That's the reason I'm shocked people are not shouting for a cease fire , it seems to me that to some innocent palaestian deaths are only used as a yardstick to attack Israel , and whilst there is no cease fire that will continue . Where as to me the quickest and most effective way of getting aid in and protecting innocent palestians would be a hostage handover and a cease fire enabling aid to be supplied and possible other solutions , but that would require pointing fingers at hammas I guessYou haven't. That's why I asked the question. Are the hostages lives worth more than Tens of thousands of Palestinians being massacred?
Surely the intention of the Israelis is to kill Hamas? Now Hamas are basically strapping babies to their fronts and daring the Israelis to shoot knowing the outrage this would cause if they do shoot. What would you do if someone was coming to kill your family with a baby strapped to them? Let them kill your family or shoot knowing for certain that the innocent baby will die? So come on, what would you do? Kill a baby or let your family be killed?
Is that all you can say?If those two sites are all you've read about the peace process I'm not surprised that's your opinion.
There's plenty of material about the sticking points on the various proposed peace deals.
I'm not even sure it's worth apportioning "blame", rather than seeking to understand what the sticking points were - and what in the future might be done to unstick those points.
Ok, assuming you are saying you will kill the innocent baby to save your family. Let's say your family is 4 members and there are ten terrorists with babies strapped to their chests. Do you now kill the 10 terrorists and 10 innocent babies to 'defend' your family or let your 4 strong family be killed to save the 10 innocent babies?I think that's a really poor analogy because you are painting a picture of a small loss (albeit a baby) for a large gain, i.e. multiple lives saved, whereas what we are seeing in Gaza is the opposite. 10,000 dead and counting is it now? How many dead is acceptable to you? 20,000? 100,000? 1m?
I'll give you a MUCH better analogy - as I have posted on here previously. A madman with a gun shoots a load of innocent people and then barricades himself into an empty property with a couple of hostages. Do the police say "fuck it let's blow the house up and sod the hostages"? No, they do not.
The trouble with that analogy is there isn't just one madman there are10s of thousands of them.I think that's a really poor analogy because you are painting a picture of a small loss (albeit a baby) for a large gain, i.e. multiple lives saved, whereas what we are seeing in Gaza is the opposite. 10,000 dead and counting is it now? How many dead is acceptable to you? 20,000? 100,000? 1m?
I'll give you a MUCH better analogy - as I have posted on here previously. A madman with a gun shoots a load of innocent people and then barricades himself into an empty property with a couple of hostages. Do the police say "fuck it let's blow the house up and sod the hostages"? No, they do not.
That's the reason I'm shocked people are not shouting for a cease fire , it seems to me that to some innocent palaestian deaths are only used as a yardstick to attack Israel , and whilst there is no cease fire that will continue . Where as to me the quickest and most effective way of getting aid in and protecting innocent palestians would be a hostage handover and a cease fire enabling aid to be supplied and possible other solutions , but that would require pointing fingers at hammas I guess
Ok, assuming you are saying you will kill the innocent baby to save your family. Let's say your family is 4 members and there are ten terrorists with babies strapped to their chests. Do you now kill the 10 terrorists and 10 innocent babies to 'defend' your family or let your 4 strong family be killed to save the 10 innocent babies?
Now I don't particularly want you to answer what is an hypothetical moral problem but it is roughly where the Israelis are. Do they leave Hamas in place in the certain knowledge that they will kill Israeli innocents again or do they try and kill Hamas with the certain knowledge that Palestinian innocents are killed? It's not a simple game of maths where we pick the option where the fewest innocents die, if it's your innocents who die then that greatly changes things.
I think it would be apt to quote the specific laws you are referring to rather than some blaise reference to common law on such a serious subject. Btw I'm fully supportive of any transgressions you care to mention to be dealt with in the strongest possible manner.You might want to look up the word "defending" because what Israel are doing right now cannot possibly be considered as defending itself.
In common law - or indeed any law I think - defence has to be proportional. You cannot reasonably defend yourself against a kid with a pea shooter by shooting him with an AK47. Let alone shooting his mum, dad, sisters and brothers as well.
I think everyone agrees with this analogy but the reality is very different because what do you want to happen to enact it recognising the options on the table? Let's say Israel stops right now but Hamas doesn't and carries on the war it started, what's next then?I think that's a really poor analogy because you are painting a picture of a small loss (albeit a baby) for a large gain, i.e. multiple lives saved, whereas what we are seeing in Gaza is the opposite. 10,000 dead and counting is it now? How many dead is acceptable to you? 20,000? 100,000? 1m?
I'll give you a MUCH better analogy - as I have posted on here previously. A madman with a gun shoots a load of innocent people and then barricades himself into an empty property with a couple of hostages. Do the police say "fuck it let's blow the house up and sod the hostages"? No, they do not.