• galloog1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      How do you suggest they take out Hamas otherwise? Just saying so doesn’t solve the problem that simultaneously forces Palistinians under leadership they did not vote for and ensures future and sustained terror attacks directed against the civilian population of Israel as they’ve experienced the last 17 years.

      Inaction is not a viable option anymore. Urban fighting favors the defender so sending in light infantry is suicide. Sending in light infantry supported by indirect fire is less suicide but worse for the civilians because it is slower and ensures the city is destroyed block by block a la Aleppo or Mosul.

      I’m getting really tired of these reactionary responses by people who have never had to plan urban combat before. Literally every army on earth would do the same as Israel right now and it is overall legal.

      • xenomor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        How about they take meaningful action legitimize Palestinian existence within Israel, end the apartheid and work out a plan for restitution? That would evaporate any shreds of support for Hamas nearly overnight and make it significantly easier to locate, and bring the terrorists to justice. Oh, and they could try to not actively promote and fund Hamas. That method would also have the side benefit of a lot fewer dead babies.

        • galloog1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree on many points but it’s also important to consider that 18% of Israel’s population is Palistinian. If Palistinian statehood is the goal, apartheid implies that they should be fully integrated. I don’t see either side ever fully accepting a minority solution. Inability to come to a full agreement on this situation is the issue. There’s a lot more nuisance in terms of resources and access that definitely lean more to the Palistinian narrative but most of the responses and perverse incentives center around violence.

          If Israel attempts to work with Palistinians, they inherently have to work with their government as it is not an occupation. Any funding or humanitarian aid for Palestine is funding for Hamas until they are fully removed. I think the Israel’s agree with you on this one.

      • interceder270@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Boots on the ground.

        Soldiers should risk their lives to save children.

        Or if that’s too much to ask, maybe negotiate? Try to talk with the people they’ve been blockading since 2007. See how they can make gaza less of a shithole so the people there have better things to do than lash out at the people who keep them there.

        It’ll cost money, but Israel has plenty.

        • galloog1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Legal, ethical, and moral within the laws and context of armed conflict, both in the moment and as policy.

          • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Nobody ever thinks that they’re the bad guy. Any damn fool can cook up a justification to themselves for doing the wrong thing.

            “You just don’t understand, this time it’s different” -every single time.

            • galloog1@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Even when you do the right thing, it only matters if people know you did it truth or no truth. I’m over trusting that doing the right thing matters anymore in my life. It never did because disinformers will always take advantage of your silence and delay in telling the whole story.

              Ever notice how quick Hamas is to have a narrative concerning events and Israel waits until they have evidence and simply provides a policy narrative otherwise? This is how trust is gained.

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

        Ah yes because bombing thousands of innocent civilians has ALWAYS worked to make the opposing force more secure. It totally has not radicalized even more people and brought about more terrorists.

        We have zero evidence of more terrorists being created and an ideology growing stronger from the US fucking about and indiscriminately bombing half the Middle East.

        Why would this take Hamas out? Can ideas be murdered by dropping bombs on babies? Last time I checked the Nazis got destroyed. Are you telling me Nazis don’t exist anymore?

        • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese civilians were killed by American bombs during WW2, and now Nazis don’t exist anymore as a political or military power. Germany is a liberal democracy and a firm ally of the USA. The same is true about Japan.

          More recent efforts at occupation and nation-building in the Middle East have not worked as well, but they have also involved much, much less indiscriminate bombing. Israel is going to face a very difficult challenge once they successfully occupy Gaza and the time comes to build it up into a neighbor that will not be a threat to Israeli security. I don’t know what they’ll need to do in order to succeed, but although I recognize that radicalization is a real phenomenon, I still think the claim that inflicting civilian casualties during war dooms them to failure is not strongly supported by historical precedent.

        • galloog1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Do the Nazis have a power structure anymore? I actually agree with you that the justifications are similar to the Allied coalition against fascism. Go take a look at how many civilians died in that conflict.

      • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There’s a disconnect between inevitable military reality and many people’s views of the situation which I don’t understand.

        Hamas has to be embedded among the civilian population of Gaza or Israel would have already destroyed them with bombs and artillery. The rockets that Hamas has are purely a terror weapon and they would be completely ineffective in an artillery duel.

        Israel has to use bombs and artillery anyway because, as you say, attacking light infantry would be torn apart against an entrenched enemy in an urban environment. Urban warfare always involves large numbers of civilians dead no matter who is fighting whom.

        Israel must seek to minimize civilian casualties (and Hamas must not) because unless Iran and Hezbollah decide to get involved after all, the only way this war ends without the destruction of Hamas is if international pressure forces Israel to stop fighting. In this context, the narrative that Israel’s policy is to deliberately target civilians isn’t just false but nonsensical - such a policy would be the most direct way for them to lose the war!

      • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Let me put this in perspective for you, if there was a school with an armed gunman holding a bunch of children captive, do you think the best course of action is to bomb the entire school?

      • SirToxicAvenger@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        for this and many other reasons we need autonomous robots with machine guns/grenade launchers/weapons platforms. those boston dynamics robots or something very similar. flood the streets with them - no boots on the ground, no worries. it’s more granular than saturation bombing & platoons of killer robots just sounds badass!

        • galloog1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree that it could bring about less civilian casualties but I’m mixed on the public perception. Air strikes are impersonal enough when it comes to winning the narrative and they save an order of magnitude more civilian lives in the end. A fully robotic army would turn a lot of folks against you while maybe saving more civilian and military lives. If all war is an extension of politics, perceptions are what win. The perception of who remain anyways.

      • galloog1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        What if they bomb you first? Is violence justified in response to violence?

        My opinion is that pacifist opinions on violence should be held at the start of conflict and go no further when it comes to the ethics of force progression. It’s just an opinion but don’t expect too much support for your opinion when you are flatly against all war regardless of justification. Hitler loved folks like you.

  • LotrOrc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I keep seeing both Israel and the US say they have evidence but neither of them seem to be able or willing to show such evidence.

    That by itself should make every single person concerned, because if they actually had evidence, they would put it right out there for everyone to see. What do they gain by hiding it?

  • febra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Either show us or shut up. The White House also had evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We all know how that turned out.

  • ShroOmeric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Cool, so they’re gonna show us… and the evidence for bombing refugee camps, and the those for bombing trucks bringing aids, they must have enough evidence to keep us busy for a couple of months with what Israel did the last month… otherwise they can fuck right off.

  • coffee_poops@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    I DON’T CARE.

    THEY COULD HAVE THE FUCKING GHOST OF OSAMA BIN LADEN IN THERE AND I WOULDN’T CARE!

    IT’S A HOSPITAL.