Certainly, I can see this as a serious problem, a deep moral flaw in the Israeli government, and a PR blunder of the first magnitude.
But that it translates over the removal of support for Israel’s right to exist seems catastrophically extreme. That it could result in people arguing (as in one GD thread) for Israel’s physical relocation (!) strikes me as astonishingly overblown.
No one should argue, “Israel, right or wrong.” When Israel does wrong (and I agree that aggressive settlement building is wrong) they should be scolded, condemned, even sanctioned.
But driven into the sea and exterminated? Or even just having rockets fired at their cities?
I’m not hearing liberals taking the step of saying, “No, we don’t support this.” All I hear are “The civilian casualties are disproportionate.” I’d feel a lot better if I thought there was a “red line” – the destruction of the nation – that liberals would not tolerate being crossed.
Maybe they (we!) do feel that way, and just aren’t emphasizing it. But to me, it’s a horrifying sound of silence, as if, were Israel destroyed, they’d just shrug and say, “Well, they brought it on themselves.”
I think Palestinians are a bit like Italian-Americans living in NYC. Should they declare a holy genocide and drive everyone else into the sea? Or should they just be Italian-Americans doing their thing in that freedom-loving democracy where they happen to live?
There are few people, liberal or otherwise, that support this in the US. Probably you don’t hear it because its not a realistic outcome. And civilian casualties ARE disproportionate, what would you rather them say? Israel gets to keep killing as much as possible as long as one Hamas member remains alive?
For the same reason why people tend to try to change themselves to protect against crime instead of yelling at criminals to stop it. They’re criminals, they’re not going to listen, might as well try to change yourself to be less vulnerable. You should be happy most people have ideas on what Israel should do because that means they sympathize with them and see them as the good guys. And good guys don’t kill women and children even if they are being used as human shields
Why don’t the media show the relatively open areas of the Gaza Strip?” He then poses a couple of answers. Firstly, it would reveal that Hamas could be firing rockets and building tunnels in these areas but has chosen not to. Or that Hamas won’t let the media access those areas. In either case, it would be something worth reporting.
“Why doesn’t Hamas use sparsely populated areas from which to launch its rockets and build its tunnels?” The answer here is crystal clear: Palestinian civilian casualties would decrease dramatically but the death of terrorist would do the opposite. Hamas uses civilians as shields – which their own battle manual mandates, completely the opposite of Israel. Simply put, this is a war crime and Hamas is therefore responsible for its own civilian deaths.
“Why does the United Nations try to shelter Palestinian civilians right in the middle of the areas from which Hamas is firing?” Why not use the sparsely populated areas for refuge? The result of this would be to deny Hamas the ability to use civilians as shields and lead to a dramatic reduction in the deaths of civilians. By not doing so, the UN supports precisely what Hamas intends: to force Israel to attack areas where UN-protected civilians are.
Israel is trying to protect their own children from the repeated and continuous rocket attacks being made by Hamas. Hamas choses to hide behind human shields hoping that Israel will chose to protect Palestinian children instead of Israelis children.
The rocket attacks will end. Hamas can chose not to risk Palestinian lives and stop launching vengeance weapons into Israel or Israel will stop the vengeance weapon attacks.
So western liberal media doesn’t condemn genocide because it’s inevitable. But OMG don’t take out those rocket launchers surrounded by human shields! That’s avoidable by capitulating to genocide!
Or Israel can choose to use more difficult and riskier methods that don’t create havok on the lives of innocent people
Not sure if you caught that or if it was a Freudian slip but it is most definitely NOT inevitable. Your post should instead say that the media doesn’t make it habit of condemning things that are unrealistic. I guess I should wonder why we’re not getting enough in-depth analysis of the world as it is after Israel is destroyed? What are the implications of a middle east with no Israel? Where’s Fox’s 5 part docu-drama called A World Without Israel?
And yes, don’t take out those rocket launchers surrounded by human shields with your own missiles. Take them out during riskier means that minimizes collateral damage. Do you think that women and children are proper targets, or are participating in war? If not, then don’t target them. They are as innocent as Israeli civilians
And…those of us who see it this way don’t “shrug and say they brought it upon themselves.” We’re horrified by the death and suffering. We hold the Hamas leadership to be the bigger evil here, but we don’t just dismiss the human suffering.
We have asked, in these threads (here and in GD) many times: what should Israel do? So far, no answers have been workable. They all lead to worse predations by Hamas against Israeli civilians.
There isn’t any bloodless way to fight this war. Hamas should never have undertaken it. They didn’t “bring it upon themselves.” They brought it upon their own civilian population.
If civilians were absolutely sacrosanct, armies would go to war with children riding on the front of their tanks.
Israel will defend itself by destroying the rocket launchers and the rocket launchers.
Israel will defend it’s children.
Hamas will continue to use Palestinian minors as miners and as human shields when they’re not kept busy digging in the tunnels-4-terrorist program.
What is this “more difficult and riskier method that doesn’t create havoc on the lives of innocent people” that you speak of? Is this something that exists in the real world or is it usually found in video games?
All I can think of is assaulting those positions with infantry, being careful not to fire at civilians.
It would take an awful lot of infantry, because most of them would die, and morale would not be terribly high in those units.
You didn’t, but you don’t live in Israel under a continual barrage of rocket strikes. For some reason the Israelis don’t like that and are putting effort into stopping it NOW. If you come up with a way to accomplish that under the present conditions without endangering the innocent, do let us know.
There is none that I can think of which is exactly why I suggested a long term plan. The issue with GusNSpot was that he completely misrepresented what I said with a strawman.
If you find an Israeli solution that doesn’t endanger the innocent and can work now, by all means suggest it. I can tell you that many people, including myself, believe that short-sighted raids into Gaza is not a long term solution and does not benefit Israel in the long run