CNN Host Left Stunned As IDF Confirms Israel Hit Refugee Camp With Airstrike
newrepublic.com
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer seemed at a lost of words at the justification being used to bomb a refugee camp in Gaza.
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer seemed at a lost of words at the justification being used to bomb a refugee camp in Gaza.
Everyone knows that if a terrorist takes a hostage, you murder the hostage and their entire family!
It’s the Israeli way!
Human shield? SHOOT THROUGH IT. WE KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE.
Human shield, checkmate atheist.
"Shoot the hostage" worked for Keanu.
I mean wasn't there a die hard where he shot himself to get the bad guy after the exit wound?
Also worked for Keyser Soze.
an eye for a large number of eyes, a tooth for a huge number of teeth. isn't that what God commanded?
Its worth understanding that if there is no hope of rescuing or releasing the hostage, all you are doing is giving them time to regroup. This is why, particularly in the 70s and 80s, many countries (famously the US) took a "we don't negotiate with terrorists" stance. It was determined that the terrorist groups had no intention of ever releasing the hostages and your option was to attack immediately or wait, watch a few hostages get executed, and attack a fortified position.
But, under those circumstances, you have troops on the ground seeking out the hostages. And the IDF have no signs of having done this so...
They're literally saying "you still not be forgotten" while bombing the shit out of Gaza even though most are still alive and some have been released. They're nothing more than a casus belli. Israel doesn't give a shit.
I think the sheer size of this attack proves they give a shit, but they aren't willing to sacrifice more people by going in without air support.
They're bombing the places the hostages are being held. They don't give a shit.
The "air support" isn't support, because they haven't made a serious push into Gaza yet. And even if they had, they're not killing many Hamas fighters. Many of them will be in the vast network of tunnels, which no amount of US-supplied munitions can reach. Even the deepest penetrating bunker buster we have can barely reach those tunnels, and as far as I've seen in news reports, we haven't provided them any of those because we don't have many to begin with due to their specialty use. For that matter, I don't think Israel has bombers capable of carrying them anyway, since they weigh over 27,000lbs per munition.
So all that bombing is doing little except killing civilians.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-57A/B_MOP
Are you seriously trying to argue that those tunnels are at least 200 feet underground? Buildings don't matter to these munitions, solid packed earth does.
Those tunnels are at best 6 to 10 feet underground, and could be breached with standard munitions, bunker busters aren't needed, as Hamas hasn't had the funding or materials to concrete line the walls to bunker specifications.
No, I'm not arguing that, the US government is arguing that, based upon tunnels the IDF's Yahalom unit has found, including one that was found in 2022 that was supposedly at least 230 feet deep. I haven't the foggiest idea how deep those tunnels go, I'm getting my information from the US and Israeli government. It's entirely possible they're exaggerating the depth for propaganda purposes, or even under exaggerating.
The paper from West point I read also said the tunnels were primarily prefabricated concrete sides and ceilings. So either you're wrong, or the IDF is.
Get the fuck out here with the "don't negotiate with terrorists" shit. Had Israel not negotiated with terrorists then they wouldn't have exchanged 1000 Hamas fighters, including the current head of Hamas in Gaza, sitting 4x life-long, for a single IDF soldier.
That shit only works if it's doctrine and you don't ever the fuck blink. Which is the right way to go about things, but also not what Israel did, especially Likud governments: Instead they've been sappy and emotional about it, milking it for votes.
Also right now the families of hostages are the #1 critics of Netanyahu's government.
Clearly it was a bad idea to deviate from Hannibal Doctrine in hindsight. I suspect this value was in mind when Hamas kidnapped all those civilians.
They're going into Gaza now, lots of footage of IDF and Hamas soldiers fighting in in north Gaza has been released, just saw some on the news.
Which is weeks after they started bombing Gaza "back to the stone age"
That quote was regarding Lebanon, not Gaza.
The "it's all so complicated" MFs have been quiet
Oh, I've seen them saying a bunch of things. Combinations of "Well, it's not actually a refugee camp" and "the US also bombs civilians to take out military targets" and the long-used canard "they were warned to go south".
Not wrong though.
IRC the initial shock and awe coordinated 'surgical' bombing at the beginning of the 2003 Iraq war cost the lives of up to 8000 Iraqi civilians. I remember watching it at the time, and American media were really gushing about that whole thing. Going on about how precise it all was. Apparently if you dress it all up in a bit of newspeak (collateral damage, precision bombing, surgical strike, ...) you can convince most people that the pressure wave from a large bomb stops at the window of a building.
Maybe international law is too lax. Maybe the US is too powerful to face consequences for anything but the most egregious examples, but then again it's not as if the world (including the middle-east) gives much of a shit when Assad barrel bombs yet another a hospital. And no one gives a shit about the thousands who died in Sudan this year, because they're black, so they apparently don't count.
In a deeply cynical way, it makes sense that the IDF and Israel think it's unfair. Why should they get so much flack for war crimes, when others get away with it consequence free? China got to demolish ten thousand or more mosques, Russia got to demolish multiple cities and deliberately murder sheltering children, it's only fair that Israel gets to commit a bit of genocide.
I'm old and tired, and please understand this is an angry and sarcastic comment, but I do wonder what people think war is actually like. Especially urban warfare. Because given history, it seems to me that this is what it's always like. Thousands of dead civilians, razed buildings, and flimsy excuses and technicalities which allow countries to get away with (not so) accidentally murdering thousands. The world's biggest and least funny joke.
Though my point in bringing it up is that it's not even an actual excuse when Israel defenders use it. We Americans actively protested such things as well, as war crimes and violations of international law.
Trying to blatantly use illegal US actions as an excuse for one's own illegal actions, such as Netanyahu in his speech trying to use the US response to 9/11 as a reason for Israel to do the same, is appalling at best.
Perhaps I would be more appalled if I was even slightly surprised by it. You know how there were protests in Israel before the war about the supreme court?
This is one of the reasons why:
I mean, the US has a legal device to allow them to declare war and invade Hague if the ICC ever tries anything to them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act
From one old and tired person to another, thanks for adding context to what is usually context-less and naive platitudes around here.
Thanks, it's like being flogged with warm lettuce
Nice metaphor, it's mine now
I stole it from an Australian parliamentarian, whose name escapes me. He had a few goodies though.
Ed: Paul Keating
I'm in the "this is not black and white" camp, but what Israel is doing now is indefensible, even when considering the inhuman atrocities Hamas committed on October 7th. Bombing a refugee camp in the hopes of killing a few Hamas terrorists is just crazy. Flattening a city full of civilians for the same reason is just crazy.
That said, I don't know what the answer is. I honestly believe there's no solution to this conflict. Proposing that Israel remove the border controls and let the Palestinians roam free, given the number of terrorists in their ranks, is just hopelessly naive. They should absolutely return the illegal settlements, but even if they do that (sadly they won't), the terrorists won't stop.
Fuck them both, is my view.
Fucking hell. IDF is doing an indefensible acts speedrun, I guess.
Hamas was the target, they surrounded their leaders with innocent people. It's a common tactic with terrorists.
And? If there's a hostage situation, the answer is not to blow up the entire building, hostages and all.
Even Russians don't blow the entire building, they just gas it.
Nah. We watched the Russians blow up the buildings in realtime without even worrying if military personnel were housed there. IIRC that was the theater bombing one that I am thinking of.
Yeah, Israel are straight-up taking plays from the Soviet handbook here. Indiscriminate murder of civilians is okay if you get one bad dude. They’ve already dehumanised Palestinians beyond belief, it’s no wonder that they view murder of innocent Palestinians as being completely different to murder of innocent Israelis.
And that's the most disturbing part of it.
They blew up that whole theater in Mariupol full of sheltering women and children, early on in the war. That must have killed hundreds.
That wasn't a hostage situation that was plain ethnic cleansing. Russia has thrown pretty much the whole of the male population in the occupied territories in the meat grinder by now, btw.
What OP is referring to is the Dubrovka crisis where Chechens took tons of hostages in a theatre and Russia pumped the whole thing full of gas, probably some fast-acting opioid. Which isn't that bad of a way to diffuse a situation they just failed to inform EMTs on what they've used or at least how patients should be treated which meant a lot more respiratory failures than was necessary. Still a better outcome than storming the thing and the Chechens blowing everything up.
A russian classic, really:
Answer? They're at war
As we all know, legal experts prefer to say “all’s fair in love and war” than to follow Geneva conventions.
I agree, but militaries will absolutely strike any high value target no matter the civilian cost. That's the human cost of war and why we have rules of war. Hamas doesn't follow those rules and the IDF has labeled them illegal combatants. Thus, in a legal sense, these strikes are being carried out. It absolutely is sickening but this is what Hamas wants to happen.
That's not how it works. The failure of an enemy to abide by the laws of war does not absolve your side of the necessity of following the laws of war.
Jesus, fuck, it's the Bush administration all over again. I'm having fucking flashbacks to "Why it's actually totally legal to torture 'unprivileged combatants'"
They shouldn't have gotten away with it.... but they largely did, didn't they? Plenty of tales of US forces executing men of fighting age, based on very spurious allegations. The US killed two Reuters journalists and convicted... Chelsea Manning for leaking the footage to wikileaks. Not as if this was new. Colin Powell started his career by arguably whitewashing the My Lai massacre and ended it by fraudulently justifying the war in Iraq. Certainly didn't hurt his career. So apparently, it often does work that way. You hire some lawyers, you find a technicality, and you can get away with pretending it was legal. I look forward to seeing George Bush Jr. on dancing with the Stars.
You might suspect that might makes right, and the US, China and Russia get away with war crimes and/or a bit of genocide because they're nuclear powers.
But that can't be it, can it? Because Assad gets away with war crimes constantly. IRC there was a story a few years ago, about how doctors in Syria no longer told the UN where their hospital were located. The Syrians were deliberately targetting hospitals, based on UN information. You know, the UN says: 'don't bomb this, it's a hospital, that would be a war crime'. So Assad bombs them all anyway. I think at one point they bombed 4 in one day. Anyway, Assad's still in power.
Actually, it does if justified. I don't agree at all with it, but that's war. The IDF will justify it and no one will do anything but look the other way.
what
Where's the proof they killed this general? It just sounds way too convenient to try to justify your fuck up with a lie, but until proven that this target was indeed hiding there with other combatants I have my doubts.
So Hamas was not committing war crimes when they shot up that music festival because surely there were some IDF soldiers in there?
The moment unarmed people that have nothing to do with the war are knowingly targeted is the moment any party crosses the line
knowingly targeted != collateral damage
It's a terrorist act and is a crime. It's not a war crime as war was not declared. Hamas is not a uniformed military and they don't fall under traditional laws of war. They are terrorists and international law gives great latitude on ways to eliminate them.
If you really need it spelled out here's a literal human rights lawyer explaining the war crimes israel is committing and which international laws exactly they are breaking. https://youtu.be/wiGp2mvFLY0?si=WYD-YCE0R1dlhL8V
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/wiGp2mvFLY0?si=WYD-YCE0R1dlhL8V
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
That is actually how it works. It is not against international law to strike civilian areas if it cannot be avoided in order to attack military targets. It needs to be done in a manner appropriate to the situation, for which there is obviously no hard line defined. Assuming that Israel is not lying regarding the military target around/under the location of this strike (which they probably aren't, because murdering civilians without reason hurts their interests), it is explicitly legal without any loopholes or weird interpretations.
That is categorically not how it works. We had trials over this after WWII. The international law was delineated quite clearly. Intentionally targeting civilians to hit military targets is still a war crime. Even if enemy combatants are hiding among civilians to use them as human shields, even if you can prove that it is a standard practice of your enemy. It's still a war crime. Israel is just so confident that the US will back them up all the way down to total genocide that they don't even pretend they are trying to follow IHL anymore.
Civilians should never be the target. The Israei government will be questioned for their actions, but I'll be surprised if they are held responsible for them.
It is if the collateral damage is considered 'excessive' in comparison to the military benefits that would be gained if the strike was successful and in relation to the level of precision available.
You know, like murdering 50 civilians in a refugee camp with a guided munition to kill an enemy officer.
Like murdering 8000 civilians in a coordinated 'surgical' strike in an operation the media would glowingly call Shock and Awe, and getting re-elected on the back of it.
Or demolishing thousands of mosques, then signing trade deals with Muslim countries, as part of the Belt and Road initiative.
Or forcibly conscripting Muslim men for the meatgrinder in Ukraine, previously leveling Chechnya, then inviting over Hamas for a visit where they praise your leadership.
I wouldn't get your hopes up too high. Once everyone's bored of this war and distracted, and the man on the street in the Arab world is once again existentially preoccupied, it's not unlikely Arab leaders will end their performative outrage and return to real politik, making money and throwing Palestinians under the bus.
Oh, don't worry, my hopes weren't that Arab leaders would hold Israel accountable. Only that some of us will remember this outrage.
Our hopes should be that the body politic in both America and Israel (the two countries with power to stop it) wakes up and mobilizes to stop it. This is so much faster and more blatant than what america did post 9/11 that I believe (def biased but also seeing encouraging signs) that we can pull it off this time.
It's not really relevant what Hamas wants to happen. The civilians don't want to be murdered.
These are war crimes no matter what either of the beligerants think/want.
Most international law experts are already coming down on the side of civilian starvation being war crimes. History is going to judge this a lot more harshly than the talking heads of US/Israeli news.
I don't think anyone is saying they do.
Is bombing a hospital ok in the rules of war? Because they bombed the only cancer hospital in Gaza yesterday.
Ask Assad. He once bombed 4 hospitals in a day, and IRC at one point doctors in Syria stopped telling the UN where their hospitals were located, because their warnings to not target these hospitals was being used by the Syrians as targetting suggestions.
Shit, is he bombing Palestine too? Otherwise he’s irrelevant to this conversation
Sure, we don't want no context here. That only makes this less black and white, and nobody ain't got time for that.
What additional context does an unrelated conflict provide?
You can read the thread yourself, I'm not going to waste my time if you refuse to do that.
Then I guess you won’t convince me, because I read it and don’t understand. Suck to suck (for both of us) I guess
Hamas bombed a hospital by mistake. War zones are dangerous.
You're referring to the PIJ, not Hamas. And even the PIJ being responsible is very much in question at the moment as more information is obtained on those events. See the New York Times analysis from the other day.
I don't know what NYT analysis you're referring to but this one by the BBC seems to support claims that the rocket was fired from within Gaza.
No idea why you're downvoted, this is objectively true. One may consider it disgusting or morally indefensible, but a) unless Israel is lying about the presence of legitimate targets in the area it is not illegal b) using civilians as human shields is a staple Hamas tactic.
The truth is very hard to swallow. I served in Iraq and Afghanistan, I've witnessed this stupidity first hand. Terrorists are cowards who hide behind civilians. They want civilians to die because for every civilian killed they gain more bodies to their cause.
So so very close to piecing together why bombing a refugee camp even if there are terrorists or supporting infrastructure located there is a terrible idea.
I truly don't know how you can recognize that Hamas wants civilians to die because it will strengthen their numbers, and still excuse the bombing of civilians. Perhaps you're just trolling?
This explains so much about all the shit you're smearing all over Lemmy. You just miss murdering Arabs.
I am an engineer, I built schools, hospitals, and other public services. Few military personnel serve in combat roles.
Oh, so you're just keeping your role of whitewashing a brutal occupation going then.
I don't support either side of the conflict.
Yet you're only justifying one side's actions.
I don't support either side. Both sides have made no effort towards diplomacy. Both sides have focused on violence.
Lol and you get downvoted because you're not meeting the bloodthirsty soldier narrative that Lemmy's unemployed communists love to parrot.
You're probably correct. I'm rather antiwar and pro diplomacy.
Yes, I've heard the US operation in Iraq was very successful in defeating the Taliban. Oh wait...
The Taliban are in Afghanistan and the U.S. mission was never against them, ever. Perhaps you should look up basic information first.
Oh, was Iraq justified with Saddam's "weapon's of mass destruction" that didn't exist? Sorry, got my lies mixed up.
Iraq was GWB wanting to make his daddy proud. On the ground things were fine until his dumbass fired the entire Iraqi military. That's when it all went to hell. It did lead to a United Iraq, but it took 12 years.
I can't help but parrot exactly what @V17 said. People just don't want to hear the realities of war.
Dude, Wolf Blitzer gets it. Don't let yourself seem like the less reasonable party when Wolf Blitzer's involved.
I feel like we're already at the bottom of the barrel when serial teleprompter reader Wolf Blitzer gets it.
It's unreal right? It's like some body snatcher type shit and it's everyday. Tomorrow some even more baffling combination of sorrows will somehow make this look tame. We are living the curse of "may you live in interesting times."
I don't think the Israeli government cares anymore than the Iranian government cared about killing its people. Any government based on religion is going to be intolerant of nonconforming behaviors and other religious beliefs. Separation of church and state is a requirement for successful societies.
This is not a religious conflict. It's imperialist and settler colonial. This headass take needs to stop.
This is a religious war.
Then why hasn’t Israel declared war on all other Muslim countries?
Because they haven't attacked Israel. Seems pretty simple.
If I'm a Palestinian, and I am / convert to Judaism. Can I join Israel? (no)
Also, how many Israelis have a Jewish religion? (they are the minority, it's mostly non believers)
How does this fit in it being religious instead of ethnic you think?
When the killing went beyond ethnicity. Hamas didn't target Israelis, they targeted Jews.
They killed the people outside of their prison cell. The ones that have them locked in there under horrifying conditions. They targeted anyone on the outside.
That's why you invest in diplomacy and not weapons of war. The Palestinian Government should have asked for a third party to investigate the current situation in Gaza and requested a diplomatic solution. Instead they fired thousands of rockets at innocent people and murdered or kidnapped every Jew they found.
I have A LOT of criticism of Bibi and his Government, but I am firmly against terrorism.
Great, then let's give Palestinians an iron dome as well.
And while we're at it, let's return the land and homes that Palestinians have been terrorized out of, and prevent the horrific living conditions in their prison camp called Gaza. Maybe during the great march of return, a peaceful protest that was met in deaf ears and bullets. Eventually you have two options, die a silent suffering death or fight back.
Oct 7th is Israeli blowback
Iran killing it's own people or the Israelis? For sure on religion being a blight to the progress of humanity. I'd say I'm still perplexed, but honestly just meh. I've read enough weird shit today.
Ive witnessed too much of it in the last 20 years. I'm tried of seeing innocent people killed to defend a religion.
I don't get the headline. The topic is far too important for a click bait title. He was not stunned... just asking the tough question.
He actually says in the clip, "I'm having a hard time hearing you" after the long pause, so it's also kind of inaccurate. The response was still horrifying but reporting the information correctly would still be cool.
Zionist psychopaths.
Definitely psychopaths & monsters, but that was to be expected, very sadly. In the end the victim becomes the murderer.
You've got it backwards. Israel has never been the victim in this conflict. There's almost a century now of Israel oppressing Palestine to take their land. Hamas is just responding to Israel. If Israel backed the fuck off this would all go away. Or at least it would have; not so sure if anyone in Palestine will let Israel be after what they've been doing in October...
You have to be fucking kidding me.
Both sides have been victims of their respective leaderships for decades.
The Palestinians have been victims of the Zionists, especially the religious right with their illegal settlements.
The Israelis have been victims of the Islamic terrorists, currently led by Hamas, whose explicit goal is to eradicate every Jew.
You can't seriously look at this conflict and ignore half the story.
Terrorist 👏 organisation 👏 will 👏 not 👏 exist 👏 if 👏 you 👏 don't 👏 give 👏 them 👏 reason 👏 to 👏
I see, so the solution is to stop being Jew, or better yet, to simply die. Got it. Thanks.
Perhaps you can stop subjugating people and create a fundamentalist group? https://youtu.be/o7grSsuFSS0
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/o7grSsuFSS0
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
You think that will fix the underlying issue? How naive.
How imperialist of you.
Weird that I would think "What sort of twat calls himself Wolf Blitzer" and then find out he was born in Germany and think "Oh that's quite normal then"
WTF Germany that sounds like a blender for wild canines 😂
It's actually a really cool name. Translate it's Wolf Lightning or Flash. But a blender...I wouldn't have thought of that.
I haven't studied German for decades but I remember the suffix 'er' is someone who does that thing, same as English
So it's even cooler, it's Wolf Lightning Man
Er means that in English, Frisian, and Dutch too.
I'm a native German speaker and when I hear "Blitzer", I think of those cameras police use to enforce speed limits. You know, the ones with the red flash to let you know you'll be getting a ticket.
wolf lightning-er
It's crazy that you can go on Reddit and see people claiming it wasn't a refugee camp meanwhile the IDF has confirmed it was a refugee camp.
They've fallen for the Israeli propaganda machine so hard that they are more extreme in their defense of the IDF than the fucking IDF.
It's not really israeli but US propaganda at this point. On reddit it's clear what s the editorial line of most moderators
Their onboarding lie to the US citizens was very successful with the decapitated babies claim parroted by the president and those asinine 9/11 and Pearl Harbor references to the October 7th attack. Textbook propaganda by ripping open old scars to instill hatred and dehumanizing your enemy.
Bold of you to assume those are actual people on Reddit
The confusing is from there being Jabalia city and Jabalia refugee camp nearby. The bombed the latter.
The Times of Israel's take on this:
So, they have no actual evidence they killed the guy.
And the move south rhetoric is clearly irrelevant, since if there are any Hamas people in the south, they'll bomb the civilians there anyways. So why does the location matter?
True, it appears they will indeed hit Hamas targets no matter where they are:
However, it seems like going south is probably still in civilians' interests, IDF says there are more targets in the north and once ground forces go in they are going to consider anyone remaining north of the Gaza river to be a potential enemy combatant:
“Go south or we’ll bomb you”
“Oops we bombed you anyway rofl”
Israel has already bombed the evacuation corridor this invasion, as soon as they’re done in the north they’ll go south and murder more innocent children.
Unlikely, I suspect they will annex north Gaza and move the wall.
The location does matter for the ground troops since the can then sweep the buildings easier
Dam! who are the Nazi now? They literally have people locked up behind walls and are denying the food and other resources. They cant even fish for food unless allowed.
Nazis are defined by their focus on white supremacy with an emphasis on "aryan" whites. Jews and Arabs were very much a target of their regime.
Not all fascists are Nazis. The Israeli government has become increasingly fascist over the past decades and the IDF has a long history of war crimes and crimes against humanity with an emphasis on ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
Please don't trivialize "Nazi" when they are still a very active threat in many different nations.
They're literally doing final solution shit in front of our eyes. Comparing them to the Nazis (a fascist ethnic supremecist nation on their genocide arc) absolutely stands.
That is an INCREDIBLY euro-centric viewpoint. Western Europe, at that.
Genocide and ethnic cleansing did not start or stop with Nazi Germany. Hell, by a lot of estimates, Imperial Japan killed more civilians during THEIR ethnic cleansing attempts.
And that ignores all the genocidal "Eastern European" wars of the 20th century, Russia's actions, China's ongoing horror, the hell that is Africa, and all the other wars. And that is just the 20th/21st century.
Yes, they could easily give a more appropriate allegory with the Rwandan genocide (tribal divisions exploited by colonial Europe lead to genocide), but frankly nazis are better known.
Still doesn't make it right. Rape of Nanking , The Rohingya genocide, Bosnian Genocide.
@NuXCOM_90Percent yikes dude if you see Eurocentric ethnocentrism as a bad thing then maybe don't use overly generalising phrases like that, it just sounds racist.
If they intended to maximize civilian deaths they aren't going about it very well, they are still calling people before strikes and doing "door-knocker" strikes in rooftops before the real ones. This is war, where many civilians die, not systemic eradication, where every civilian dies.
It's also worth noting that 20% if Israeli citizens with full rights are Palestinian/Arab and live mostly peacefully. Gaza is being attacked because they are a belligerent in a war, not because of eugenics or a Nazi-style "final solution."
They aren't doing roofknocking during this war, and that's such a thin justification to obliterate peoples homes I'm shocked you're repeating it.
Why are there pogroms and settlers being armed in the west bank? There is no Hamas there, it isn't Gaza. What gives?
They literally blasted a whole ass refugee camp killing hundreds yesterday to kill one guy (aledgedly), and are fully blasting all civilian infrastructure. You're either blind, misinformed, or a disingenuous hack.
Sounds like they still do it sometimes but not often, thanks for the correction.
Where did I say roofknocking justified bombings? I'm pointing out that Israel is not behaving in a way that supports characterizing their actions in Gaza as Nazi-like, their intention is not to eradicate Arabs. I suspect their intention is to clear North Gaza and annex it down to the Gaza river but that's just my personal take.
Allegedly there was a network of tunnels under the area as well.
I'm curious, what would you do if you were in Israel's shoes, if your city just had thousands of people murdered and kidnapped then fled into a densely populated hostile territory? What do you think the right move is here?
Because someone couldn't also be informed and simply disagree with you?
If you want the hostages, you negotiate, not bomb where the hostages are. You also don't wait 2 days to secure the area while immediately hitting the "bomb gaza" button. The conflict makes so much more sense when you realize Israel cares more about killing and displacing Palestinians than saving their own people. (Hannibal doctrine)
If I'm in Israel's shoes, I wouldn't be demonizing and dehumanizing an entire people I've stolen land from.
Let's say I magically became ruler on Oct 7th. There's only two ways out of the conflict for good, full scale genocide and ethnic cleansing or reparations and a one state secular solution. Obviously I choose the latter.
The issue is what kicked this round of genocide off.
Hamas broke out of the open air prison and attacked Israeli civilians as well as foreign citizens in truly barbaric ways. Murder, rape, defiling corpses, all that stuff. (Allegedly?) recorded on go pros and other cameras provided by Hamas.
And, like it or not, Hamas are the de facto government of Gaza. And I think they "won" the last election they allowed to happen?
An Israeli government that immediately follows up with "Hey, lets give the country that just attacked us and are still holding our people hostage a lot of land, money, and resources" would see themselves facing a coup almost immediately. The US infamously went scorched earth on Jimmy Carter because he wasn't "hard on terrorism" (and it didn't help that republicans were actively sabotaging him in the process...). And that was a few randos on the other side of the country. Not the still warm and mutilated bodies of nieces and nephews.
And, as can be seen with the periodic attacks from terror groups in other nearby nations, Israel still needs to be "strong" for political and defense reasons. If the narrative becomes "Just rape a few Israeli bitches and then you get whatever you want" then... yeah.
The moment Hamas attacked Israeli, German, UK, and other citizens: There was no way this ended peacefully. A two state solution is more or less forever off the table (see the issues that have plagued Yemen) so long as Hamas exists at all.
And a one state solution and reparations cannot happen until, again, Hamas does not exist. The hostages are ancillary to "ensuring this can never happen again".
The only way this would have ended with minimal bloodshed would be if good faith negotiations for hostages had immediately begun... and Mossad and the IDF were able to assassinate basically all of Hamas leadership in surgical strikes while pretending to negotiate. Because anything else is the usual issue with guerilla warfare where the weaker power uses civilians as human shields. And when those shields die, their family and friend become radicalized against the killers.
And this also ignores Hamas leadership allegedly (?) publicly stating they will continue to commit horrifying acts of terror against anyone who is unfortunate enough to be within a few miles of them.
Israel wants Hamas to exist, Netenyahu said it himself in a closed door meeting, and they fund Hamas through Qatar.
Why? Manufacture consent against the exact kind of barbaric enemy Israel propped up.
Human shields is the dumbest fucking talking point. Even if it were true, does that justify all the collateral damage to literal children? Half of Gaza is under 18.
Hamas won because, the United States forced an election the people said they werent ready for. Moderates split the vote, and a failed western backed coup solidified their power. That also happened 16 years ago, long before many of those Gazans were even alive let alone old enough to vote.
So riddle me this, would you be OK with Hamas having guided rockets to take out Israeli targets? If so, what's the ratio of civilian to militant do you think is alright? Think hard before you make a double standard for yourself.
Reparations can and should happen, however I don't think that a one-state solution is viable presently. Each side is still launching bloody attacks against the other; maybe there will be a remote possibility of this after a few generations of peace. If both sides secular and wanted secular government it would certainly provide a lot of common ground.
Only one party has the power to make that a reality, and it isn't the Palestinians.
How so? That doesn't fit with my information. Israel has always been willing to negotiate for peace but as they hold all the cards when it comes to the military and realpolitik situation it needs to be on their terms. Palestine has been unwilling to surrender and make viable peace terms since 1948, despite losing every war. In fact, Hamas has it in their original charter that:
This is why things have gotten so bad for them, a refusal to pacify and make concessions. This is a prerequisite to any one-state solution. The Peel commission found that a one-state solution wasn't viable in the 30's because animosity was so high after the Arab revolt and I suspect not much has changed since then. However, I'd love to be proven wrong. It seems like a bad idea to try and compromise and form a stable government with enemies who actively want to genocide you, like Hamas does.
As for a secular government, neither party has one but Israel seems a hell of a lot more secular than Gaza, whose government appears to be enforcing something like Sharia Law on the people there:
Islam is very intolerant to those who wish to become secular/leave the religion, as per their rules regarding apostates:
Jews are comparatively very tolerant of secularists/atheists among them.
There's no Hamas in the west bank. Why is Israel killing and driving them out? Performing pogroms and all that.
Also why should they be peaceful after the literal Nakba? Israel are the ones on stolen land dude.
I'm not sure what incidents you're referring to, can you refer me to any articles?
Gaza (Hamas) is being treated very differently than the West Bank (PA) by Israel presently.
That's exactly the sort of thinking that led to Gaza's current situation, it completely ignores the realpolitik of their situation and will lead to predictable reprisals from a superior force. "Why should I stop poking the bear, it's in my cave!" Well, here we are, another predictable and preventable mauling.
It seems like Hamas got exactly what they expected. Extreme insane reaction that shows the IDF for what they really are.
the legitimacy of western hegemony is seriously tested here
So the argument here is that Hamas' military commander, the commander of the raid that started this current conflict, set up his command and control network inside of a refugee camp. And Israel bombed it.
If the command and control center for the on the ground active military commander isn't a valid military targets, what is?
It's a refugee camp filled with innocent people. No amount of justification or propaganda changes the fact that this was a refugee camp and a high degree of civilian casualties was guaranteed. This is a war crime.
On the part of Hamas right? For placing valid military targets inside of otherwise protected Civilian areas.
On the part of Hamas and Israel. War crimes don't stop being war crimes just because you're fighting war criminals.
They sort of do in this case. The reason the strike would be a war crime is that a refugee camp is explicitly civilian infrastructure. Under the conventions of war, explicitly civilian infrastructure is suppose to be spared from attack. And attacking it is a war crime.
When you co-locate military infrastructure there it loses it's protections as it's no longer explicitly civilian infrastructure. And a strike against it ceases to be a war crime.
Ah yes, who can forget all the famous scenes in action movies where the "good guy" shoots 50 "human shield civilians" while attempting to get the "bad guy".
Zionism is cancer.
Unfortunately the real world isn't a movie studio.
You can send a strike group to kill them. Safer for civilians, but less safe for soldiers. Thus, they prefer to bomb it from a distance, and the civilians around are "acceptable collateral damage".
You can't when they're not at the front. And as long as the c&c infrastructure exists, sending troops on the ground to take objectives is difficult.
Taking out control infrastructure with remote bombing has been a thing since the first artillery pieces.
According to the sentiment of many other comments, no targets are acceptable if there's any chance of civilians getting hit as collateral damage. This essentially means no targets in Gaza are acceptable for air strikes, and the consequence of this would be sending IDF ground troops into a densely populated and well-prepared guerilla fighters' den with extremely high casualties. It seems like most of the critics can't accurately imagine themselves in Israel's position, portraying them as cartoonish villains rather than people trying to keep themselves safe.
Yeah just people trying to keep themselves safe in that land they took that did not belong to them.
Before Palestinian forces declared war on them in 1948, Jewish settlers started out legally buying the land. and I believe those who did not flee and were not driven away in the Nakba retained their land. Certainly there were a lot of bad actors in this conflict though, lots of terrorist attacks and massacres by both Arabs and Jews once the cycle of violence got going. Many thinking they were temporarily fleeing danger only to later learn they cannot return.
1948 was a long time ago.