• avater@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    From a tactical perspective it is. A ceasefire would help the civilians but also would benefit the Hamas…it’s a double edged sword.

    • CaptFeather@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      From a tactical perspective it’s a goddamn war crime. When should they stop, then? When no native Palestinian remains, so they can swoop in and take all of Gaza like they’ve been trying to do for the last 70 years? Hamas is a response to decades of ethnic cleansing and Israel is using it as an excuse to further their conquest

      Edit: this isn’t necessarily directed at OP. It’s more of an open ended question for those in support of the bombings

      • Kepabar@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        As far as international law goes no this is not a war crime.

        If your military takes refuge or uses a civilian center for military operation then that location becomes a valid military target regardless of the risk to civilian lives.

        Basically Hamas is commiting the crime by purposefully setting up in these areas. Once they do that then civilian death is acceptable collateral damage, legally speaking.

        • CaptFeather@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          What about bombing humanitarian aide locations or using white phosphorus as a weapon?

          • Kepabar@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Same thing applies to humanitarian aid.

            If Hamas has hijacked or is operating in those places then they become military targets.

            As far as white phosphorus, it depends on how it’s deployed. If it’s deployed for masking, tracing or identifying then it’s legal.

            If it’s being directly used as an incendiary then that’s illegal.

            • CaptFeather@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              The point I’m making is both of those situations happened (good banks got bombed immediately after the convoy left and they have been using white phosphorus on people) and people are just looking the other way.

              • galloog1@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                The news media made the same claims against the US concerning white phosphorous and that was not true so my burden of proof concerning white phosphorous is so high it actually supports the opposing narrative without some damn good evidence.