamas wins."

But if Israel DOESN'T fight back, Hamas also wins, as they then 1. Get to rocket Israel and tunnel in and 2. Can boast of hitting Israel and not getting hit back...

Granted, the argument that hitting back is a deterrent is rather played out now since, well, we're decades into "hitting back"--but not hitting back isn't a deterrent, either...and then there's the very real issue of elections. You don't get elected to power on the "I Vow to NOT Fight Back When We Get Rocketed" platform.

And the same goes for Hamas--they get elected because they kill Jews and hurt the Israelis...given how they've funneled millions into building those tunnels into Israel, and how Gaza's economy is stagnated because of both their economic ineptitude and the blockade (which is itself in place because Egypt and Israel jointly take issue with Hamas), the ONLY way they can stay in power is by making Palestinians either happier they've killed Israelis or angrier at those Israelis than they are at Hamas for failing them.

If Israel doesn't attack back, Hamas can claim an uncontested victory, and Israeli politicians are on the hot seat. If Israel does fight back, Hamas claims a victory all the same. It's a lose-lose for Israel.

What's more, as I have again cited above...

Hamas vows and incites Antisemitism and genocidal intentions.

And you can very well say "Oh, come on, they haven't the means to carry that out," but there are still Holocaust survivors living in Israel who founded the nation, and both they and much of the rest of its Jewish population do NOT exactly feel like hearing that kind of rhetoric again, period.

When a group says they want to kill Jews, any and all Jews, and then go out and try...you don't mess around with that.

But none of the Hamas supporters here seem bothered by that well-established Antisemitism and genocidal rhetoric in the slightest...