All I’m after here is your limit for dead Gazan kids. You made clear that 500K is above your limit. You’re not saying the present circumstances are, so 10K-20K are below your limit. So what’s the limit? If you can’t answer that question, why are you able to say that 500K is above your limit? How about 50K? 100K? 200K? etc.
If this is too hard to imagine, try this: The fighting continues. You think it’s nearly done. But it just keeps dragging on, for a thousand different reasons. Hamas just keeps barely sticking around, in some form or another, deep inside various hidey-holes in Gaza. At what point do you say “you know, this is enough, it’s no longer worth this carnage”? Somewhere before 500K… when?
Very easily: because a reasonable ratio of combatants to total casualties is between 1/3rd and 1/2, and if there were 500k dead children that would imply maybe 750k, 1 million total civilian casualties? Which would mean that either there were 1 million Hamasniks, or the ratio of combatants to total casualties was totally out of whack.
I answered this already. If this dragged on as long as it possibly could, to the point where every one of the 40,000 fighters this war started with was now dead, then that would imply somewhere between 40,000 and 80,000 civilian casualties and if it was significantly more than that it would imply something other than standard urban warfare is going on.
I guess that’s how the math works out, doesn’t it? If we assume 40,000 Hamas fighters and that they all fight to the death to the last man, which doesn’t seem likely at all to me.
Once again, my limit is based on the ratio of combatants to total casualties, not on a magical number below which it’s worth it and above which it’s not.
Based on the conditions on Gaza at the start of the war, I guess that would be the case. At this point, it seems like Israel has brought Hamas to the brink with significantly fewer casualties than that, so I certainly wouldn’t be ok with a bunch of random civilian casualties just because we’ve got some wiggle room under the “limit”. Because again, that’s not how (or anyone I’ve ever met) think about this (or any other) war.
And “you should ignore the people openly trying to kill you as long as they are sufficiently incompetent at doing so” isn’t a convincing argument to literally anyone.
Hamas intends to pose an existential threat to Israel, whether or not they possess the competency necessary to actually pull that off.
Now, Netanyahu, his allies, and a broken IDF? Along with a long-term demolition of Israel’s most important alliance? That might be an existential threat to Israel. Maybe that’s what the country should be focused on fixing. And a bonus - it won’t require killing any children!
Hamas is not capable of destroying Israel at the moment. That hasn’t stopped them from trying. If 10/7 had gone the way they thought, they would have had a chance. If they’re allowed to continue operating, eventually they may become capable of doing so.
Israel is not obliged to wait until a pan-Arab army is at the gates of Jerusalem to defend itself.
Oh, then carry on the killing. And the restrictions on aid for desperate civilians. Better make sure there’s no journalists too. I’m sure it will all work out great with such wonderful leaders in charge.
Show me where I’ve ever called the leadership of Israel “wonderful”. Netenyahu is a would-be dictator who belongs in prison and will hopefully be headed there after the voters give him the boot next year.
So it’s possible this terrible leader might be making bad decisions with regard to aid to needy Gazans, choosing loyalists over competent military leaders, and other Trump-like mistakes? Or is that just too far fetched?
Of course it is. The fact that Israel’s leadership is incompetent and corrupt does not invalidate the nation’s right to self-defense. Stalin was a paranoid tyrant. That doesn’t mean the Soviets shouldn’t have fought Germany.