104
submitted 11 months ago by goat@sh.itjust.works to c/world@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] galloog1@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months 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 27 points 11 months 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] interceder270@lemmy.world 24 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months 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.

load more comments (23 replies)
[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

it is overall legal

I'll take "it was legal at the time" for 1000, Alex

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] LotrOrc@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months 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 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

I just had a great idea. Let’s just make genocide legal!

Problem Solved!

[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months 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!

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

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!

Yet they're doing it anyway. There are many examples, but the most egregious has to be literally killing civilians using sniper fire in Al-Shifa hospital and using white phosphorus.

[-] galloog1@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

You write your Internet comments better than I write my memos.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

How do you suggest they take out Hamas otherwise?

By stopping their occupation of Gaza.

Literally every army on earth would do the same as Israel right now and it is overall legal.

Then why did the UN condemn it as a war crime? And why are they using white phosphorus and deliberately leading civilians to bombing targets?

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months 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?

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (26 replies)
this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
104 points (78.9% liked)

World News

38977 readers
2115 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS