Since October 7, more than 3,257 children have been reported killed, including at least 3,195 in Gaza, 33 in the West Bank, and 29 in Israel, according to the Ministries of Health in Gaza and Israel respectively. The number of children reported killed in just three weeks in Gaza is more than the number killed in armed conflict globally – across more than 20 countries – over the course of a whole year, for the last three years.

  • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Are those the only two possibilities? Is it possible they want plausible deniability while killing as many as they can? Israeli officials have made it clear that do not want Palestine to exist. The defense minister even called for a second Nakba, greater than the first, which was the original mass displacement of Palestinians.

    • mwguy@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Are those the only two possibilities?

      Likely yes. Israel has a parliamentary system so there are always going to be an official in government with a wild take because they’re the last x% of the coalition that got brought in to push them over the top. If they (Israel) wanted to maximize casualties the more reasonable parts of the coalition would fall apart.

      Is it possible they want plausible deniability while killing as many as they can? Israeli officials have made it clear that do not want Palestine to exist.

      Israel could easily justify tomahawk sized cruise missiles. 20 or so of them would largely wipe out northern Gaza City. And just one into one of the Southern Gaza camps would kill more than the war has so far. So yes you can believe they want to, but you do have to believe them to be incredibly incompetent.

      • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I believe them to have decades of experience managing their foreign advisors and funding, and are skilled at carefully balancing their war against an innocent and subjected people. You’re probably right though that they could basically nuke Gaza and get away with it, but they wouldn’t because the radiation would harm them too. In a war, isn’t it relevant who started the conflict and for what purpose? Who was the first aggressor in the conflict between Isreal and Palestine?

        • mwguy@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re probably right though that they could basically nuke Gaza and get away with it, but they wouldn’t because the radiation would harm them too.

          Gaza isn’t large. They could do it with conventional weapons that have no radiation problems. The risk of nuclear fallout isn’t why they haven’t eliminated Gaza, the lack of desire to eliminate Gaza is.

          In a war, isn’t it relevant who started the conflict and for what purpose? Who was the first aggressor in the conflict between Isreal and Palestine?

          In this conflict, Hamas’ started the conflict. As for who the “first” aggressors; it would depend on how back you wish to look. If we limit the problem to just post British takeover of the region, than the first aggressors were the British fighting the Ottomans and following it up by enforcing property tax law against the primarily Arab populace who hadn’t paid property taxes in a 1000 years to the Ottomans.