I don’t think that things are black and white here. But I have to agree a little.
Israel did become a nationalistic autocracy and has deeply corrupt leadership. Still, not doing anything when they were attacked on the scale Hamas recently did, would be just stupid.
The problem is that they should have kept the civilian casualties to minimum. Ideally under the amount of Israelis that died tho deflate grudges over time and show some degree of good will.
Then again Hamas has never shown such incentive. And differentiating between Palestine civilians and Hamas collaborators or members is not an easy binary task.
The problem is that they should have kept the civilian casualties to minimum
If they’re not trying to keep civilian casualties at a minimum, then why are so few Gazans dead considering the amount of ordinance at play?
We know why so few Israelis are dead, considering comparable amounts of firepower, but Gaza does not have the Iron Dome.
I’d their bombing was indiscriminate, surely they’d have killed more people, yeah? Do you think they’re just really inept, or do you think perhaps they might actually be trying not to kill civilians, and that’s just hard given the geography of the theater?
I absolutely agree that they can (looking only at military capability) wipe the floor with Palestine with indiscriminate bombardment in a few days.
But saying that not using that ability means they do enough to avoid civilian casualties is a pretty big jump in logic.
Military ability isn’t everything, geopolitics and market dependance exist. if they actually did that immediately, the response from international community wouldn’t be as mild as it’s now. So they actually can’t.
What I am saying is that there’s a full gradient of effort when it comes to avoiding or encouraging civilian casualties (and not giving a damn about them is in the middle).
The voices of Israeli ruling politicians before and after the start of this year’s conflict doesn’t exactly inspire a confidence that enough is being done to prevent them. Some used strategies even increase them unnecessarily with doubtful military gains.
But saying that not using that ability means they do enough to avoid civilian casualties is a pretty big jump in logic
The word “enough” is not found anywhere in my posts, because I think they could, an should, do more.
“It isn’t genocide” and “civilian casualties are a tragic feature of every war” are not blanket support of the status quo.
I believe Israel believes they have done everything possible. They are undeniably going above and beyond to act with restraint. I still believe they could do more, especially by putting up a military hard point in the south for aid. I think this would be costly, and dangerous, but is both morally correct and something that would help pave the way for instilling peace after this war.
Or perhaps people should consider that Hamas is using casualties among Palestinians to win the war against Israel. Because right now it seems like it is working pretty well.
Additionally, Gaza has 5855 people per square kilometre.
I don’t know if people even realise this.
So bombing the shit out of the place is ok? Deaths are ok?
These people are in a pressure cooker, so increase the pressure, push them south and bomb the evac routes, don’t let fuel into hospitals or enough food in to Gaza.
Hamas are assholes, but when you start to justify civilian deaths, you’re no longer the good guy, yourself. They killed x, so we kill y.
This is looking increasingly like an annexation (especially of the north). Hamas aren’t in the West Bank, it’s run by Fatah, but Israel still rules it with an iron fist and keeps popping up more settlements. Moral actions under international law isn’t something that concerns them.
Where did I say that? I am not for Israel bombing Gaza. But the way how people argument for Gaza and the way the seem to ignore the problems connected to Hamas and Palestine in general is dangerous, in my opinion.
Hamas aren’t just “assholes”. This kind of rhetoric is horrific.
I don’t think that things are black and white here. But I have to agree a little.
Israel did become a nationalistic autocracy and has deeply corrupt leadership. Still, not doing anything when they were attacked on the scale Hamas recently did, would be just stupid.
The problem is that they should have kept the civilian casualties to minimum. Ideally under the amount of Israelis that died tho deflate grudges over time and show some degree of good will.
Then again Hamas has never shown such incentive. And differentiating between Palestine civilians and Hamas collaborators or members is not an easy binary task.
If they’re not trying to keep civilian casualties at a minimum, then why are so few Gazans dead considering the amount of ordinance at play?
We know why so few Israelis are dead, considering comparable amounts of firepower, but Gaza does not have the Iron Dome.
I’d their bombing was indiscriminate, surely they’d have killed more people, yeah? Do you think they’re just really inept, or do you think perhaps they might actually be trying not to kill civilians, and that’s just hard given the geography of the theater?
I absolutely agree that they can (looking only at military capability) wipe the floor with Palestine with indiscriminate bombardment in a few days.
But saying that not using that ability means they do enough to avoid civilian casualties is a pretty big jump in logic.
Military ability isn’t everything, geopolitics and market dependance exist. if they actually did that immediately, the response from international community wouldn’t be as mild as it’s now. So they actually can’t.
What I am saying is that there’s a full gradient of effort when it comes to avoiding or encouraging civilian casualties (and not giving a damn about them is in the middle).
The voices of Israeli ruling politicians before and after the start of this year’s conflict doesn’t exactly inspire a confidence that enough is being done to prevent them. Some used strategies even increase them unnecessarily with doubtful military gains.
The word “enough” is not found anywhere in my posts, because I think they could, an should, do more.
“It isn’t genocide” and “civilian casualties are a tragic feature of every war” are not blanket support of the status quo.
I believe Israel believes they have done everything possible. They are undeniably going above and beyond to act with restraint. I still believe they could do more, especially by putting up a military hard point in the south for aid. I think this would be costly, and dangerous, but is both morally correct and something that would help pave the way for instilling peace after this war.
Or perhaps people should consider that Hamas is using casualties among Palestinians to win the war against Israel. Because right now it seems like it is working pretty well.
Additionally, Gaza has 5855 people per square kilometre. I don’t know if people even realise this.
So bombing the shit out of the place is ok? Deaths are ok?
These people are in a pressure cooker, so increase the pressure, push them south and bomb the evac routes, don’t let fuel into hospitals or enough food in to Gaza.
Hamas are assholes, but when you start to justify civilian deaths, you’re no longer the good guy, yourself. They killed x, so we kill y.
This is looking increasingly like an annexation (especially of the north). Hamas aren’t in the West Bank, it’s run by Fatah, but Israel still rules it with an iron fist and keeps popping up more settlements. Moral actions under international law isn’t something that concerns them.
Where did I say that? I am not for Israel bombing Gaza. But the way how people argument for Gaza and the way the seem to ignore the problems connected to Hamas and Palestine in general is dangerous, in my opinion.
Hamas aren’t just “assholes”. This kind of rhetoric is horrific.
Are you aware of this history?
https://lemm.ee/comment/5396325
Israel is responsible for what Hamas became… You kill a one guy, and they replace with worse…