Then tell me what “a strategy of taking out Hamas” would look like.
Because Hamas operates out of civilian areas.
…it would be one that complied with the Geneva conventions and the laws of war.
Meaningless talking point. This means Israel should be taking more care in their bombing campaign, not less.
The blockade consists of Hamas not agreeing to a ceasefire. But you’re right. Air drops are coordinated with Israel to get around that.
Which would entail what, exactly? Don’t just say “they should do it the way I think they should do it” - tell me what specific and concrete actions Israel should be taking, and how that would be different than what’s happening now.
Meaningless talking point. What does that look like?
Absolute heroism under fire and their mission is to save Israeli soldiers lives. Later in the article they explain Master Sgt S. was studying in a US medical school. He took a taxi straight to the airport and was on duty in Israel with Unit 669 by the following evening.
It’s humbling to learn there are soldiers with this dedication to saving their comrades lives. 
Link The Israeli squad racing to rescue soldiers blown apart by booby traps
It would be if his comrades weren’t so hell bent on killing civilians, to the point of killing escaped hostages waving a white flag, even.
It would be interesting to know if Israeli medics treat enemy wounded.
I know for certain that US medics treated civilian and enemy combatants in Iraq.
When someone is bleeding out the uniform they are wearing doesn’t matter. They are supposed to receive emergency medical even when there’s a possibility the body is booby-trapped. Removing it of course would delay treatment.
Again. Shooting dead unarmed civilians (who turn out to be escaped hostages, no less) with white flags. That gives me all the context I need to understand just how concerned the IDF is about treating people humanely in Gaza.
To be wounded, you have to not be dead first.
Why, it’s almost as if their enemy has been known to wave white flags in order to lure them into ambushes or something. How do you expect Israel to play by a set of rules its enemies ignore freely?
…I mean: I’ve answered this very same question multiple times. Its to wage a war within the confines of the Geneva Conventions and the laws of war. If Israel ever starts doing that in this war, I’ll stop posting here.
Can neither of you imagine conducting a war that didn’t take 20 hospitals out of action? That doesn’t involve starving 2.3 million people? That doesn’t involve forcing 1.9 million people out of their homes, then systematically destroying them? Can neither of you imagine waging a war that doesn’t involve thousands of dead children, thousands of dead innocent people? That doesn’t involve herding millions of people to the southern border?
Because that is all that I’ve ever suggested here. It shouldn’t take a leap of the imagination to see how that would be possible. If you are targeting a terrorist organization, then you don’t collectively punish millions of innocent civilians.
I don’t owe it to anyone to “outline a better strategy.” Not anyone here in this thread. I think my position has been crystal clear here, I think my position has been responsible here, and everything I’ve said has been supported by multiple, reputable, independent cites. All of the humanitarian agencies are calling for the same thing. An end to the siege. Stop targeting hospitals. Stop targeting civilian infrastructure. Stop the indiscriminate bombing. Allow access for the Red Cross/Crescent to the people the IDF are holding in detention. I’ll continue to advocate for that, just like I’ll continue to advocate for the unconditional release of the remaining hostages held by Hamas.
A non-answer if ever there was one.
Evidently you cannot, seeing as you refuse to describe any alternative.
If Al-Jazeera and the UN are your idea of unbiased sources for news about Israel, then I think this conversation is at an impasse.
Of course they are. That’s their job. If a humanitarian agency was whooping it up and shouting “Bomb 'em once for me, Bibi!” I’d be deeply concerned.
“Israel should do things differently!”
“Like how?”
“DIFFERENTLY!”
That’s what this has boiled down to. It’s hard to take you seriously when you say you want Hamas held to account when you unilaterally condemn every single thing Israel has done, offer no suggestions for what they should do instead, and deny or ignore Hamas’ consistent and wanton perfidy and disregard for the lives of its citizens.
It’s almost like there’s a reason why armed dorces that give even an eighth of a shit about the lives of their own people don’t hide behind civilians or pretend to surrender, despite the obvious short term benefits.
And then you have the gall to call the accurate description of Hamas’ tactics as “human shields” a “meaningless talking point”.
Against an enemy like Hamas, which specifically acts to make that impossible? No, I cannot imagine that. I have repeatedly asked you to explain what you imagine this looking like, but all I get is meaningless talking points.
I mean, if we all pretend that Hamas doesn’t do things like hide out in hospitals, then I can imagine the IDF coming in and arresting all the Hamas terrorists at their clearly labeled Hamas compound. But not in real life, no.
…it answers the question as best as I can.
I’ve provided the alternative. Don’t shut down the hospitals. Don’t force 1.9 million people out of their homes. Don’t start a siege. Don’t kill thousand’s of people with an indiscriminate bombing campaign.
The very first thing I would do would be not to rely on the Gospel. (Cites upthread) I think reliance on Artificial Intelligence to significantly ramp up the amount of targets would make the world of difference.
I’m sorry, but what do you think the agenda of the United Nations is here? Are you arguing we shouldn’t be using them as a source? Care to elaborate?
And the word multiple means that anything I’ve cited can be verified in a number of different ways. Al-Jazeera is reputable, and in the articles I’ve used here they have cited multiple independent sources. If you want to dispute anything I’ve cited, feel free.
And I didn’t say unbiased. I’ve conceded that they are biased, just like every other news organization that covers this war.
And we should be listening to them, not dismissing them.
More like “they should comply with the Geneva Conventions and the laws of war, more specifically stop targeting hospitals, end the siege, stop using AI target generation, allow UN access to detainees.”
I’d ask that you stop misrepresenting what I say. I’ve addressed this question over and over again.
Incorrect.
I’ve condemned the very obvious war crimes. The siege. The targeting of the hospitals. The treatment of detainees.
Do you not condemn these things? Or are these things that you unilaterally support?
I’ve done this over and over again.
The siege is all on Israel. The indiscriminate bombing campaign is all on Israel. The targeting of the hospitals is all on Isreal. The thousands of dead children are all on Israel. The breakdown of the healthcare system is all on Israel. The destruction of historical buildings, the razing of crops, the destruction of records: that’s all on Israel.
Do you condemn any of this? I’ve condemned Hamas. Can you condemn the multiple war crimes committed by Israel?
Can you clarify the laughing emoji here: do you support the multiple war crimes that have been documented here that committed by the IDF?
A yes or no would suffice.
Stop targeting hospitals isn’t a meaningless talking point. It’s a specific course of action. Its a significant change in strategy. Stop using the Gospel isn’t a meaningless talking point. Its significant change in strategy that would result in both significantly less civilian casualties and a response that would focus on actually targeting Hamas.
We don’t have to pretend. They weren’t hiding in the hospitals, which means that targeting them were war crimes. And even if they were hiding in the hospitals, once the threat had been eliminated Israel had obligations to do what they could to keep the hospitals running. Instead it kicked patients and those seeking shelter out of the hospitals then destroyed essential infrastructure. This has been extensively documented in this thread.
You were the one who claimed that there were “clearly labeled Hamas Compounds” at hospitals at Al Shifa. That was your position here. I’m the one who said no, there is no evidence of that, and it turned out that I was correct. Yet I don’t see you apologising when things didn’t turn out your way. The difference is that I’m not demanding you apologise.
Well, if they weren’t a US ally an international coalition might formed against them such as has happened against other nations, but that’s not the world we live in.
There are people in Netanyahu’s government who have openly called for genocide against the Palestinians, thus, I have to disagree with that.
Even if they thought they it appears they were wrong. In any case, international norms say that after you take over a hospital you’re supposed to see to it that it can keep running as a hospital or at the very least provide care to the injured and ill. None of which Israel has done.
Not in Gaza. No one in Gaza is being allowed to leave. The areas designated as “safe” have been bombed repeatedly.
So you’re OK with the IDF gunning down absolutely anyone and everyone they encounter in Gaza? Because that’s essentially what you’re condoning.
I agree that there are problems with ambushes posing as surrenders, but that’s an issue in every war. Yet there are ways to deal with such circumstances that don’t entail simply killing everything that moves. Clearly, the IDF is not utilizing them since it treats even Israeli hostages asking for rescue as if they were Hamas fighters and simply kill them without a second thought.
So… what are YOUR “unbiased sources” of information?
^ That, right there, is an unequivocal war crime committed by Israel. Even if you assume that the IDF had justification for targeting the hospitals after the IDF took over the hospitals they should have rendered care to the patients who had been unable to leave, or transported them to medical care elsewhere. The IDF chose not to do that. That was wrong and a crime. They left people to die and their corpses to rot. Bedridden people in ICU’s and babies in incubators were not threats to anyone and should have received care but did not.
And when Hamas keeps staging soldiers in hospitals and homes and sniping at the IDF and firing missiles into Israel from them, what then? “Sorry, guys, can’t do nothin’, they’re on base and them’s the rules”?
Rules only work when both parties agree on them. You’re complaining that Israel castled after moving its rook; meanwhile, Hamas has knocked the board off the table and is beating Israel with a folding chair.
Al-Jazeera is literally state-run propaganda financed and controlled by the same country that is sheltering Hamas’ leaders and has funded them to the tune of billions of dollars. They are not an unbiased source.
The UN are at best a bunch of wishy-washy do-nothings constitutionally incapable of responding to an international crisis, and at worst outright stooges for totalitarians and despots. They proved this when they decided it was easier to just do nothing about Ukraine than to strip Russia of the veto power it was never supposed to have in the first place.
And what would that look like? That’s the question you refuse to answer.
No, I do not condemn Israel for fighting Hamas in the places where Hamas is operating.
So all of that would still be happening if 10/7 had just been an ordinary day like any other?
If Hamas wants Israel to stop targeting hospitals then it should stop using them as missile batteries. Your argument that Hamas is completely honoring the “laws of war” and Israel is indiscriminately bombing targets with no military value just for the sake of killing Arabs is unjustifiable and offensive.
I’m not a particularly neutral observer of the situation, as I’ve generally been fairly pro-Israel in my views (I’m an American non-practicing Jew). So, take this all with a grain of salt. But…
I understand why the international community is strongly calling for a cease-fire. And, at a basic level, that reflects well on the international community. Less people dying horribly = good.
But… why isn’t the international community equally stridently calling for Hamas to surrender unconditionally and immediately? I mean, that would presumably stop the killing just as effectively. It’s not like Hamas has any chance of achieving anything like military victory. And if you’re of the cynical mindset which says that Israel is basically just committing genocide, which I am not, then at least it would put Israel to the test, lay its perfidy bare for the world to see (if Hamas surrendered and laid down their arms but Israel kept up the killing).
In other words, there are two sides fighting right now. Each side has an action at its disposal which will presumably more or less instantly instantly drastically reduce the killing. Why is there only international pressure on Israel?
Similarly, there has been a lot of digital ink spilled about Israel attacking hospitals. Which, certainly, on the surface sounds pretty awful. But… was Hamas defending those hospitals? Why? Were people shooting back at Israel as it approached/attacked them? Was Israel blowing them up anyways? And if Hamas was not in fact defending them and they were not in fact hiding secret Hamas tunnel installations (or at least, if Israel didn’t honestly think so), then what on earth would motivate Israel to attack them?
Taking a step back, I think the difficulty in understanding what’s going on here comes down to the difference between these two slightly exaggerated extremes:
(1) Israel is trying to root out Hamas, but doing everything practical and imaginable to kill/injure/displace as few innocents as possible
(2) Israel is trying to root out Hamas, but, what the fuck, might as well genocide those Palestinians, who they hate and view as subhuman interlopers on their chosen land, while they’re at it
The trouble is… it’s very difficult for any of us, who are not experts in the reality of modern urban warfare, to really evaluate the evidence that would distinguish between those two extremes… and it’s made even more difficult by the combination of fog of war and untrustworthy reports from biased sources, and how compacted and crammed together Gaza is.
Could Israel be vigorously pursuing and attacking Hamas with the due diligence necessary to protect its citizens, and be killing significantly fewer civilians? How many fewer? At what cost in its own people and materiel? I honestly don’t think any of us know. And “here’s yet another story of people suffering or dying horribly” doesn’t really inform that one way or the other.
All of that said… I’m still far more inclined to trust Israeli reports and claims than Palestinian. Why? Because Israel is, despite its flaws, an open and pluralistic society with a free press and a strong tradition of democracy. Which doesn’t prevent atrocities or conspiracies. But does at least somewhat check them.
Could there have been a conspiracy in the IDF to first lie about clearly-innocent hospitals and then attack them, and then fake up tons of evidence to make them appear to have been Hamas bases which they weren’t… just because? I mean, I guess? But, because Israel’s is a modern military with a centralized command structure, that would have required meetings and notes and orders and records and many many people signing off on something that would be an absolutely horrific war crime if it came out… in a society in which there is a free press, large segments of the populace suspicious of the government, and free access to the internet and other points of view.
That doesn’t mean it’s IMPOSSIBLE that Israel just randomly decided to make itself appear extra evil for no military gain at a time when its international PR is in a very precarious state. But… it certainly seems like an odd choice for no particularly benefit.