• galloog1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    36
    ·
    1 year ago

    How do you suggest they take out Hamas otherwise? Just saying so doesn’t solve the problem that simultaneously forces Palistinians under leadership they did not vote for and ensures future and sustained terror attacks directed against the civilian population of Israel as they’ve experienced the last 17 years.

    Inaction is not a viable option anymore. Urban fighting favors the defender so sending in light infantry is suicide. Sending in light infantry supported by indirect fire is less suicide but worse for the civilians because it is slower and ensures the city is destroyed block by block a la Aleppo or Mosul.

    I’m getting really tired of these reactionary responses by people who have never had to plan urban combat before. Literally every army on earth would do the same as Israel right now and it is overall legal.

    • xenomor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      How about they take meaningful action legitimize Palestinian existence within Israel, end the apartheid and work out a plan for restitution? That would evaporate any shreds of support for Hamas nearly overnight and make it significantly easier to locate, and bring the terrorists to justice. Oh, and they could try to not actively promote and fund Hamas. That method would also have the side benefit of a lot fewer dead babies.

      • galloog1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree on many points but it’s also important to consider that 18% of Israel’s population is Palistinian. If Palistinian statehood is the goal, apartheid implies that they should be fully integrated. I don’t see either side ever fully accepting a minority solution. Inability to come to a full agreement on this situation is the issue. There’s a lot more nuisance in terms of resources and access that definitely lean more to the Palistinian narrative but most of the responses and perverse incentives center around violence.

        If Israel attempts to work with Palistinians, they inherently have to work with their government as it is not an occupation. Any funding or humanitarian aid for Palestine is funding for Hamas until they are fully removed. I think the Israel’s agree with you on this one.

    • interceder270@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Boots on the ground.

      Soldiers should risk their lives to save children.

      Or if that’s too much to ask, maybe negotiate? Try to talk with the people they’ve been blockading since 2007. See how they can make gaza less of a shithole so the people there have better things to do than lash out at the people who keep them there.

      It’ll cost money, but Israel has plenty.

      • galloog1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’ll cost lives and they won’t succeed. They’ll fall back on indirect fire talking out entire buildings but now unable to be more selective.

        Negotiating was what they were doing and it seemed to be working. All they were doing was use the time to build up resources for their massive terror attack. Prior to 2007 they were on the way to peace and then Hamas was elected.

        There is literally no other option to remove Hamas. Prior to the current weapon set armies would simply level the city. That is so very much worse and also legal.

        • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          All they were doing was use the time to build up resources for their massive terror attack. Prior to 2007 they were on the way to peace and then Hamas was elected.

          This is bullshit. First, Hamas was elected in 2006, not 2007. And second, the blockade started in 2005, not in 2007. There’s more, but yeah this is bullshit.

          • galloog1@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, Israel and Egypt set up borders after they left the occupation of Gaza as they moved towards sovereignty. That’s how international borders work. It’s not an apartheid state unless you don’t defacto recognize Palistinian independence if not statehood.

            The Israeli side won’t say as much because they don’t want to legitimate Hamas but it really is that simple to me.

            • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Gaza has never been sovereign. After 2005 the occupation continued in the form of the Gaza blockade. We’re not talking just borders here; the blockade extends to the air and sea (Gaza has its own coast on the Mediterranean).

      • galloog1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Legal, ethical, and moral within the laws and context of armed conflict, both in the moment and as policy.

        • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nobody ever thinks that they’re the bad guy. Any damn fool can cook up a justification to themselves for doing the wrong thing.

          “You just don’t understand, this time it’s different” -every single time.

          • galloog1@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Even when you do the right thing, it only matters if people know you did it truth or no truth. I’m over trusting that doing the right thing matters anymore in my life. It never did because disinformers will always take advantage of your silence and delay in telling the whole story.

            Ever notice how quick Hamas is to have a narrative concerning events and Israel waits until they have evidence and simply provides a policy narrative otherwise? This is how trust is gained.

    • LotrOrc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ah yes because bombing thousands of innocent civilians has ALWAYS worked to make the opposing force more secure. It totally has not radicalized even more people and brought about more terrorists.

      We have zero evidence of more terrorists being created and an ideology growing stronger from the US fucking about and indiscriminately bombing half the Middle East.

      Why would this take Hamas out? Can ideas be murdered by dropping bombs on babies? Last time I checked the Nazis got destroyed. Are you telling me Nazis don’t exist anymore?

      • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese civilians were killed by American bombs during WW2, and now Nazis don’t exist anymore as a political or military power. Germany is a liberal democracy and a firm ally of the USA. The same is true about Japan.

        More recent efforts at occupation and nation-building in the Middle East have not worked as well, but they have also involved much, much less indiscriminate bombing. Israel is going to face a very difficult challenge once they successfully occupy Gaza and the time comes to build it up into a neighbor that will not be a threat to Israeli security. I don’t know what they’ll need to do in order to succeed, but although I recognize that radicalization is a real phenomenon, I still think the claim that inflicting civilian casualties during war dooms them to failure is not strongly supported by historical precedent.

        • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese civilians were killed by American bombs during WW2, and now Nazis don’t exist anymore as a political or military power. Germany is a liberal democracy and a firm ally of the USA. The same is true about Japan.

          That’s because of post-war reconstruction of those countries. Like hell Israel intends to reconstruct anything in Gaza except Israeli settlements.

          I recognize that radicalization is a real phenomenon, I still think the claim that inflicting civilian casualties during war dooms them to failure is not strongly supported by historical precedent.

          It does depending on the number of casualties. People with grudges tend to want vengeance, which is how you get more Hamas.

          • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The USA rebuilt West Germany but the Soviet Union subjugated East Germany. In both cases the Germans didn’t resist - their will to fight had been broken. Note that I’m not saying that Gaza will be or ought to be treated the way Germany was, just that a society’s reaction to occupation is complicated and the prediction that casualties lead to vengeance is not always correct.

            • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I guess that’s true, but taking other examples like Vietnam, Iraq, North Ireland and Afghanistan, which are all closer to what Israel is doing, definitely led to vengeance. I guess it’s the difference between a proper fight, if you get what I mean, and just getting bombed/shot/whatever by a random guy you did nothing to.

      • galloog1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Do the Nazis have a power structure anymore? I actually agree with you that the justifications are similar to the Allied coalition against fascism. Go take a look at how many civilians died in that conflict.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      How do you suggest they take out Hamas otherwise?

      By stopping their occupation of Gaza.

      Literally every army on earth would do the same as Israel right now and it is overall legal.

      Then why did the UN condemn it as a war crime? And why are they using white phosphorus and deliberately leading civilians to bombing targets?

      • galloog1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Gaza has not been occupied for over 15 years. Please get informed. This is not counter insurgency.

        White phosphorous is used for illumination and obscuration and Israel is not signatory to the conventions banning its use wholesale. Nor is Russia or the United States. Offensive use is considered illegal to use in densely populated areas but so far there is only evidence for the offensive use in less dense areas to my knowledge.

        Proving intent on deliberately leading civilians to bombing targets is going to be a high bar. Israel urged civilians to go south to avoid the heavy combat operations entering Gaza City. That doesn’t mean they are not going to strike targets in the south and pointing in that general vicinity and shouting “SEE” does not mean they deliberately misled civilians. Their goal is to minimize civilian casualties. They will be taking both the north and the south before the end. That still requires shaping operations as Hamas is moving supplies through that area and still occupies it.

        Again, literally every army on earth would do this. Some wouldn’t even warn civilians to move like we saw with Russia in Ukraine.

        • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Gaza has not been occupied for over 15 years. Please get informed. This is not counter insurgency.

          Okay, explain why almost all human rights NGOs (including the UN) say that Gaza is still occupied. This is a counter insurgency.

          Proving intent on deliberately leading civilians to bombing targets is going to be a high bar. Israel urged civilians to go south to avoid the heavy combat operations entering Gaza City

          That’s not what I’m talking about. There have been multiple incidents of Israel saying “go to this location to avoid being bombed” then bombing the location they specified. And they did the same with escape routes they specified for Gazans. I can provide links.

          • galloog1@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            When did Israel provide a location that was anything more specific than the south?

            • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              They do it a lot before bombing specific targets. It used to be the norm for them, but in this ethnic cleansing war they dropped it as a policy. Like “we’ll bomb the area, go to XX square to avoid being bombed”. They also announced “safe” routes for fleeing to the south so people don’t get bombed, then bombed them.

    • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There’s a disconnect between inevitable military reality and many people’s views of the situation which I don’t understand.

      Hamas has to be embedded among the civilian population of Gaza or Israel would have already destroyed them with bombs and artillery. The rockets that Hamas has are purely a terror weapon and they would be completely ineffective in an artillery duel.

      Israel has to use bombs and artillery anyway because, as you say, attacking light infantry would be torn apart against an entrenched enemy in an urban environment. Urban warfare always involves large numbers of civilians dead no matter who is fighting whom.

      Israel must seek to minimize civilian casualties (and Hamas must not) because unless Iran and Hezbollah decide to get involved after all, the only way this war ends without the destruction of Hamas is if international pressure forces Israel to stop fighting. In this context, the narrative that Israel’s policy is to deliberately target civilians isn’t just false but nonsensical - such a policy would be the most direct way for them to lose the war!

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        In this context, the narrative that Israel’s policy is to deliberately target civilians isn’t just false but nonsensical - such a policy would be the most direct way for them to lose the war!

        Yet they’re doing it anyway. There are many examples, but the most egregious has to be literally killing civilians using sniper fire in Al-Shifa hospital and using white phosphorus.

    • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Let me put this in perspective for you, if there was a school with an armed gunman holding a bunch of children captive, do you think the best course of action is to bomb the entire school?

    • Radicalized@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      What’s ur preferred child to terrorist ratio? 3:1? 5:1? Right now I think it’s 10:1 in Gaza.

      • galloog1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        You minimize civilian casualties as much as possible while still ensuring that it has a military purpose to the best of your ability. Beyond the use of specific weapons which causes unnecessary suffering with no military purpose, there is no specific limit. We may not like it but this is war. It comes with the territory because there is no other choice.

        • Silverseren@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          And how has the general bombardment of entire cities and evacuation routes minimized civilian casualties?

          Heck, how has the IDF’s methodology even benefited their claimed attempts to wipe out Hamas?

          • galloog1@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            What Israel is doing is not leveling entire cities. Look at Allepo or Mosul. Israel is far more targeted but they get blamed every time a building collapses because there was an unsafe tunnel under it.

            Israel is systemically eliminating underground tunnels, enemy concentrations, and command structures prior to entering the city when they can clear buildings individually and dismantle the command structure.

            • Silverseren@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              So, they’re blowing up entire families supposedly on the claims of tunnels being below said homes.

              Aren’t those tunnels the places where the majority of the hostages are being kept? So the IDF are actively trying to kill the hostages?

              • galloog1@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                They are at war so yes. The bed to take the city and they need to take the tunnels out to take the city. This is not a new problem in war. These aren’t insurance they are dealing with. Israel does not occupy the ground yet.

                My perception is that negotiation with hostage takers only encourages them to take more hostages. I’m not smart on this so don’t take my word for it.

        • be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          So in other words, whatever the number of dead innocents is which might give you pause (and you aren’t sure such a number even exists) it’s definitely more than are being killed currently.

          Is that an accurate summary?

          • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The goal is to achieve victory while minimizing civilian casualties. Any strategy that prioritizes minimizing civilian casualties over achieving victory inevitably leads to defeat because the enemy can choose to put arbitrarily many civilians at risk. In other words, if there’s some particular number of dead innocents that would give you pause, all the enemy has to do is strap that many innocents to their soldiers, and the enemy has both the ability and the willingness to do that.

            • be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              So any number is OK as long as they guys giving the orders say it’s necessary for victory and give lip service to trying to avoid it. Thank you for confirming.

    • SirToxicAvenger@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      for this and many other reasons we need autonomous robots with machine guns/grenade launchers/weapons platforms. those boston dynamics robots or something very similar. flood the streets with them - no boots on the ground, no worries. it’s more granular than saturation bombing & platoons of killer robots just sounds badass!

      • galloog1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree that it could bring about less civilian casualties but I’m mixed on the public perception. Air strikes are impersonal enough when it comes to winning the narrative and they save an order of magnitude more civilian lives in the end. A fully robotic army would turn a lot of folks against you while maybe saving more civilian and military lives. If all war is an extension of politics, perceptions are what win. The perception of who remain anyways.