I think you may want to investigate what a modern "carpet bombing" campaign can do, because it's at least an order of magnitude more destructive.
Ok so the issue is semantics? Ok fine over 6000 bombs dropped in a tiny area. What gaza is 365 sqaure km, most of the bombs are in the north so over 6k bombs in an area of 180 Square km? Obviously ignoring the open spaces so what is the threshold of acceptability for you?
There were more than that many rockets launched into Israel in the same period. Should responses not be proportionate?
I've already stated multiple times that Israel is bungling the humanitarian aspect of this and should be held accountable for that.
That doesn't make it genocide, or even disproportionate, by any stretch of the imagination. It's most assuredly not "carpet bombing."
There is no country on the planet that would not respond similarly.
Is it a shitty situation? Hell yeah. Are the causes of this long and varied? Sure. Is this specific war uniquely bad? No. It's pretty run-of-the-mill. War is just a terrible thing. This is a tragedy, and there's no need to make it seem worse than it is because of politics.
So if hamas manages to get more powerful weapons, it's justifiable for them to hit back israel? What israel is doing will empower hamas, there will be more and deadlier attacks by them in the future. A saying comes to mind. Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity.
So if hamas manages to get more powerful weapons, it’s justifiable for them to hit back israel?
This is essentially Israel's Cassus Belli for obliterating Hamas. Whether you agree with Israel here or not, Hamas as it stands will cease to exist. They have no chance of holding ground and Israel has made no bones about their willingness to engage in tunnel-fighting.
It's a mistake to think this isn't a 9/11 style realignment. Everyone's concerns here should be on the treatment of Gazans in a post-Hamas world.
From a pure realpolitik sort of reasoning, Israel's lack of simultaneous humanitarian commitment hurts them here. I disagree with some of their choices on moral lines, but even Kissinger would disagree with their moves (though for different reasons).
No one is above criticism, but reality is going to happen. At this point, only the future really matters.
It's easy to paint me as callous here but I think taking the easy road out in this conversation ignores the reality of the situation, and valid discussions that could be had, over insipid political slogans.
Remeber how isis and alqueda were destroyed after the us bombed the shit out of them? Neither do I.
These are extremely different situations, but also to suggest that ISIS is at all a major player right now is silly.
It all has to do with driving recruitment, mass killing of Palestinians will bolters hamas, and the thing about terrorist organizations is that they don't have to be "major players".
They do if they want to be effective
Or they become affiliated with a larger cell, and the cycle continues.
Hamas is currently the government. It won't be the same.
I'm not saying there won't be terrorism. There are already other terrorist groups in Gaza. There will be terrorism.
But the Gazan people will be able to have elections and have self-determination again.
If anything, this is a totally practical, non-morality reason why Israel should be setting up aid camps. There's really no argument against it. They should be showing a closed fist to Hamas and an open hand to Gazans in general.
I agree on your last statement, flattening residential areas however I'd not an open hand to Palestinians. This will get worse before it gets better.
I think you may want to investigate what a modern "carpet bombing" campaign can do, because it's at least an order of magnitude more destructive.
Ok so the issue is semantics? Ok fine over 6000 bombs dropped in a tiny area. What gaza is 365 sqaure km, most of the bombs are in the north so over 6k bombs in an area of 180 Square km? Obviously ignoring the open spaces so what is the threshold of acceptability for you?
There were more than that many rockets launched into Israel in the same period. Should responses not be proportionate?
I've already stated multiple times that Israel is bungling the humanitarian aspect of this and should be held accountable for that.
That doesn't make it genocide, or even disproportionate, by any stretch of the imagination. It's most assuredly not "carpet bombing."
There is no country on the planet that would not respond similarly.
Is it a shitty situation? Hell yeah. Are the causes of this long and varied? Sure. Is this specific war uniquely bad? No. It's pretty run-of-the-mill. War is just a terrible thing. This is a tragedy, and there's no need to make it seem worse than it is because of politics.
So if hamas manages to get more powerful weapons, it's justifiable for them to hit back israel? What israel is doing will empower hamas, there will be more and deadlier attacks by them in the future. A saying comes to mind. Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity.
This is essentially Israel's Cassus Belli for obliterating Hamas. Whether you agree with Israel here or not, Hamas as it stands will cease to exist. They have no chance of holding ground and Israel has made no bones about their willingness to engage in tunnel-fighting.
It's a mistake to think this isn't a 9/11 style realignment. Everyone's concerns here should be on the treatment of Gazans in a post-Hamas world.
From a pure realpolitik sort of reasoning, Israel's lack of simultaneous humanitarian commitment hurts them here. I disagree with some of their choices on moral lines, but even Kissinger would disagree with their moves (though for different reasons).
No one is above criticism, but reality is going to happen. At this point, only the future really matters.
It's easy to paint me as callous here but I think taking the easy road out in this conversation ignores the reality of the situation, and valid discussions that could be had, over insipid political slogans.
Remeber how isis and alqueda were destroyed after the us bombed the shit out of them? Neither do I.
These are extremely different situations, but also to suggest that ISIS is at all a major player right now is silly.
It all has to do with driving recruitment, mass killing of Palestinians will bolters hamas, and the thing about terrorist organizations is that they don't have to be "major players".
They do if they want to be effective
Or they become affiliated with a larger cell, and the cycle continues.
Hamas is currently the government. It won't be the same.
I'm not saying there won't be terrorism. There are already other terrorist groups in Gaza. There will be terrorism.
But the Gazan people will be able to have elections and have self-determination again.
If anything, this is a totally practical, non-morality reason why Israel should be setting up aid camps. There's really no argument against it. They should be showing a closed fist to Hamas and an open hand to Gazans in general.
I agree on your last statement, flattening residential areas however I'd not an open hand to Palestinians. This will get worse before it gets better.