349
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023
349 points (95.8% liked)
World News
39153 readers
2417 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
If Yahweh or Allah existed and cared I suspect they would have weighed in by now.
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.
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.,
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?
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.
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.
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.
There are not two countries at war. There is one country, Israel. This is an anti-terrorism operation, by definition.
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.
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.
That has nothing to do with the definition of war; asymmetrical war is still war.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, realities of war and realpolitik are often, "cold ass shit."
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.