So the argument here is that Hamas’ military commander, the commander of the raid that started this current conflict, set up his command and control network inside of a refugee camp. And Israel bombed it.
If the command and control center for the on the ground active military commander isn’t a valid military targets, what is?
It’s a refugee camp filled with innocent people. No amount of justification or propaganda changes the fact that this was a refugee camp and a high degree of civilian casualties was guaranteed. This is a war crime.
They sort of do in this case. The reason the strike would be a war crime is that a refugee camp is explicitly civilian infrastructure. Under the conventions of war, explicitly civilian infrastructure is suppose to be spared from attack. And attacking it is a war crime.
When you co-locate military infrastructure there it loses it’s protections as it’s no longer explicitly civilian infrastructure. And a strike against it ceases to be a war crime.
Ah yes, who can forget all the famous scenes in action movies where the “good guy” shoots 50 “human shield civilians” while attempting to get the “bad guy”.
You can send a strike group to kill them. Safer for civilians, but less safe for soldiers. Thus, they prefer to bomb it from a distance, and the civilians around are “acceptable collateral damage”.
According to the sentiment of many other comments, no targets are acceptable if there’s any chance of civilians getting hit as collateral damage. This essentially means no targets in Gaza are acceptable for air strikes, and the consequence of this would be sending IDF ground troops into a densely populated and well-prepared guerilla fighters’ den with extremely high casualties. It seems like most of the critics can’t accurately imagine themselves in Israel’s position, portraying them as cartoonish villains rather than people trying to keep themselves safe.
Before Palestinian forces declared war on them in 1948, Jewish settlers started out legally buying the land. and I believe those who did not flee and were not driven away in the Nakba retained their land. Certainly there were a lot of bad actors in this conflict though, lots of terrorist attacks and massacres by both Arabs and Jews once the cycle of violence got going. Many thinking they were temporarily fleeing danger only to later learn they cannot return.
So the argument here is that Hamas’ military commander, the commander of the raid that started this current conflict, set up his command and control network inside of a refugee camp. And Israel bombed it.
If the command and control center for the on the ground active military commander isn’t a valid military targets, what is?
It’s a refugee camp filled with innocent people. No amount of justification or propaganda changes the fact that this was a refugee camp and a high degree of civilian casualties was guaranteed. This is a war crime.
On the part of Hamas right? For placing valid military targets inside of otherwise protected Civilian areas.
On the part of Hamas and Israel. War crimes don’t stop being war crimes just because you’re fighting war criminals.
They sort of do in this case. The reason the strike would be a war crime is that a refugee camp is explicitly civilian infrastructure. Under the conventions of war, explicitly civilian infrastructure is suppose to be spared from attack. And attacking it is a war crime.
When you co-locate military infrastructure there it loses it’s protections as it’s no longer explicitly civilian infrastructure. And a strike against it ceases to be a war crime.
Ah yes, who can forget all the famous scenes in action movies where the “good guy” shoots 50 “human shield civilians” while attempting to get the “bad guy”.
Zionism is cancer.
Unfortunately the real world isn’t a movie studio.
You can send a strike group to kill them. Safer for civilians, but less safe for soldiers. Thus, they prefer to bomb it from a distance, and the civilians around are “acceptable collateral damage”.
You can’t when they’re not at the front. And as long as the c&c infrastructure exists, sending troops on the ground to take objectives is difficult.
Taking out control infrastructure with remote bombing has been a thing since the first artillery pieces.
According to the sentiment of many other comments, no targets are acceptable if there’s any chance of civilians getting hit as collateral damage. This essentially means no targets in Gaza are acceptable for air strikes, and the consequence of this would be sending IDF ground troops into a densely populated and well-prepared guerilla fighters’ den with extremely high casualties. It seems like most of the critics can’t accurately imagine themselves in Israel’s position, portraying them as cartoonish villains rather than people trying to keep themselves safe.
Yeah just people trying to keep themselves safe in that land they took that did not belong to them.
1948 was a long time ago.
Before Palestinian forces declared war on them in 1948, Jewish settlers started out legally buying the land. and I believe those who did not flee and were not driven away in the Nakba retained their land. Certainly there were a lot of bad actors in this conflict though, lots of terrorist attacks and massacres by both Arabs and Jews once the cycle of violence got going. Many thinking they were temporarily fleeing danger only to later learn they cannot return.