The right to respond is correct. So the military with the best intelligence in the world, could’ve gone door-to-door, or underground, and figure out who did this deed. And then punish these perpetrators accordingly.
What I don’t agree with is flattening an entire city with the excuse that the perpetrators are hiding behind schools, hospitals, and children.
What Israel did as retaliation, is the equivalent of getting punch punched in a bar fight, and then flattening a city to get it the guy who did it.
The analogy fails because October 7 was not a bar fight followed by a police manhunt. Israel was attacked by an organized armed force governing the territory next door. Hamas was not a handful of identifiable criminals waiting to be arrested; it had thousands of fighters, an extensive tunnel network, weapons positions and command infrastructure embedded in dense urban terrain.
No serious military doctrine says an attacked state may respond only against individuals whose personal participation in the original attack has first been proven. The laws of war permit attacks on military objectives while requiring distinction, proportionality and feasible precautions to protect civilians.
And historically, the idea that armies normally telephone, text or otherwise warn civilians before individual attacks is simply false. Advance warning is required where circumstances permit, but the ICRC expressly recognizes that surprise and operational security can make warning infeasible. Israel, however, has repeatedly used leaflets, phone calls, texts and other warnings in Gaza—including well before the current war. UN reporting documents those practices in both 2008–09 and 2014.
You can debate particular Israeli strikes. But “just go door-to-door and find the perpetrators” is not a realistic substitute for fighting an organized army embedded in an urban population.
Thank you Paul. We have similar characters spouting "genocide" here in the UK.
Thank you 🙏
The right to respond is correct. So the military with the best intelligence in the world, could’ve gone door-to-door, or underground, and figure out who did this deed. And then punish these perpetrators accordingly.
What I don’t agree with is flattening an entire city with the excuse that the perpetrators are hiding behind schools, hospitals, and children.
What Israel did as retaliation, is the equivalent of getting punch punched in a bar fight, and then flattening a city to get it the guy who did it.
The analogy fails because October 7 was not a bar fight followed by a police manhunt. Israel was attacked by an organized armed force governing the territory next door. Hamas was not a handful of identifiable criminals waiting to be arrested; it had thousands of fighters, an extensive tunnel network, weapons positions and command infrastructure embedded in dense urban terrain.
No serious military doctrine says an attacked state may respond only against individuals whose personal participation in the original attack has first been proven. The laws of war permit attacks on military objectives while requiring distinction, proportionality and feasible precautions to protect civilians.
And historically, the idea that armies normally telephone, text or otherwise warn civilians before individual attacks is simply false. Advance warning is required where circumstances permit, but the ICRC expressly recognizes that surprise and operational security can make warning infeasible. Israel, however, has repeatedly used leaflets, phone calls, texts and other warnings in Gaza—including well before the current war. UN reporting documents those practices in both 2008–09 and 2014.
You can debate particular Israeli strikes. But “just go door-to-door and find the perpetrators” is not a realistic substitute for fighting an organized army embedded in an urban population.
I came to the comments, but no link 🙁