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.
  • DarkGamer@kbin.social
    1014·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • filister@lemmy.worldEnglish
      117·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • dlatch@lemmy.worldEnglish
      54·
      1 year ago

      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?

      • DarkGamer@kbin.social
        23·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • dlatch@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • DarkGamer@kbin.social
            24·
            1 year ago

            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.