[wat0n]

Actually, the question was why doesn't Hamas fortify itself outside Gaza's cities @Pants-of-dog

Again, do you even understand what you read?

[Pants-of-dog]

And since the question has been answered and shown to be dishonest, it can be ignored.

The Israeli government is now pushing US congress people to put pressure on SA to drop the case.

[wat0n]

No, you did not answer the question @Pants-of-dog and also did not show it's dishonest.

I am still waiting for your own response, not evasive ones like "well, Hamas isn't an army anyway because Palestine isn't a state" which is also false.

[Pants-of-dog]

Is Palestine a state?

[wat0n]

It's irrelevant to the question of whether Hamas is an army or not.

This is like saying Wagner isn't an army because it's a private business.

[Pants-of-dog]

So we agree that Palestine is not a state.

How many official military bases exist in Palestine?

[wat0n]

Hamas' strategy relies, precisely, on not officially declaring its military bases as such. Hence the shielding allegation.

I will note you still have not explained why isn't Hamas an army, @Pants-of-dog

[Pants-of-dog]

So Hamas has no official bases.

Why not?

[wat0n]

Because they would be hit without much controversy since they'd not have a dual civilian use.

[Pants-of-dog]

When would they be hit, exactly?

[wat0n]

In war, duh.

[Pants-of-dog]

So then Hamas could have built bases during the last few decades? Is that what is being argued?

[wat0n]

You mean Hamas could have built military bases outside Gaza's cities? Yes, why not?

[MadMonk]

You mean Hamas could have built military bases outside Gaza's cities? Yes, why not?

Ok, now you are both going around in circles for absolutely no reason beyond extreme pettyness.

While many Hamas members are willing to die for their cause, most are not actually suicidal. The second the Israeli state wanted these theoretical military bases wiped out, the far superior Israeli Air Force would drop everything but the kitchen sink on them. Not only are they uncontested in Gaza, they regularly bomb targets in Lebanon and Syria with virtual impunity.

Can one of you be the bigger man soon and find a little common ground?

[wat0n]

Ok, now you are both going around in circles for absolutely no reason beyond extreme pettyness.

While many Hamas members are willing to die for their cause, most are not actually suicidal. The second the Israeli state wanted these theoretical military bases wiped out, the far superior Israeli Air Force would drop everything but the kitchen sink on them. Not only are they uncontested in Gaza, they regularly bomb targets in Lebanon and Syria with virtual impunity.

Can one of you be the bigger man soon and find a little common ground?

If what you're saying is that the only way for Hamas to "win" is to use civilians and infrastructure for shielding, I can understand that. But then, using the same standard, fighting in urban areas is also the only way for Israel to "win" even if civilians have to deal with the consequences.

And if civilians will be greatly affected even under the best conditions and even if Israel is taking utmost care to limit that damage, one should also just accept it as that's just the reality of this type of war no matter how pitiful and bad one may find it to be.

Is Israel taking the utmost care to limit the damage to civilians in its pursuit of its legitimate military objectives? Well, here I tend to defer to military experts - this is obviously not something people with no military experience can judge - and from what I've seen the answer is a tentative yes.

What I do not understand is why or how some people believe Hamas has every reason and right to operate within civilian areas yet at the same time believe Israel has no right to attack its positions in such areas, even when Hamas is committing clearly offensive actions like launching rockets from within Gaza's cities. It's almost as if there was some weird ass standard by which operating with civilians around should shield you from any military action or response, even when the response is to attacks against Israeli cities and civilians.

[Pants-of-dog]

Ok, now you are both going around in circles for absolutely no reason beyond extreme pettyness.

While many Hamas members are willing to die for their cause, most are not actually suicidal. The second the Israeli state wanted these theoretical military bases wiped out, the far superior Israeli Air Force would drop everything but the kitchen sink on them. Not only are they uncontested in Gaza, they regularly bomb targets in Lebanon and Syria with virtual impunity.

Can one of you be the bigger man soon and find a little common ground?

I am more than happy to drop that tangent. It seems odd and unnecessary.
——————-

Meanwhile, SA has declared that it will be pursuing the case at the ICJ despite US pressure from Zionists.

https://www.jpost.com/international/article-819605

[wat0n]

It is neither odd nor unnecessary.

If anything, it explains the civilian death toll and also debunks the genocide accusation.

[Pants-of-dog]

I will allow @MadMonk to address this odd and unnecessary tangent.

Meanwhile, the genocide in Gaza has gotten so bad that it has brought Iran and Iraq closer together for a common goal: to put pressure on the IDF and Israeli government to stop the genocide.

[wat0n]

I will note @Pants-of-dog has still not answered the question why doesn't Hamas fortify itself out of Gaza's cities and he refuses to do so.

I will also note that if the extent of civilian damage is something one can expect from Hamas' strategy then it is not evidence of genocide and anything but Hamas' intent to use civilians as shields.

[Pants-of-dog]

The shielding argument has been refuted more than once. Moreover, the accusation requires evidence of intent, which has never been shown in this thread or anywhere else for this war.

Even if it were true, the IDF and Israeli government are still not just allowed to shoot and bomb civilians at will under international humanitarian law.