War in Israel

[PlatinumGuy]

https://twitter.com/tsahidaboush/status/1392113907951616002

[avromie7]

It seems that just as you say the world doesn't understand what is going on in Israel you don't understand what is going on outside Israel. If you have 100 dead on one side and 1 dead on the other side the world will not consider that "proportional".

Now for all the haters this is an example and not is what is currently going on.

So if Israel decided not to protect their people, and went with the exact same response, it would be "proportional". But because Israel values human life an d invests in protecting it's people instead of using them as human shields it becomes "disproportionate"?

There isn't another country in the world that would show so much restraint while hundreds of rockets are falling on its cities.

[Lurker]

It seems that just as you say the world doesn't understand what is going on in Israel you don't understand what is going on outside Israel. If you have 100 dead on one side and 1 dead on the other side the world will not consider that "proportional".

I understand very well. I disagree that the response should be based on the results as opposed to the actions, and I disagree that results are solely based on death tolls. The world wiped out more terrorists post 9/11 than the terrorists killed on 9/11. They need to stop holding Israel to different standards.

[PlatinumGuy]

Seriously? I'm sorry, this makes no sense. You're saying that I have no right to shoot back once you stop shooting at me, because it may not help???

You're trying to draw a parallel between two situations that have nothing in common. There is never a right to shoot back. There is a right for self defense.

Shooting at a shooter is self defense because it eliminates the threat. Shooting into a pool of 3m people has nothing to do with self defense.

[CountValentine]

Unfortunately, in much of the world this is exactly the perception now. Many have no idea Israel is under rocket attack.

The number of dead make the headlines not the number of rockets.
It is unfortunate the media for the most part ignores the constant terror Israel faces every day.

[avromie7]

Give me their number

I can't speak for every person who says it, but 'proportionate response' doesn't necessarily mean tit for tat, but 'measured' response.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/france-urges-israel-to-use-proportionate-force-over-gaza/

For possibly the first time in my life, I agree with the French. We should fire the exact same amount of rockets indiscriminately into their most populated areas. We should also send incendiary balloons floating over the border.

Regardless, this isn't war. Israel conquered Gaza already 45 years ago. There is no enemy state. It is domestic terrorism.

Meh, that's at best a technicality.

Shooting into a pool of 3m people has nothing to do with self defense.

This is something all the terror sympathizers don't seem to understand.

[Lurker]

There is no enemy state. It is domestic terrorism.

It's actually not. It may be an "occupied territory," but it's not part of Israel, and therefore not domestic terror.

[PlatinumGuy]

There isn't another country in the world that would show so much restraint while hundreds of rockets are falling on its cities.

Nor is there a country that places a chokehold on other territories it doesn't want to govern because of its citizens race.

The number of dead make the headlines not the number of rockets.
It is unfortunate the media for the most part ignores the constant terror Israel faces every day.

Yup, an impossible mission for Israeli military who have to pluck the needle from the hay.

[Lurker]

Nor is there a country that places a chokehold on other territories it doesn't want to govern because of its citizens race.

Come on. Reword that, please. It has nothing to do with race.

[CountValentine]

I disagree that the response should be based on the results as opposed to the actions,

Do you really believe this should be the response?

We should fire the exact same amount of rockets indiscriminately into their most populated areas. We should also send incendiary balloons floating over the border.

[avromie7]

Nor is there a country that places a chokehold on other territories it doesn't want to govern because of its citizens race.

Gaza was under full Israeli rule until 2005, they gave it up in the name of peace. I'm not sure how you can blame Israel here.

[PlatinumGuy]

It's actually not. It may be an "occupied territory," but it's not part of Israel, and therefore not domestic terror.

The UN General Assembly[4] and the United Nations Security Council regards Israel as the "Occupying Power".

Come on. Reword that, please. It has nothing to do with race.

But it does. Israel would have no problem annexing and policing Gaza if it wouldn't dilute the Jewish majority. The civilian loss of life is a result of Israel policing from air force planes to avoid having to go in and do the work precisely.

[CountValentine]

This is something all the terror sympathizers don't seem to understand.

I am not a terror sympathizer so can you explain to me what shooting into 3mm people accomplishes besides turning the world against you?

[PlatinumGuy]

Gaza was under full Israeli rule until 2005, they gave it up in the name of peace. I'm not sure how you can blame Israel here.

They walked out of Gaza unilaterally but block any attempt by Gaza to establish an independent state. The United Nations continue to consider Israel the occupying power in the territory due to Israel's control of Gaza's airspace and coastline

[Lurker]

Do you really believe this should be the response?

Absolutely not, and I said as much. I'm just tired of hearing "proportional response" from the rest of the world, as if that's what they actually want to see. I think neutralizing the threat should be the standard, and the world needs to stop belly-aching every time Israel blows up a terrorist commander, crying that no Israelis died, so why did a Palestinian have to die.

[joe1234]

You're trying to draw a parallel between two situations that have nothing in common. There is never a right to shoot back. There is a right for self defense.

Shooting at a shooter is self defense because it eliminates the threat. Shooting into a pool of 3m people has nothing to do with self defense.

halachically speaking the shooter has a din of a roidef and is allowed to be shot at even if it isn't for self defense purposes. although this has nothing really to do with a situation like the current one...

[PlatinumGuy]

halachically speaking the shooter has a din of a roidef and is allowed to be shot at even if it isn't for self defense purposes.

"רבי יונתן בן שאול אומר: רודף אחר חבירו להורגו ויכול להצילו באחד מאבריו ולא הציל [אלא הרגו] – נהרג עליו

Sanhedrin 74a

כל היכול להציל באבר מאיבריו ולא טרח בכך אלא הציל בנפשו של רודף והרגו הרי זה שופך דמים וחייב מיתה אבל אין בית דין ממיתין אותו.

https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/רמב%22ם_הלכות_רוצח_ושמירת_נפש_א_יג

Haalchically speaking, somebody who shoots and misses is 100% innocent.

[joe1234]

Sanhedrin 74ahttps://he.wikisource.org/wiki/רמב%22ם_הלכות_רוצח_ושמירת_נפש_א_יג

Haalchically speaking, somebody who shoots and misses is 100% innocent.

I wasn't talking about that case... my point was made that it doesn't necessarily have to do with self defense... so in a case that he can only be shot in the head, it is allowed whether or not the victim might be saved...
even if he misses he may be innocent after the fact but while he is running after a victim with a gun he has a din of a roidef.

[CountValentine]

Absolutely not, and I said as much. I'm just tired of hearing "proportional response" from the rest of the world, as if that's what they actually want to see. I think neutralizing the threat should be the standard, and the world needs to stop belly-aching every time Israel blows up a terrorist commander, crying that no Israelis died, so why did a Palestinian have to die.

I am not sure you are understanding the rest of the world. Taking out military targets to neutralize current threats is the proper way to go and supported.
Will the haters jump on the part if civilians get killed, yes.

[PlatinumGuy]

I wasn't talking about that case... my point was made that it doesn't necessarily have to do with self defense... so in a case that he can only be shot in the head, it is allowed whether or not the victim might be saved...

We established that if the victim can be saved without shooting the perp in the head, it is full blown murder to shoot the perp in the head.

Of course if the victim cannot be saved, you cannot do anything to the perp. Who told you otherwise?