They are. They build bomb shelters. Hamas builds rockets and tunnels by which to smuggle them from A to B. Israel warns Gazans to leave areas targeted for bombardment. Hamas encourages them to stay where they are. Have we ever acted as ethically during war time as Israel are acting right now? That’s a serious question. I don’t recall us ever taking a fraction of the care which Israel takes to avoid civilian casualties.
What do you suggest would have been the least bad alternative immediately after 10/7?
There are some people who are defending Hamas’s actions–but I don’t think they’re in this thread.
My view is that both sides are responsible for their role in civilian deaths: Hamas, for hiding among civilians (and for, y’know, murdering civilians), and IDF, for bombing the civilians in which Hamas hides.
“Look what you made me do” is an abdication of responsibility, and is the logic of abusers. Everyone involved must take responsibility for their choices.
Maybe not directly, but certainly by proxy.
I don’t follow. Can you be specific?
I see a lot of “of course, what Hamas did was terrible, but…” handwaving in this thread and far more “Israel is the bad guy here because they are big and powerful and could choose to do nothing”. To me that’s supporting Hamas by proxy.
Israel doesn’t have the option of letting Hamas continue to exist, because if they do then it’ll only be a matter of time before they carry out another 10/7, and next time they might have WMDs. I’m not talking about anything as technologically sophisticated as a nuclear warhead. But let’s say Hamas acquired the fissile material needed for a dirty bomb, or some deadly toxin they could introduce into Tel Aviv’s water supply. Is there any doubt they’d use them? No, of course there isn’t. And I think it’d be naïve to presume Hamas aren’t trying to acquire such weapons.
So letting Hamas continue to exist in any form is simply a non-starter. It’s not on the table. It’s not even in the same room as the table. It’s something which Israel cannot allow to happen for the sake of its own survival. Given this, and given that Hamas must know that this would be Israel’s position after 10/7, surely it follows that if they choose to hide among civilian populations then any civilian casualties are their responsibility, and not that of the IDF.
You’re probably right. But I don’t think that would make it just.
After the events of October 7th, any nation on earth would have had exactly the same response. Declaration of war, with the destruction of the Hamas regime as a non-negotiable outcome. This will entail civilian casualties, like all wars.
To suggest that Israel is acting immorally in this objective is a preposterous double standard. So any useful discussion of the minimization of civilian casualties can only take place when the objective is acknowledged as just and non-negotiable.
No non-psychopath wants to kill civilians. But simply calling for a ceasefire or wishing for less civilian casualties (with the implication that Israel is the only party with any agency) is a worthless contribution unless you acknowledge the just and non-negotiable imperative of removing Hamas and specify a better way to achieve that result.
I’m certainly not saying that Israel isn’t responible for its own actions. But this is a just war, and it is not helpful that every time there are civilian casualties people scream only at Israel as though they are the only party with any agency. If that’s the approach you take, failing to acknowledge that the context here is always that the removal of Hamas is a non-negotiable outcome, Israel is just going to ignore you, like literally every other nation on earth would ignore you in a similar situation.
Yes, we all get that. Is there no other alternative for Israel’s actions? Bombing civilians is their only path to victory?
They are not bombing civilians, they are bombing Hamas.
Perhaps there is a better way to achieve their objective, but if you frame it in that way, they are simply going to ignore you.
Mind you while we’re all here debating and nitpicking on how Israel is supposed to fight Hamas, Hamas has been indiscriminately firing hundreds of rockets at Israeli towns and cities every day. Not targeted at military facilities, targeted at residential areas. If it wasn’t for the Iron Dome, the deaths and casualties would be sky high. These aren’t bottle rockets. The only difference between the lack of Israeli civilian deaths in this war vs the high number of Palestinian deaths is that the Israeli government, for all its faults, does take responsibility for protecting its citizens while for the Hamas government, the death of Palestanian citizens is part of its war plan. They place their military facilities directly in and under dense civilian facilities and neighborhoods. They actively discourage their citizens from leaving. In 16 years of Hamas governing Gaza they have built hundreds of miles of tunnels for their use and zero shelters for their citizens, and forbid their citizens from using these tunnels as shelters. “The tunnels are for Hamas, it is the UN’s responsibility to protect the Palestanian people” is a direct quote from Hamas leadership.
They are bombing Hamas too, but they are absolutely bombing civilians. If your argument relies on denying this, then maybe it isn’t a good argument.
I obviously mean that they are not targeting civilians.
In my opinion, that does not absolve them when killing civilians is a known result of their actions. This isn’t a case where they tried to kill a Hamas soldier and inadvertently killed a bystander. IDF knows that civilians will be killed too.
Then you are essentially arguing that no war is ever justified. I don’t agree.
It sounds to me that what you are saying is that everyone here should have a single-sided opinion and that that opinion should be to fully and uncritically support whatever Israel does?
Would you agree that that is an accurate characterization of your views? If not, how would you say the characterization is inaccurate?
No, that’s an extreme position that is not supported by what I said.
What if Hamas was hiding in a crowd of Israeli civilians? Still OK to bomb them? Or is it only Palestinian civilians that don’t matter?
This is a stupid conversation.
Israel is targeting the enemy. We (unlike Hamas) obviously both agree that (a) targeting an enemy in war can be just; and that (b) minimizing civilian casualties is always desirable.
My point is that just saying “I wish there were fewer civilian casualties” is completely worthless. Of course. All non-psychopaths wish for that.
This is exactly the sort of abdication of responsibility I see as so pernicious. It’s not in this thread, but elsewhere I’ve seen similar phrasing in support of Hamas. To paraphrase:
After the events of the last twenty years, any nation on earth would have had exactly the same response. Declaration of war, with the destruction of the Israeli regime as a non-negotiable outcome. This will entail civilian casualties, like all wars.
Palestine doesn’t have the option of letting Israel continue to exist, because if they do then it’ll only be a matter of time before they finish the job of displacing all Palestinians.
I completely reject such arguments, whether they’re used to justify the killing of civilians by Hamas or the killing of civilians by the IDF.
This war has two sides. One side wants to destroy its enemies and accepts civilians caught in the crossfire as acceptable. The second side wants to end the killing of civilians. One side blames the civilian deaths on their enemies. The second side recognizes that civilians must not be victims of warring powers. One side uses history to justify the commission of atrocities. The second side believes that history cannot justify the commission of atrocities.
The second side is the one that must win.