Newsweek

  • hh93@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    They told them to evacuate and Hamas told them to stay put which many did.

    So what’s your suggestion?

    Going in there with the army on the ground? That will probably result in even more casualties.

    Hamas is just evil with how they planned their bases around hospitals, churches or civilian buildings because they know that it’s impossible to target them without having civilian casualties. That’s the whole point.

    So Israel should just ignore that Hamas specifically targeted schools and civilians for their attack and not do anything? Seriously what’s your suggestion besides staying in your childish black and white thinking of optimal solutions.

    Civilian casualties are absolutely horrible but imho those are 100% Hamas fault for using them as meat shields and creating the necessity for a response by what they did to those victims of their attack.

    I know Palestine people don’t really have a choice since there were no elections in a long time so they are the biggest victims of this but imho putting the blame on Israel is just making it far too easy.

    • shrugal@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Ofc I don’t have a solution, it would be ridiculous to claim that I did. But that doesn’t change the fact that genocide is not a solution either. It’s not like anything goes if no one has a perfect idea, and mass murdering civilians is pretty much the last thing on the list. It’s the one thing that should be avoided at all costs imo.

      • hh93@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        ofc is should be avoided at all cost - but the way it looks now it’s pretty much impossible to avoid given how Hamas is playing this…

        • shrugal@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think your and my definition of “at all costs” is a bit different.

          • hh93@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Do you believe Hamas would avoid civil casualties if Israel didn’t do those strikes and let them do whatever they wanted?

            • shrugal@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think It’s pretty obvious that Hamas has never been and will never be able to kill nearly as many people as Israel is killing right now.

              • hh93@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                So they should have free reign to kill Israelis unpunished whenever they want since it’s impossible to get to them without casualties because of how they play it?

                • shrugal@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  How is that the only alternative you can think of?! This black or white thinking is total bullshit. Israel is easily strong enough to prevent most attacks and work towards a peaceful solution.

                  • burchalka@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Prevent most attacks, means there’s nonzero percent of attacks which succeed, and that means even more dead civilians

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This is not a play ground. You don’t get to swing your fists wildly and blame any children who fail to get out of your way.

      It is on the military to avoid civilian casualties. And a fake evacuation order doesn’t cut it. They know there’s nowhere for people to go without passing the IDF lines but they aren’t allowing that. So get out of here with your fake outrage about human shields. You are attacking into the most densely populated area on earth. Their mere existence does not make them shields.

      • hh93@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is on the military to avoid civilian casualties.

        And what would be your solution to that? accept people to flee to Israel and put them in camps temporarily until they can go back? surely that won’t provoke negative reactions…
        Letting everyone roam freely also isn’t workint since Hamas has shown that they’d take any chance they get to harm Israeli civilians so they’re for sure not taking that chance.

        it’s always easy to criticize something and MUCH harder to come up with a better alternative - and I’ve yet to read someone state one other than “don’t attack Gaza” which would basically be like rolling over and letting the terrorists win which surely can’t be in people’s interest…

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          They are called Refugee Camps for a reason. That IS the alternative. If you want remove people from a combat area then Refugee Camps are the international gold standard.