Because we have strong evidence Israel is not trying to avoid civilian casualties. There’s a difference between the missile attacks on boots on the ground too. When you actually have people in there, it shouldn’t be too hard to avoid killing civilians. Meanwhile, they’re doing things like literally using civilians as human shields or killing civilians collecting aid from an aid convoy.
I can accept some excuses from Israel, if it were accompanied by so much evidence that it’s on purpose. They clearly have no interest in avoiding civilian deaths, and quite probably show an interest in causing them.
Yes - we also have no evidence Hamas is avoiding civilian casualties either. This is the point - why are we excusing one but not the other?
I struggle with any excuses from Israel- you have the manpower, tech and logistic to do soo much better and (regardless of your actual intent) causing excess suffering isn’t going to help your long term position. We learned this in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Three things: We aren’t giving weapons to Hamas to fight, they’re on the defence, and they’re a significantly less organized less advanced force. Gorilla warfare is the stand operating practice of a less advanced force fighting a more advanced one. They can’t hide in jungles though. They only have urban places (or directly next to the border).
I don’t think Hamas is good by any means. They just are. The situation in which they were created is not of their own will. The situation they fight in is not of their design. Their existence is also, in part, a piece of Israel’s desire and force. (They funneled money to them in order to create an enemy to fight against.) I don’t fault a lion for mistreatment of their prey, but I do fault humans for how we treat livestock. One does it because of the situation in which it lives, and the other does it out of a totally lack of respect, or potentially malice.
Point 0 - that you for engaging with facts and opinion rather than instant accusations.
Point 1 - correct, asymmetrical warfare is very common among weaker forces and is a great way to negate tech advantages. Nothing wrong with it, the issue is where and how they are conducting it.
Point 2 - interesting part of the point you mentioned regarding dressing up to murder civilians in hospitals.
Hamas was doing such things - terrorists dressing up as civilians to access medical care, who took arms into a hospital that removed its protections, who were then killed by an opposing force in a way that minimizes civilian casualties.
I haven’t seen anything on the legality since, but discussions I had when this video came out was that it is probably justified as they did drop the disguise before opening fire. Lack of uniform does make it questionable.
This goes back to my original point - armed combatants aren’t allowed to use civilian infrastructure as it removes its protections. Hamas blatantly used it and yet its Israeli fault for killing them there?
For your last point, im sorry I’ve got a splitting headache and struggling to connect the dots, but you do raise an interesting point. I cant blame Palestine for wanting to fight, but I can blame Hamas for their conduct and choices within the conflict - just like Israel.
Point 2 - interesting part of the point you mentioned regarding dressing up to murder civilians in hospitals.
Hamas was doing such things - terrorists dressing up as civilians to access medical care, who took arms into a hospital that removed its protections, who were then killed by an opposing force in a way that minimizes civilian casualties.
The Israelis didn’t just dress up as civilians, which would be bad, but they dressed up as medics. This is a war crime under the Geneva Convention. This is not acceptable because it leads to a situation where medical workers can’t operate because they can’t be trusted to not be soldiers.
Also, the soldiers there were seemingly brought there and were critically wounded. This does not “remove the protections” of the hospital. Soldiers are allowed to be treated in a hospital without the hospital becoming a valid military target.
Because we have strong evidence Israel is not trying to avoid civilian casualties. There’s a difference between the missile attacks on boots on the ground too. When you actually have people in there, it shouldn’t be too hard to avoid killing civilians. Meanwhile, they’re doing things like literally using civilians as human shields or killing civilians collecting aid from an aid convoy.
I can accept some excuses from Israel, if it were accompanied by so much evidence that it’s on purpose. They clearly have no interest in avoiding civilian deaths, and quite probably show an interest in causing them.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
literally using civilians as human shields
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Yes - we also have no evidence Hamas is avoiding civilian casualties either. This is the point - why are we excusing one but not the other?
I struggle with any excuses from Israel- you have the manpower, tech and logistic to do soo much better and (regardless of your actual intent) causing excess suffering isn’t going to help your long term position. We learned this in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Three things: We aren’t giving weapons to Hamas to fight, they’re on the defence, and they’re a significantly less organized less advanced force. Gorilla warfare is the stand operating practice of a less advanced force fighting a more advanced one. They can’t hide in jungles though. They only have urban places (or directly next to the border).
Israel has the initiative. They get to choose when and how to take a fight (or to choose not to at all). Even when they put people in the area, they still commit atrocities, like dressing up as civilians and medical workers to assault a hospital and murdering civilians. I haven’t seen Hamas do such things.
I don’t think Hamas is good by any means. They just are. The situation in which they were created is not of their own will. The situation they fight in is not of their design. Their existence is also, in part, a piece of Israel’s desire and force. (They funneled money to them in order to create an enemy to fight against.) I don’t fault a lion for mistreatment of their prey, but I do fault humans for how we treat livestock. One does it because of the situation in which it lives, and the other does it out of a totally lack of respect, or potentially malice.
Point 0 - that you for engaging with facts and opinion rather than instant accusations.
Point 1 - correct, asymmetrical warfare is very common among weaker forces and is a great way to negate tech advantages. Nothing wrong with it, the issue is where and how they are conducting it.
Point 2 - interesting part of the point you mentioned regarding dressing up to murder civilians in hospitals. Hamas was doing such things - terrorists dressing up as civilians to access medical care, who took arms into a hospital that removed its protections, who were then killed by an opposing force in a way that minimizes civilian casualties.
I haven’t seen anything on the legality since, but discussions I had when this video came out was that it is probably justified as they did drop the disguise before opening fire. Lack of uniform does make it questionable.
This goes back to my original point - armed combatants aren’t allowed to use civilian infrastructure as it removes its protections. Hamas blatantly used it and yet its Israeli fault for killing them there?
For your last point, im sorry I’ve got a splitting headache and struggling to connect the dots, but you do raise an interesting point. I cant blame Palestine for wanting to fight, but I can blame Hamas for their conduct and choices within the conflict - just like Israel.
The Israelis didn’t just dress up as civilians, which would be bad, but they dressed up as medics. This is a war crime under the Geneva Convention. This is not acceptable because it leads to a situation where medical workers can’t operate because they can’t be trusted to not be soldiers.
Also, the soldiers there were seemingly brought there and were critically wounded. This does not “remove the protections” of the hospital. Soldiers are allowed to be treated in a hospital without the hospital becoming a valid military target.