Israeli troops advance toward Gaza City as the Palestinian death toll rises above 9,000
Israeli troops advance toward Gaza City as the Palestinian death toll rises above 9,000
Israeli troops are fighting with Hamas militants on the edges of Gaza City, as the Palestinian death toll rises above 9,000. U.S. and Arab leaders are raising pressure on Israel to ease its siege and at least briefly halt its attacks in order to aid civilians.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.