Wtf is wrong with people. The initial Hamas attack was bad. But Israel is now basically bulldozing Gaza and trying to turn it into a pule of rubble.
In what world does that make sense? They don’t need U.S. aid or anybody else’s help doing that. We should be internationally condemning what they’re doing right now. Instead we are offering to give them money?
Am I crazy for thinking this is far far beyond a sane response. They have literally been killing children.
This isn’t a response, it’s what they wanted to do for over half a century now. Killing Palestine or shoving it to nearby countries was always the plan, Israel was just waiting for an excuse.
I think it’s a mistake to pretend like this has been a monolithic response for Israel. It’s a little telling when people pretend like every action by the current government is and represents all of Israel for the last 50 years. This is the actions of an extreme radically right government. Netanyahu and his far right extremist allies have set this up and very likely been behind part of the entire debacle. For this reason as you suggest. However we should not pretend like his radicals have been running the entire country for its entire history. Anyone paying attention should know that these religious radicals have been at war with their own country just as much as the palestinians.
It doesn’t really make sense to characterize a prime minster that is entering his (approximately) 16th year in office as being some kind of aberration. If the US elected Trump for four non-consecutive terms as president, I think would be fair to characterize the US right wing as being the norm rather than an aberration. How many times does Israel have to put a fascist in charge before they get a share of the blame for what he does in office?
His current government is an aberration though. His latest coalition isn’t the same one as in past years. It’s far more radical. Ignoring that is beyond dangerous to the entire situation.
You have pivoted your argument from “this government isn’t actually representative of the will of the Israeli people” to “its dangerous to ignore how much more fascist this democratically elected leadership is than the past governments, which were literally made up of the same people.” No shit, this government is dangerous, no one is arguing against that. It is ALSO the government that the people of Israeli have chosen, over and over and over again. Israel is a fascist right wing nation because they have chosen to be that.
What about all rubble in the West Bank? The settlements for more foreigners? The harassment everyday; especially in Jerusalem? This isn’t just the last 50 years, it’s been over 70…
They needed a good casus belli, this is as good as it is gonna get for them PR-wise.
Truth is virtually no country ever denounce shit if they have something to lose doing so. Geopolitics is rooted in each nation self-interest.
On top of that, Palestinians just hasn’t been good neighbors and no country on earth want to bring the kind of chaos of taking them as refugees. So we have it. Most nations will root for Israel out of self-interest, and pretend there is no need to take refugees.
You are very sane.
At least on this topic.
A few months ago they were literally bulldozing roads.
Right. Insane. Even if they remove Gaza and all the people there from the face of this earth, all they will have accomplished is decades more coming back at them. The people of Israel are less safe than ever. Hamas did the same to their people as clearly they too are all less safe. When will this madness stop? This is disgusting and a worrying sign as we enter the AI age, that humanity just has not grown the fuck up.
I’m going to assume you’re familiar with this long, complicated conflict. If you were in Israel’s shoes, how would you respond to the Hamas attack?
Hamas has a leader in a tunnel under a refugee camp. You can 1) go into the tunnel and kill the Hamas fighters, possibly losing IDF soilders along the way, or 2) you can bomb the fuck out of the civilian houses on top of the tunnel and hope that collapses the tunnel and kills the leader, killing hundreds of civilians. A righteous country, an explicitly religious country who answers to god, would choose to sacrifice it’s soilders over sacrificing innocent lives. Israel instead decided to commit a war crime. And then after being called out by the international community, did the same thing the next day.
Since you like asking questions, maybe you can answer one. Please explain how cutting off food and water for 2.1 million people is a legitimate military tactic and not just the war crime of collective punishment?
Sacrifice your soldiers today for potential enemy soldiers in the future, while you’re at war and under attack by said enemy? Great plan.
Please explain how cutting off food and water for 2.1 million people is a legitimate military tactic and not just the war crime of collective punishment?
You’re suggesting Israel should have to keep open supply lines open for enemy forces. Embargoing and cutting off your supplies from a hostile force is pretty standard when it comes to warfare. What’s different here is that said enemy is totally dependent on Israel for their basic necessities, and they attacked them anyway. The results were predictable and tragic, and Israel is being portrayed as villainous for denying those who are actively trying to kill them its resources. This isn’t a mediaeval siege, Gaza can still get essential supplies from Egypt via Rafah, as they have been.
Sacrifice your soldiers today for potential enemy soldiers in the future, while you’re at war and under attack by said enemy? Great plan.
My plan is to comply with international humanitarian law. It is a great plan. Its an awesome fucking plan in fact.
You’re suggesting Israel should have to keep open supply lines open for enemy forces.
And here you acknowledge the cage.
Embargoing and cutting off your supplies from a hostile force is pretty standard when it comes to warfare.
2.1 million Palestinians are a hostile force? Also its literally a requirement of international humanitiarian law
IHL provides that civilians under the power of enemy forces must be treated humanely in all circumstances, without any adverse distinction. They must be protected against all forms of violence and degrading treatment, including murder and torture. Moreover, in case of prosecution, they are entitled to a fair trial affording all essential judicial guarantees. The protection of civilians extends to those trying to help them, in particular medical units and humanitarian or relief bodies providing essentials such as food, clothing and medical supplies. The warring parties are required to allow access to such organizations. The Fourth Geneva Convention and Additional Protocol I specifically require belligerents to facilitate the work of the ICRC. While IHL protects all civilians without discrimination, certain groups are singled out for special mention. Women and children, the aged and sick are highly vulnerable during armed conflict. So too are those who flee their homes and become internally displaced or refugees. IHL prohibits forced displacements by intimidation, violence or starvation.>
Your literally defending war crimes buddy. Maybe take a look in the mirror.
2.1 million Palestinians are a hostile force?
The territory of Gaza is at war with Israel. That means the people in these territories are at war with each other. And territories at war, war with each other collectively. Government-sponsored violence against another government subjects the entire territory they control to violence. That’s the way war works.
The protection of civilians extends to those trying to help them, in particular medical units and humanitarian or relief bodies providing essentials such as food, clothing and medical supplies. The warring parties are required to allow access to such organizations.
Israel is allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza.
Your literally defending war crimes buddy. Maybe take a look in the mirror.
You literally asked me to defend it!
I am sorry but this humanitarian aid is extremely insufficient, plenty of people can’t access it, there are no pauses of fighting, they are indiscriminately killing people. Israel doesn’t really care about the civilian suffering and deaths and they are proving it every day.
What Israel is doing with Gaza is horrific and eerily resembles what the Jewish people went through during the Holocaust, just this time they are the aggressor. You know Gaza is like an open air concentration camp where people are starved and killed, forced to live in makeshift tents and dehumanized by their oppressor. Shame that you haven’t learnt your lesson!
And perhaps you should also self reflect on your morality and perhaps check your karma
I am sorry but this humanitarian aid is extremely insufficient, plenty of people can’t access it
The increase in humanitarian aid just started.
That they are providing it at all is pretty incredible as far as warfare goes. Could you imagine if the world criticized the US for not sending humanitarian aid to Nazi Germany while they were still belligerent to them, before they unconditionally surrendered, and then after providing some, the world criticized them for not sending enough?
Gaza has been so thoroughly defeated that they are dependent on Israel for the most basic necessities, yet refuse to surrender, choosing instead to escalate attacks. This is very strange warfare, historically the consequences for refusing to pacify would have been far more dire than what Israel has done, they have shown great restraint so far. If they played by the same rules as Hamas there would be no Palestine.there are no pauses of fighting
They are at war after all.
they are indiscriminately killing people.
Indiscriminate rocket attacks are more of a Palestinian thing. According to Israel they are hitting valid military targets that are often placed by Hamas among civilians with relatively high accuracy. I’d like a citation if you have credible evidence from an unbiased source that their attacks are indiscriminate, please.
You know Gaza is … where people are starved and killed, forced to live in makeshift tents and dehumanized by their oppressor.
It’s almost like there are consequences to constant guerilla attacks then provoking a war one cannot win against a nation one is entirely dependent upon for necessities, which possesses a superior military force. I guess the inevitable and predictable consequences of the war they provoked are Israel’s fault.
like an open air concentration camp … What Israel is doing with Gaza is horrific and eerily resembles what the Jewish people went through during the Holocaust,
Yeah it’s just like that, remember when the Jews instigated guerilla attacks against Germans for over a century, refused to negotiate for peace, declared multiple failed wars on them aided by Germany’s neighboring states, then slaughtered thousands of German civilians in a guerilla attack? Wait, actually, none of that happened.
The only similarity is that there are people in walled enclaves. Jews were peaceful members of German society and were put in concentration camps because of conspiracy theories, racism, and scapegoating. Usually the only way out was death. Gazans are behind a wall because of belligerence, they are literally killing Israeli civilians and refuse to stop. They can leave through the Raffah gate when it’s open and no one is systemically eradicating them, (were that Israel’s goal they certainly have the means but have chosen not to because they are not fucking Nazis.) I find your comparison distasteful and reductionist, an attempt to make Jews as bad as the most reviled of historical villains, when they are simply trying everything they can to achieve safety from a neighbor who, like the Nazis, openly wants to genocide them.Shame that you haven’t learnt your lesson! And perhaps you should also self reflect on your morality and perhaps check your karma
I don’t know about your server, but my karma is quite high on mine, not that it matters. I’m not going to pick up a pitchfork and simp for Hamas simply because that’s popular with the online mob. Shame on you for tacitly defending them and suggesting I should do the same.
Good job referring to Palestinian civilians as “potential enemy soldiers”. It’s not technically dehumanizing but it really does show how you objectify them to justify killing them.
Good job referring to Palestinian civilians as “potential enemy soldiers”. It’s not technically dehumanizing but it really does show how you objectify them to justify killing them.
Pardon me for acknowledging reality.
By 70 percent to 28 percent, Palestinians oppose a two-state solution — “the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.”
An even larger number — 76 percent to 21 percent — oppose a “one state solution …in which the two sides enjoy equal rights.”
Given a choice among three options for “ending the occupation and building an independent state,” 21 percent prefer “negotiations,” 22 percent “peaceful popular resistance” and 52 percent select “armed conflict.”
A 58 percent majority support a “return to the armed intifada [terrorism] and confrontations,” while 41 percent oppose such a move.
https://thehill.com/opinion/4273883-mellman-do-palestinians-support-hamas-polls-paint-a-murky-picture/The majority of Palestinians support terrorism/guerilla resistance against Israel, and are unwilling to accept either a 2-state solution or a 1-state solution where Jews have equal rights. Not just potential, likely enemy soldiers.
(most of whom want to deny Israel a right to exist, oppress and/or drive the Jews into the sea.)
Removed by mod
Not murder children
Vague. Does that mean, let them keep launching attacks against your civilians from behind human shields, or send in ground forces expecting wildly massive casualties?
At its root it’s actually pretty simple. If it involves killing children, do not do it. If you’d like we can get into the more in depth discussion of slowly forcing more and more people into a terrible situation and how that drives them into the arms of Hamas, but at its root, don’t shoot kids.
Given that one cannot see the future, there’s always a chance of collateral damage with any military action, and a decent chance it will be a child in Gaza where the inhabitants decided to have a lot of them, it sounds like you’ve ruled out any sort of reprisal. Let them slaughter your civilians with impunity, then? Great plan.
Listen man, I get you’re not arguing in good faith here but here goes. The Hamas attacks on Israeli citizens are inexcusable, but they did not and do not excuse the indiscriminate bombing of one of if not the most densely populated areas on the planet. One that I might add has a population that is on average 14.
Is this an easy or quick thing to resolve? No, absolutely not. Is doing nothing a good option? No. Is killing thousands and forcing the rest into the fucking sea the correct response? Fuck no.
I get you’re not arguing in good faith here but here goes.
I resent that characterization, just because you don’t like what I have to say doesn’t mean I’m not arguing in good faith.
he Hamas attacks on Israeli citizens are inexcusable, but they did not and do not excuse the indiscriminate bombing
According to Israel the bombings are not indiscriminate, they target valid military objectives.
One that I might add has a population that is on average 14. … Is doing nothing a good option? No. Is killing thousands and forcing the rest into the fucking sea the correct response? Fuck no.
No one is being driven into the sea. It seems like you’re implying that the consequences of Gazans having lots of children then provoking war against a superior force should be to bind Israel’s hands regarding how they can respond, denying them access to common military tactics that minimize their own losses. You’ve ruled out doing nothing and airstrikes. The only viable option I can see that remains: the IDF should now have to sacrifice lots of soldiers and hand Hamas a victory by going in without air support, because Gazan forces are hiding among Gazan children. That’s a tremendously bad move in terms of military strategy.
Assuming you’re being genuine:
Hamas has to go. There is no stable situation leaving them in power.
We have a couple different approaches to resolving this:
-
A. providing a transportation corridor from fatah controlled territory to Gaza, providing military aid to Fatah, and let them clear out hamas.
-
B. Open up a large refugee camp just outside of Gaza, allow all the Gaza civilians to migrate to this new camp, screen for weapons. Once everyone who wants to leave is left, then you do the ground operations inside of old Gaza…
-
C. Invite UN peacekeepers to occupy Gaza, and then run new elections under UN observation
Though I take small issue with your comment, the implication is, we can’t do anything except kill more people. We’ve tried killing them before, that didn’t work, we should try killing them harder this time. That’s not a stable situation either - unless you kill all of them. And if that’s the goal, they’re doing a bad job of it. They’re doing it too slowly
Under no circumstance will Hamas “go”. Hamas and its allies in the Palestinian resistance represent the will of the entire Palestinian people. The Palestinian authority that Israel and the west has imposed on us will crumble if it ever has to face Hamas. Palestinians will resist violently until all of Palestine is liberated. That is that.
-
Fire Netanyahu and the entire mossad for this shit tier intelligence and then fix the Gaza infrastructure.
I like the fire Netanyahu part.
So keep the status quo, allow Hamas to stay in power, and improve the infrastructure of an actively belligerent enemy? Wow what a reward you’d give them for slaughtering your people, maybe they should do it again next time they need infrastructure.
Maybe if Israel actually allowed Gaza to hold elections, Hamas wouldn’t be in power 🤔 instead Bibi needed a bad guy on his doorstep to keep in power, and he was too busy engaging in ethnic cleansing in the west bank to actually secure the “border” (i.e, the walls of the open air prison Palestinians are kept in) with Gaza.
Israel is never going to have true security keeping a group of people trapped, without political rights, with strict controls on their access to basic goods. Fuck Hamas, but violence is the predictable result of depriving people of political rights and basic freedoms. Today it’s Hamas, tomorrow it’s some other group, it will keep happening. Building a better cage will only do so much good, desperate people are dangerous. Until that is resolved, Israel will have no real security.
Maybe if Israel actually allowed Gaza to hold elections
They did hold elections, Gaza elected Hamas and then Hamas did a coup and ensured an election has not been held there since.
Israel is never going to have true security keeping a group of people trapped, without political rights, with strict controls on their access to basic goods.
I think they recognize this, given their recent statements. Hamas has made it clear they will not surrender or negotiate for a viable peace no matter how much worse Israel can and will make things. I suspect for this reason we’re probably going to see a forcible regime change and/or some annexation in Gaza very soon.
I was specifically referring to the 2021 elections and Israel’s refusal to allow East Jerusalem to vote after Israel annexed the territory. But you probably knew that. Palestinians dislike Hamas, an election likely would have removed them from power, but Israel gave Hamas the bullshit excuse it needed to stay in power. Great job!
Hamas has made it clear they will not surrender or negotiate for a viable peace
I don’t know if you have reading comprehension problems or were specifically ignoring the point, but I was explicitly talking about what comes after Hamas. You have 2.1 million people in a cage for decades. You cut off their food and water for weeks, kill 10,000 people, over half children, and you think even after you kill every Hamas leader and solider that the citizens that left are just going to go back to living in their cage without human rights? This is something the US learned in Afghanistan, you kill one civilian, you create two new terrorists. The same will happen here. Unless, of course, your intention was to lump all Palestinians under the label of “Hamas”, in which case consider your true colors seen!
I suspect for this reason we’re probably going to see a forcible regime change and/or some annexation in Gaza very soon.
I also agree that Israel intends to engage in illegal ethnic cleansing. Glad we’re on the same page about that at least.
I was specifically referring to the 2021 elections and Israel’s refusal to allow East Jerusalem to vote after Israel annexed the territory. But you probably knew that.
Actually I am unaware of this, time for some reading, thanks for mentioning it. Any sources besides Wikipedia you’d recommend?
What comes after Hamas[?] You cut off their food and water for weeks, kill 10,000 people, over half children, and you think even after you kill every Hamas leader and solider that the citizens that left are just going to go back to living in their cage without human rights?
Rage doesn’t change their realpolitik situation. At this rate they if don’t make viable peace their remaining land will ebb away. If they are left in charge, I wonder if PA might be more amenable to real concessions now that they see how bad massive civilian attacks combined with a refusal to negotiate or surrender has made things for Hamas. If nothing else this has shown things can always get worse for them if they choose not to pacify. Gaza is experiencing the stick, next Israel will probably offer Palestinian leaders willing to be reasonable a carrot.
That’s presuming Israel doesn’t annex the entirety of Gaza, they reportedly tried negotiating for Egypt to take in all 2 million Gazans.I also agree that Israel intends to engage in illegal ethnic cleansing.
Calling it ethnic cleansing doesn’t make much sense given that 20% of Israel’s citizenry is Arab. Israel is not ethnically homogeneous, but perhaps moving people who are actively trying to kill them and unwilling to surrender farther away from them violates some other international law their opponents can clutch pearls over:
The official United Nations definition of ethnic cleansing is “rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group.”
Don’t forget that Netanyahu is responsible for said status quo. He’s the reason Hamas has as much power as it does. There’s ways to dismantle them peacefully. He’s done the opposite because he wants this dangerous group to give him pretext. Firing him and his radicals would go a long way toward a more peaceful solution.
Are you people being paid? I’ve seen this “question” like 15 times.
He’s the one who posted it 15 times
No one has been able to satisfactorily answer it every time I’ve seen it asked. I thought I’d pose the same question I’ve seen elsewhere to see if 'yall have any better ideas. It’s easy to be a critic, it’s harder to offer viable solutions.
Oh word? Because every time I see literally “not murder children”
Not doing something isn’t a solution. How, specifically, would you respond?
If I was Israeli I would dismantle my god forsaken cursed country and end the scourge that it has been in the region.
All in the name of defense of course. With the worlds most moral army, backed by the world’s biggest blank cheque, how could this be anything but self defense. Oh and fuck those journalists and their families.
“Help! The monsters I’ve created are killing me!”, cried the imperialist.
What is the relevance of this to the conversation? Do you know?
Hey TinyPizza
Oh hi mark
Two years from now there will be no Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank and the world won’t do shit about it
A few hundred from the total amount of dead civilians in Ukraine.
But Russian killing bad, Israeli killing good apparently.
Fuck this empire
I don’t understand why this is controversial. I’m not pro-palestine by any definition - nor anti, but I am very much opposed to one-sided conquests.
Hamas has Jewish eradication as part of its founding charter. I’m not sure this qualifies a one sided fight.
But checking the numbers of civilian deaths and injured count on both sides, even before the 7th of October paints a slightly different picture, don’t you think?
155K injured Palestinians vs 6K Israelis. https://www.ochaopt.org/data/casualties
26 times more injured, don’t you think that’s a bit extreme?
deleted by creator
Israel is a terrorist state. Period.
Do you think terrorist means attacking civilians? Usually terrorism had the purpose of inciting fear on the larger side in an asymmetric conflict. Israel seems to be doing this moreso to get rid of the population, or at least to get at Hamas with absurdly low regard for civilians. Rather than making the population fearful.
deleted by creator
I think your comment is a great example of how wording matters. The use of “people” is vague enough to mean all jews or the Isreali government. One context makes your comment antisemitic while the other doesn’t. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and only point out that the distinction is necessary because the Isreali government does not represent all jews. The government is hypocritical and you can find jews, even in Isreal, being critical of that hypocrisy.
deleted by creator
I have particular contempt for oppressed peoples that go on to oppress others when given the chance.
Israel announced right at the start that its target is to eliminate Hamas and PIJ.
Since there are:
- About 30,000-40,000 Hamas members in the Al-Qassam Brigades and
- About 6,000 members in the PIJ and
- Assuming 1 civilian casualty per 3 combative casualties
Then unless something substantial changes, the death toll is expected to rise to around 50k-60k . This is really just the beginning.
Removed by mod
I guess you didnt read the article then, eh?
Benjamin Netanyahu, who has previously ruled out a cease-fire, said Thursday: “We are advancing … Nothing will stop us.”
Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
U.S Secretary of State Antony Blinken was heading to the region for talks Friday in Israel and Jordan, after President Joe Biden suggested a humanitarian “pause” in the Gaza fighting to let in aid for Palestinians and let out more foreign nationals.
Roughly 800 people — including hundreds of Palestinians with foreign passports and dozens of wounded — have been allowed to leave Gaza over the past two days, under an apparent agreement among the U.S., Egypt, Israel and Qatar, which mediates with Hamas.
But the Biden administration has pushed for Israel to let more aid into Gaza amid growing alarm in the region over the destruction and humanitarian crisis in the tiny Mediterranean enclave.
More than 3,700 Palestinian children have been killed in 25 days of fighting, and three weeks of bombings that often level large swaths of neighborhoods have driven more than half the territory’s 2.3 million people from their homes.
A senior Hamas official, Ghazi Hamad, dismissed Blinken’s visit, saying the U.S. aims “to give more cover for the vicious assault on Gaza” and “impose its own political solutions.”
The Israeli military’s chief of staff, Herzi Halevy, said his forces were encircling Gaza City from several directions and “fighting in a built-up, dense, complex area.”
The original article contains 1,332 words, the summary contains 208 words. Saved 84%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
This is an holocaust.
It seems like Israel’s position is that they will hit any valid military targets regardless of whether civilians may die as collateral damage, this is because Hamas intentionally uses civilians as human shields.
Hamas relies on the Israeli government’s aim to minimise collateral damage, and is also aware of the West‘s sensitivity towards civilian casualties. Hamas’ use of human shields is therefore likely aimed at minimising their own vulnerabilities by limiting the Israeli Defense Forces’ (IDF) freedom of action. It is also aimed at gaining diplomatic and public opinion-related leverage, by presenting Israel and the IDF as an aggressor that indiscriminately strikes civilians.
Hamas’ most common uses of human shields include:- Firing rockets, artillery, and mortars from or in proximity to heavily populated civilian areas, often from or near facilities which should be protected according to the Geneva Convention (e.g. schools, hospitals, or mosques).
- Locating military or security-related infrastructures such as HQs, bases, armouries, access routes, lathes, or defensive positions within or in proximity to civilian areas.
- Protecting terrorists’ houses and military facilities, or rescuing terrorists who were besieged or warned by the IDF.
- Combating the IDF from or in proximity to residential and commercial areas, including using civilians for intelligence gathering missions.
The alternatives to these bombings would be to allow them to keep launching attacks on Israeli civilians, or to send in ground forces into a well-prepared terrorists’ den with the home court advantage; which means very high casualties. This is fundamentally a choice between their own civilians and soldiers or civilians and soldiers on the enemy’s side.
Israel probably isn’t going to let the ones responsible get away with mass slaughter of their civilians, or stand down, until they have fundamentally changed the situation and made themselves more secure by deposing Hamas and/or annexing territory.
I suspect all those who call Israel a “terrorist state” aren’t accurately imagining themselves in their shoes. I’d like to hear what viable options the critics would choose instead if they were calling the shots there and wanted to keep their people safe.
The alternative to air strikes is to send in IDF troops to kill Hamas in close combat. That option would likely lead to many more IDF deaths, as ypu notes, but dont pretend Hamas rockets are an actual threat, there are no Israeli civilians at risk, or at best a small number. The airstrike option saves IDF lives, but will lead to vastly more civil deaths. There are options here, you just have to make a judgement call on who you are willing to sacrifice, your own soldiers or innocent civilians, mostly children. Israel has made it’s choice, they have to live with it, and one day they can tell their god all about how letting IDF soilders die on the battle field was a politically more costly option than killing thousands of innocent children from the air, after forcing those same children to live in unsanitary conditions, starving and without access to water, for weeks before sending someone in a jet to flip a switch and end their lives.
There are options. There are choices.
Also all of this assumes that Israel, an apartied state, is actually trying to minimize civilian causalities and that Hamas is using civilians as human shields by I guess existing in the same densely populated area, that Hamas governs, as the civilians? And that Israel isn’t just using this as an opportunity to end the Palestinian problem once and for all, to cause so much suffering that the Palestinians abandoned their homes and seek refuge in Egypt, kind of like the plans drawn up and recommended by the Israeli government suggest. As you said “annexing” the territory. That’s ethnic cleansing btw, but who’s counting. Even ignoring all that, and assuming Israel is acting in complete good faith, they are still making a choice that an IDF soilders life is more valuable than a Palestinian childs.
Hamas is evil, btw, fuck them to hell. I hope Israel succeeds in wiping them off the face of the earth. But that doesn’t mean I am going to mindlessly defend an explicitly racist country cowardly killing thousands of civilians from the air and starving the survivors. The only Innocents here are the civilians, but the Israeli civilians slightly less so because they at least have political control of their government which is taking these actions and have confined Palestinians to open air prisons for decades.
send in IDF troops … you just have to make a judgement call on who you are willing to sacrifice, your own soldiers or innocent civilians
Sacrificing significant numbers of your own soldiers to save enemy civilians sounds noble, and would make a great movie, but would deeply hurt morale, be politically unpopular, and fundamentally weaken Israel’s ability to defend itself from hostile enemies on all sides. It would be both handing a victory to the enemy you are at war with, and justifying the use of further human shields to repeat this winning strategy. Ironically, your concern for civilians over your own people would likely put far more future civilians at risk.
one day they can tell their god …
If Yahweh or Allah existed and cared I suspect they would have weighed in by now.
Also all of this assumes that Israel … is actually trying to minimize civilian causalities
They certainly aren’t trying to maximize civilian casualties; given their capabilities they could kill civilians a lot more effectively were that their goal. I wouldn’t say they are indifferent because they are still calling people before strikes and creating evacuation zones. At very least it’s obvious they want to minimize the blowback from the media, which means minimizing civilian casualties as long as they can still get their targets. I get the sense that Israel isn’t willing to call another ceasefire until something fundamentally changes regarding their safety first, no matter how many bodies are paraded before the media or how outraged the (non-US) foreign public gets.
and that Hamas is using civilians as human shields by I guess existing in the same densely populated area
See the link in my above post for detailed info and examples of how Hamas intentionally uses human shields and puts their bases in and under hospitals, churches, mosques, etc.,
they are still making a choice that an IDF soilders life is more valuable than a Palestinian childs.
From a geopolitical standpoint, that is absolutely true. These countries are at war with each other, and someone currently on your side today is better for your national interests than someone who might potentially be on your enemy’s side in the future.
Your plan is to sacrifice your soldiers and hand your enemy a victory in order to enlarge your enemy’s potential forces in the future. I suspect if you were in charge of Israel it would not fare well because of your willingness to sacrifice its soldiers, but I can’t help but admire your eagerness to protect innocents even if it meant your own downfall. The problem is that you’d be taking a lot of people with you and possibly dooming your nation.
I also can’t help but wonder if your personal feelings about Israel are contributing to your willingness to sacrifice its soldiers. Would you feel the same way if you were sending in soldiers from whatever country you are from instead of IDF forces? Would you enthusiastically join them in such an incursion, without air support, on a possible suicide mission to save enemy civilians who are likely to support those attacking you?
Sacrificing significant numbers of your own soldiers to save enemy civilians sounds noble
It sounds consistent with the international laws of war. Everything you listed, especially being politically unpopular, is not a legitimate consideration for the use of military force against civilian populations. Under international law, the party using force must weigh the expected military advantage against the anticipated harm to civilians and civilian objects. If the same objective could be achieved via a means less harmful to civilians, that is the required option. Maybe you don’t give a shit about international law, Israel never has. It is also completely disingenuous to frame loss of IDF soldiers on the battlefield as some “win” for Hamas or a risk to Israel’s security. Hamas is terrorist organization fighting with soviet era junk and homemade rockets going up against a nation-state backed by the US. IDF losses would be in the hundreds at most in the worst conditions.
They certainly aren’t trying to maximize civilian casualties…At very least it’s obvious they want to minimize the blowback from the media
Now that’s just silly. Israel doesn’t care about the media. The Israeli UN ambassadors were wearing gold stars to protest the overwhelming UN resolution calling for a humanitarian cease fire, and Israel got called out by the Holocaust Musuem for the tactic. Israel does not care about media criticism. But you are right, they are not trying to maximize civilian casualties. They are trying to inflict maximum suffering as a means of ethnic cleansing.
See the link in my above post for detailed info and examples of how Hamas intentionally uses human shields and puts their bases in and under hospitals, churches, mosques, etc.,
Your link is nearly 10 years out of date. Also, there’s no “its ok to bomb entire neighborhoods if a enemy combatant has a home in the neighborhood so is therefore using human shields” exception to the international law of war obligation to protect civilians. Not even if you, like Israel, view Palestinians as subhuman and not deserving of basic rights.
These countries are at war with each other,
There are not two countries at war. There is one country, Israel. This is an anti-terrorism operation, by definition.
and someone currently on your side today is better for your national interests than someone who might potentially be on your enemy’s side in the future.
That’s just some cold ass shit. Really all about wining those hearts and minds. At any rate, its a violation of international law so ok.
Would you enthusiastically join them in such an incursion, without air support, to save enemy civilians who are likely to support said enemy?
Ah this old chesnut, how lazy. I could easily ask the same thing to you - would you enthusiastically support your country bombing civilian neighborhood because there might be an enemy combatant in a tunnel underneath the homes? Really waiving the flag after that one?
How about the cutting off food and water for millions of people? That’s a legitimate thing to do, right?
Just to note- Hamas was elected to govern in 2007. They are the elected governing body of Gaza. This is to say there are two governments at war.
I would also ask, as to responsibility: if Hamas fires a rocket from behind a human shield, and the innocent is killed as a result of return fire- wouldn’t Hamas be responsible for the war crime? Aren’t they responsible for the innocent life due to their purposeful choice to involve the innocent from the beginning?
If one side can turn off the other sides water and communications at will…it’s not a war. Hamas is a fractured and opportunistic militia, without enough sovereignty to actually govern.
To also highlight, half of Palestinians are undrr 20 years old, so at most 4 years old when Hamas was elected. Hamas supporters also represented about 45% of the votes, compared to the 42% voting for the progressive party. They spoke for half of a mostly dead generation, and have since been left holding the bag as the only defense force as palestine is fractured by illegal settlments and bombed to hell.
If one side can turn off the other sides water and communications at will…it’s not a war.
That has nothing to do with the definition of war; asymmetrical war is still war.
palestine is fractured by illegal settlments and bombed to hell.
Settlements: Israel dismantled all the settlements in Gaza when they unilaterally withdrew in 2005 and that didn’t play out well for them. There’s no reason for them to dismantle the settlements in the West Bank unless they are given a compelling reason to; ignoring them puts pressure on Palestine to negotiate for peace or lose everything.
Bombed to hell: This only applies to Gaza at present; it’s almost like there are predictable consequences to attacking a nation with a superior military force.
half of Palestinians are undrr 20 years old, so at most 4 years old when Hamas was elected … They spoke for half of a mostly dead generation
Are parents not responsible for what their children inherit from them? They chose to have children in a blockaded, walled, belligerent territory at war, where terrorists are in charge and run the government, where children are both used as human shields and indoctrinated from a young age with militancy and hate. They could have left through Rafah when it was open, they could have found another way besides violence, they could have deposed Hamas. Yet, everyone considers Israel responsible for all the children suffering there. If this situation is hell for those youths, we can thank their parents for it. And let’s not forget, these older youths have agency. They could have resisted or left but instead they went with the program [pogrom?] and chose violence, and now all of Gaza will have to live with the consequence of that.
and have since been left holding the bag as the only defense force
The mediaeval slaughter on Oct 7, perpetrated mostly by youths, was clearly not defense, it was offense. An attack against peaceful civilians. If these “defense forces” resist against IDF now they will probably die. For their sake I hope they pacify themselves and Gaza surrenders before any more needless deaths occur.
There are not two countries at war. There is one country, Israel. This is an anti-terrorism operation, by definition. …
Hamas is a fractured and opportunistic militia, without enough sovereignty to actually govern.Thanks for the correction, country is not the right word as Palestinian statehood is not recognized by all, nation is more accurate.
So your position is: Hamas isn’t actually the government of Gaza, despite the fact that they were elected, took control in a coup, have been negotiating on behalf of Gaza, and demonstrated the capability of launching a massive coordinated attack against Israel? Please. Whether a state or not, they are clearly the government in control of Gaza and are being treated as such.
That’s just some cold ass shit.
Yes, realities of war and realpolitik are often, “cold ass shit.”
would you enthusiastically support your country bombing civilian neighborhood because there might be an enemy combatant in a tunnel underneath the homes?
Might be? Israel supposedly has solid intelligence supporting their targets, so let’s assume that is the case in your hypothetical.
If this happened in a vacuum I’d probably protest against it. If my country were in Israel’s exact position I would absolutely support it. A century of guerilla attacks and wars topped with the brutal slaughter of thousands of civilians has a way of making one care less about the well-being of the ones committing such deeds and their human shields, and more about one’s own personal safety.
If this happened to the US, Palestine would probably be shock and awed into oblivion and then forcibly regime changed, if our response to 9/11 is any indication.How about the cutting off food and water for millions of people? That’s a legitimate thing to do, right?
Maybe they shouldn’t have bitten the hand that feeds? Seems like a pretty obvious consequence of slaughtering civilians of a nation they are entirely dependent on. Demanding they keep supplying Hamas’ territory with resources while at war with them is wild, and seems like an attempt to bind Israel’s hands. They must fight well-fed and hydrated soldiers when their ground forces go in, I guess.
And I bet Hamas or whatever terror group emerges out of that will have an easy time finding recruits.
Do you truly think that this will achieve anything other than polarising both sides? People are not animals!
History will judge them, you can’t remove such a stain easily.
Reposting this what I posted a few times here already:
Let me ask you two questions.
If Hamas is using the Palestinian people as shields and is forcefully preventing civilians from moving away from them, that makes the Palestinian people effectively hostages of Hamas. So if the Palestinian hostages happen to be near Hamas terrorists, are they acceptable collateral damage if Israel bombs them?
Eventually, Israel will find out where the Israeli hostages are being kept. Obviously, there will be Hamas terrorists near them. Are the Israeli hostages acceptable collateral damage if Israel bombs them?
If you answered yes to one question, and no to the other, you should ask yourself why you put different value on the lives of innocent human beings. Is it what side of a fence they are born on? What nationality they happen to have? What religion they believe in? The color of their skin?
if the Palestinian hostages happen to be near Hamas terrorists, are they acceptable collateral damage if Israel bombs them?
Are the Israeli hostages acceptable collateral damage if Israel bombs them?I suspect both would absolutely be considered acceptable collateral damage, that is consistent with Israel’s previous Hannibal Directive, and IDF forces mortared their own Kibbutzes and bases to hit Hamas targets during the Oct 7 attack.
Interesting you presume Israel and its supporters are motivated by racism, it seems obvious to me Israel’s motivation is regarding safety. Meanwhile, the other side of this conflict is explicitly genocidal.
I’m not asking what Israel considers acceptable collateral damage, I’m asking what individuals consider acceptable collateral damage. Note that also no where in my post I presumed Israel and it’s supporters, my questions were balanced both sides and I let open which one you would find acceptable. For me personally, collateral damage on either side is not acceptable.
If you consider both sides acceptable collateral damage, congratulations you are not a racist. However, you could question your value for human life in general.
I’m not asking what Israel considers acceptable collateral damage, I’m asking what individuals consider acceptable collateral damage. Note that also no where in my post I presumed Israel and it’s supporters,
Because your question format was, “is it acceptable … if Israel bombs them?” I thought it was posed to be from the perspective of the actor making that call, apologies if I was presumptive.
For me personally, collateral damage on either side is not acceptable. … you could question your value for human life in general.
War in general devalues human life, throws lives into the furnace for political ends. Given the tactics employed in this war, not letting human shields and hostages be viable and diminishing their value seems like the least terrible option, and it is quite terrible. It’s the same principle as not negotiating with hostage-takers.
