I think this is the crux of the issue. I think important powers in Israel don’t believe that is true.
Of course there are other options. There can be debates about the pros and cons of those options. Israel might prefer this option for a variety of reasons. That doesn’t mean they truly do not have any other option.
There are other options. Do they prevent a massacre from happening again?
I gotta say, I’m not sure this option prevents that. But i think you are being a bit blase in assuming that of course Israel can prevent future attacks with a less brutal response.
I have no idea whether that’s true. I can imagine multiple scenarios in which it wouldn’t be, but I’m not a military strategist, let alone one with detailed information about “the ground” in Palestine. Are you?
And let Hamas keep doing that instead?
That’s fair. I don’t think any option can be said today to be guaranteed to prevent this in the future, especially if you are talking about an attack from a Hamas-like organization. As has been noted, the current path could easily create the next generation of terrorists, even if successful in wiping out the current iteration of Hamas.
But the specific comment that started this was that the only option was to let Hamas “work to repeat the events of Oct 7 in peace.” There are many other options besides that, and we can debate the likely effectiveness of those options.
Boots are on the ground, precisely because it is impossible to eliminate Hamas through bombing alone, unless you resort to carpet bombing Gaza rather than using precision strikes against Hamas (which I’m sure we can all agree would be a horrific way to proceed).
But while Israeli infantry are skilled and well-equipped, much of their efficacy comes from air and artillery support, as with any combined arms force. Blowing up Hamas positions is part of getting boots on the ground.
Yes, of course. I meant for getting at a specific bunker.
…you can conduct a targeted assassination any time you like. But you don’t get to call the hundreds of injured and dead “human shields.” They are what the IDF consider acceptable casualties. They considered the target important enough to take out that the cost in civilian lives was acceptable. Let’s not sugar-coat this.
How many American children would you consider an acceptable amount to die if Bin Laden was out and about in a Florida mall?
Were you under the impression that I, Banquet Bear, am capable of coming up with a solution to the Israel/Palestinian crisis?
I really hate to disappoint you. But more impressive people than me have tried to tackle this and none of them have been successful.
And not everyone agrees with that sentiment. I don’t think everyone in this very thread would agree. The people in the video I shared earlier certainly don’t. Because if they did, they would agree that lifting the siege is something that should be done now.
I focus on what I can do. And what I can do here is elevate the voices and the plight of innocent Palestinians who after decades of Apartheid, are now being driven from their lands, having their children bombed and killed at unacceptable rates.
I again reiterate that the events of October 7th were a disgusting act of terror, Hamas an evil organization that needs to be taken out. But it isn’t my job to explain to Israel how to do that without violating international law. It’s enough for me to simply state Israel should stop violating international law.
Let me try a little unboggling.
For the past 78 years my country has come under a LOT of ethical questioning for dropping two atomic bombs on Japan. A LOT of words, print, and pixels have been expended on trying to “settle” the question of whether it was justifiable or beyond the pale.
I am resigned that the question will never be answered to everyone’s satisfaction.
Unquestionably, it was known beforehand that thousands of people, including civilians, including children, would die if those bombs were dropped. The consequences were absolutely horrific. In isolation it would be considered an atrocity and possibly a crime against humanity.
So the only question is: can you provide any argument to justify this act? And the US has put forth the argument that the alternative plan, involving napalming every settlement over an arbitrary population limit and physically invading the Japanese islands would have results in multiple orders of magnitude more deaths than dropping Fat Man and Little Boy. Remarkably enough, there is some evidence that the proposed land invasion would have resulted in more death. That doesn’t convince everyone (and never will convince everyone) but it is arguable that as horrific as those bombings were they might be justifiable. Or, as I put it, they were the least bad thing.
But what the US did not and has not done is just claim that the Japanese military were embedded among civilians (true to some degree) and there was no alternative. There was an alternative and there has been some effort to prove (maybe successful or maybe not) that the alternative would have been even worse.
Now, let get back to the present day. Israel claims they have no choice and there’s no alternative. If they want to win over people outside Israel what they need to do is explain the alternatives would be even worse. Because that’s what will provide justification for the current bombing of Gaza and the nearly 10,000 deaths so far, about half of them children. And you’re still not going to win over everyone.
To the outside it looks like Netanyahu’s government went straight to bombing the shit out of Gaza. This makes a lot of people angry and uncomfortable. Maybe the IDF should explain how a ground offensive without the prior bombing campaign would be worse. Or that urban combat, house-to-house, seeking Hamas in such a manner would be even worse - maybe it would take longer, maybe it would be likely to result in more civilian deaths, whatever.
Because the sort of bombing campaign currently being conducted, along with the “complete siege” cutting off all food, water, and fuel, is a horrific thing and can only be justified if all viable alternatives are worse.
Instead, the Israelis just keep saying, essentially, “trust us”. That’s not going to win over people outside of Israel. It’s not the job of other people to justify this bombing campaign it is the job of ISRAEL to justify it.
What if that isn’t possible? At least, by your definition of what international law is.
…it isn’t my definition. I’ve cited the International Red Cross and the Geneva Conventions.
Then the gloves come off. Everywhere. You legitimize the October 7th attacks. 9/11. If you decide the rules don’t apply to you…then the rules don’t apply to anyone.
Israel nuking Gaza would be idiotic because the entire country of Israel is downwind. They’d be irradiating their own people as well as Hamas and the Gaza Palestinians.
Well, arguably that would be a case for Israelis caring about collateral damage among Israelis…
I doubt war even looked like that in the past, either. That was the whole point of trying to come up with some rules to limit the damage, or at least try to.
^ @Babale makes a very valid point here - if you’re going to fight a war it is inevitable some innocent bystanders are going to get killed. So “no civilians killed whatsoever” is not a valid standard. Can we all agree on that?
Israel does not have to present alternatives, but if they don’t they will be judged by the other nations of the world. When one’s nation is getting dumped on it’s very uncomfortable and it is easy to become defensive. It may feel unfair. It may even be unfair.
I want to underline that I am NOT blaming anyone in this thread for decisions made in this war. None of us are in control here, and some people here have a very personal stake in this conflict Let’s choose our words carefully and also listen carefully to what other people are actually saying.
…I agree with that.
And for the sake of clarity, I’ve never suggested that the standard should be “no innocent bystanders are going to get killed.”
And that’s exactly what Hamas wants. I could be wrong, but i believe that a primary goal of that raid was to provoke Israel to act so aggressively that it lost friends and allies in the rest of the world.
There may be no good options for Israel. But what they are doing now is a bad option. Maybe it’s the least bad. I am hardly an international diplomat. But what Israel is doing now is hurting Israel.
I’m going to nitpick this.
HAMAS “flew gliders across the border and murdered 1400 people”. NOT generic “Palestinians”. Please do not lump all several million Palestinians in with a terror group that, at most, is around 25,000 people. Doing so is bigoted.
Defending oneself is not a get-out-of-moral-standards-free card. Defending oneself does not excuse atrocity, disproportionate killing, ethnic cleansing, or genocide. Hamas hits all four of those sins, I’m hoping Israel manages to avoid them but as of yet I’m not convinced that what the IDF is currently doing is justified as the least bad alternative.
I strongly suspect that there are, in fact, some Israelis who are at war with Palestinians, or would like to be. There are extremists on both sides.
I knew that before I started commenting in this thread.
I was not aware of building damage from tunnel collapses but that actually make a tremendous amount of sense.
^ This is another point - it is important to distinguish between people with different positions rather than treating them as identical. Not all Israelis are in agreement with the extremists (on either end, but right now perhaps especially the far right). From what I gather, public opinion on a number of issues surrounding events in October are very split.
Again, let’s be careful with our words.
No.
It is hurting Jews all over the world as well as Israel. Because too many people conflate “Jew” and “Israeli”. Another instance of one group being a subset of the other.
Hate crimes and death threats against Jews and Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims are soaring in the US right now and the rise in threats is being driven by the Hamas/Israeli war. There has already been at least one fatality from this conflict in the US. Law enforcement is trying to keep up with it all but I do fear that sooner or later another fanatic is going to kill someone. Or a group of someones.
This war is like a forest fire in a high wind - embers keep being thrown out to land far away and a threaten to start more fires.
U.S. officials have questions:
Obviously, we’ve seen from another thread that there are some people on this board who will refuse to believe that these conversations happened until the “U.S. official” and the “House Democrat” are named, but I believe Politico to be a reputable news outlet, so I will give them them the benefit of the doubt that the article is not fabricated.
Moderating:
First, that’s a cheap shot and inappropriate for this thread. Second, i have specifically asked everyone to drop that topic in this thread. That includes snide sidelong comments.
Everyone else: please do not engage with this comment. I am briefly closing the thread so other posters have time to read this note.
Eta: after consulting with other mods, this is a formal warning to @Walken_After_Midnight
I’ve lost track. Did your cites address the specific situation in which the military use is underneath the civilian buildings?
You said that Hamas needs to be taken out. So what you’re saying is, if it’s not possible to take Hamas out without going through civilian buildings, Hamas must be legitimized, either by leaving them alone or by saying the October 7 attacks were legitimate?
OK. So the issue is how to balance the unavoidable fact that some innocent bystanders will be killed in any serious attempt to “take out” Hamas; and the discussion is how to keep that number to a minimum, and possibly what that minimum needs to be.
And what I am saying is that none of us are in a position to know, militarily, which actions stand the best chance of reducing that number; and which, though they do take out some innocents, will reduce the number of innocent dead and maimed overall.
Yeah. I don’t know either. I hope they’re doing their best to do the least bad thing. I hope they remain aware, even while they’re doing it, that it’s still a bad thing. But it may be a necessary thing. And I don’t think any of us are in a position to tell.
…I’m not going to enter into a debate over the Geneva Conventions. Go read them.
What I’m saying is what I said.
If you think that its okay for one side to ignore the rules of law, it should be okay for all sides to ignore those rules.
I’m not interested in a debate about “balance.” I was quiet for the first three weeks of this war. And Israel has shown no sign of letting up the siege. Every international humanitarian organization is calling for an end to the siege. Thats my starting point. If you think that preventing millions of innocent Palestinians from readily accessing food, water, electricity, communications is a “balanced” approach to war then I’m going to disagree with you. And there isn’t anything more that needs to be said.
The military should be subject to checks and balances on how they choose to conduct a war. We don’t just let the military “do their thing.” We have conventions, protocols, treaties, laws, to prevent the military deciding for themselves the best way to “take out a target.”
You can’t expect me to believe that the IDF are doing everything they can to prevent civilian casualties when they have killed twice as many children in three weeks than the Russians have in the entirety of the Ukraine war. It was 3700 dead last I checked. Next time I check it will be over 4000. You tell me what your threshold is. More journalists have died in this conflict than in any other conflict since Reporters Without Borders started taking records in 1992. 72 UN aid staff have died.
I’m not interested in debating hypotheticals. Let’s talk whats actually happening.