I understand many Israelis see the conflict in existential terms given the history. Nevertheless, I think vaccinations and providing basics would help in the longer run. This takes courage in a setting of reprisals and short-term actions.
No. They are not entitled to Israel’s military intelligence information. It’s an unreasonable request during a military action. It compromises how it was collected. If they want to work in a war zone that’s their liability to absorb.
That was a lesson learned after WW-I and applied to WW-II but it was based on total surrender. Israel would have to take it to that level to create an independent, vibrant, and terrorist free country.
…it isn’t unreasonable to ask for the evidence that the building you had been working in for the last fifteen years was such a legitimate threat that it had to be destroyed with less than an hours notice. And it isn’t unreasonable to conclude that the IDF are lying sacks of shit when they fail to do so. I have no reason to believe them and neither does anyone else.
The 15 year time frame is meaningless. hamas could have started using it last week. And yes, it’s unreasonable to expect military secrets to be made public.
I would think Israel far more believable than hamas,.
…then last week would have been an appropriate time to let the AP and Al Jazeera know.
It isn’t unreasonable to expect Israel to justify bombing media outlets. Especially when 17 different media outlets have also been targeted, including the AP and Al Jazeera building, especially when warnings weren’t always given, especially when people have been killed.
I would think that the AP and Al Jazeera were more believable than the IDF. I haven’t said anything at all about Hamas.
Being a media outlet has no bearing on the issue.
…it certainly does.
I said media outlet, not journalists. the journalists were given warning.
…I said it first. And it certainly does matter: even if you think it doesn’t.
And not all the journalists were given warnings. One of them (cited above) ended up dead.
Said what first? I said media outlet. you cited protection of journalists. they are not the same thing.
And if once Hamas had forced its way into your neighbor’s house and held some meetings there, would you still be so willing to die?
…I said media outlet first.
Indeed.
The context in which I originally used media outlet should have been clear. If it wasn’t, then I can clear that up for you if you like. However in the context that I used it I don’t think a distinction between the terms is relevant.
Regardless, just like Martin before you, all you are doing is agreeing with me. My contention is that “the IDF doesn’t provides evidence for their claims.” You seem to concur.
Do you think that the IDF is intentionally intimidating journalists to leave so that there are no witnesses on the ground in Gaza?
So what I’m learning here is that Israel only bombs legitimate military targets, which are defined as “any target Israel bombs”.
You say that as if that is a bad thing.
One of the frustrations in discussing this mess is the high level of emotion on all sides.
I would not define military targets as “any target Israel bombs”. Rather, I think that Israel attempts to bomb only things that could be defined as “military targets” but, like any military, does not always get things right. EVERY armed conflict has instances of bad/wrong intelligence that leads to people killed and buildings destroyed that turn out to be mistakes. I suppose there is a question of how often the IDF is wrong and how sound their fact-checking process is - the answers to which we are not going to get from the IDF while they’re fighting a war, even an undeclared one.
There is the additional problem that the Gaza Strip is the third most densely populated place in the world - it would be extremely difficult to impossible under any scenario to hit a legitimate military target anywhere within it without “collateral damage” i.e. dead civilians and destroyed civilian buildings. The fact that Hamas really does stage rocket attacks from otherwise non-military buildings does not in any way help this situation. It is reprehensible to be using civilians as human shields, even more loathsome that many of these civilians may be unaware of the proximity of Hamas operations to where they live (others are aware - the degree of compliance is questionable) and sacrificing civilians to, essentially, make the IDF look bad (or worse, depending where you start from).
On top of that - the Palestinians in Gaza are not allowed to leave. This is not entirely due to the Israelis. The Egyptian border with Gaza is also closed and that is on Egypt. Overpopulation/crowding in Gaza just exacerbates any other problem you’d care to mention in that place, and siphoning off some of that excess population would probably relieve some tension. When it’s described as a prison it isn’t that far off given that those inside do not have an option to leave even though there may be tens of thousands within who would be happy to go elsewhere.
I’d think that a military commander looking at negative reporting on his latest actions would be sorely tempted. So much so that I am not willing to give him the benefit of doubt.
And that is why they have to show (some of) their homework. Israel can be the good guy in this conflict OR they can just attack any target and expect us to take their word for it.
Fair point @The_Librarian I withdraw my comment