134
this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2024
134 points (95.9% liked)
World News
39524 readers
3501 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
…and don’t show too much concern for the civilians in the midst who die as a result of IDF actions
“Hamas uses them like human shields, we warned them to leave the hospital/the house/the street/Gaza City/Khan Younis/Gaza entirely”
If someone takes a hostage/uses human shields, you don’t stoop to the same level and disregard that human life, bombing/shooting anyway bc ‘muh military necessity’
That last part isn't always as black and white as we'd like it to be, though. When (the conventional forces of) ISIS had been surrounded in Raqqa they just bombed and shot the shit out of them, civilians be damned. Horrible, but those that decry it don't usually offer any realistic alternative.
Here’s an alternative then:
Israel makes an effort to provide a space away from the fighting, where civilians can live until “Hamas is destroyed”. It doesn’t even have to be outside of Gaza, but it’s arguably a better security idea to make a new camp inside Israel proper
The IDF made a big noise about ‘defeating’ Al-Qassam in northern Gaza around Gaza City, that was an opportunity to provide a safe area.
It won't be perfect at keeping militants OUT of the camp, but it would help keep civilians AWAY from the fighting
Moving the civilians from Rafah to tent cities is exactly what Israel has proposed. But what do you do with the civilians that choose to remain?
I’m not falling into the Nirvana fallacy. There will always be holdouts (people were living in Bahkmut during the siege, refusing to evacuate) but that doesn’t then give the IDF permission to throw up their hands and say “welp, we tried - bombs away” Shooting through a human shield is not a moral strategy, nor a long term strategy, and eventually you’ll apply that tactic against the people you’re trying to save, not just ‘enemy’ civilians
It's unclear what you're advocating for then. Why move some civilians to tent cities if you're not going to attack Hamas anyway?
It’s not a binary choice of “Attac Hamas” or “No attac Hamas” dude. I want Israel to use ✨**proportional force** ✨whilst respecting that Palestinian civilians have a right to exist, and actually restraining themselves beyond fig leaf efforts.
The core objection is the how. Why the massively disproportionate force is encouraged by the IDF as its own ‘tool of terror’ to dissuade the population of those it fights against
What would you consider proportional force (many stars around it) when people are firing at you from inside a hospital?
I’m happy to answer legitimate questions, but you’re trying reeeeeal hard to paint a corner where you can eke out a ‘win’.
International law is clear re: hospital/mosque/orphanage being used for military purpose, but laws <> morality. The law gives the a-okay to attack the building in use, morality is in complete conflict with that legal permission
When it comes to human shields, the only independent verification back in 2014 (Amnesty link) is of Weapons (not rockets) hidden at a vacant school, situated btwn 2 UNRWA schools housing displaced people, by a Palestinian armed group.
The Guardian journalists had encountered a couple individuals in 2014 too.
HRW on Laws-of-War Violations 2009
Amnesty on Hamas War Crimes 2023
Yet none of those come remotely close to making hospitals and schools bombing targets. Even if all the IDF claims were true, that does not exempt those hospitals and schools as protected under international law.
While we're on the subject, let's look at how the IDF uses Human Shields including Children (2013 Report)
I'm not trying to eke out anything, I'm trying to make you consider that it's easy to advocate for morality when no one is firing missiles at your house
And I’ll repeat my assertion about proportional force. The missiles fired by militants are super ineffective even without the iron dome - inaccurate, limited payload and range, generally subpar explosive filler.
If my house was bombed and my family hurt? Absolutely I’d be enraged and probably want revenge. But that’s no basis for national policy. Israel had broad public support as the more moral side, until they began a government policy of breaking the arms and fingers of Palestinian youth throwing stones. What you want to do, and what you should do often do not overlap:
Unfortunately, its not that simple. Hamas is a terrorist organization that activly targets civilians, often over military targets. Killing them sooner, as well as helping end the war, protects civilian lives. Its a terrible calculus, but when you're fighting an organization that has no respect for law, nor human rights then thats what happens. You kill them, or you let them continue to kill civilians and millitary personal alike.
That said, saying that Israel is just doing this because Hamas is using civilians as a sheild is giving Israel way too much credit. They have repeatedly been caught shooting unarmed and fleeing civilians, targeting refugees, and they have a long history of this treatment towards Palistinians. Israel is almost as willing to kill civilians as Hamas, and actually have the weapons to do so.
That is literally the opposite of decades of think tank, academic, and military research into Counter Insurgency strategies. You need to show the civilians living in the area that there’s another way via political process, and that rejecting violence is the way forward. Al-Qassam exists and is given permissive operations inside of Gaza because the people view them as the best route to a future. Throwing stones at a brick wall isn’t effective, but to Palestinians in a hopeless scenario it’s understandable to take up violence when the alternative is ethnic destruction in slow-motion.
Israel isn’t offering any solution but continued suffering, displacement as refugees, or ethnic cleansing. I disagree with the Palestinian resistance, but we are here because of years of failed peace processes where Israel rejects the option of dignity for Palestine.
I agree overall, and that was exactly my point with, "history of this behavior towards Palistine". Its also why I felt the need to specify that Israel is killing civilians outside of when Hamas hides behind them. Israel is not a "good guy" here, and their misdeeds are what spurred this on.
My point was on negotiating with terrorists, once they've already turned to violence. If it gets to the point of terrorism, its a lot harder to just let individuals involved walk free. Hamas will just keep trying to kill people, and keep hiding behind civilians, continuing to cost lives.
Again, I agree overall, but even if Israel withdraws from Palistine, walks back all their oppresive policies and agrees to start cracking down on mistreatment from individual Israelis, Hamas won't just disolve overnight nor will radicalized individuals immediately put down their arms. Its a process that takes decades (likely longer given how long and how intensely Israel has been oppressing Palistine), which doesn't help when you're deciding whether or not to shoot the terrorist with a hostage.
It’s a long road for Northern Ireland, but it’s working right now, despite Brexit issues. The key difference is that the state recognized its role in perpetuating the cycle of violence, and chose to offer another route.
There are a lot of parallels in that resistance struggle with Palestine, but while a good compromise leaves everyone upset today, your children get to grow up hearing bombs on TV, instead of their nightmares.
Plenty of insurgencies have been 'solved' effectively by violence. A lot more actually. And in this case, a peaceful solution is almost impossible because at its roots it's a religious conflict.
If by ‘solved effectively by violence’ you mean ‘genocided’ or ‘ethnically cleansed’ then yes. Is that what you’re suggesting is proper and good?
Proper and good?? No, it's horrible.
In the case of Western-Sahara though, the threat of extreme violence was enough to pacify the resistance without any political concessions.
But my main point here is that because of religious differences, both zionist and muslim fundamentalists will never be able to peacefully coexist, as they believe god doesn't want them to. And there are plenty of them on both sides
Unfortunately true, and we’re arming one side currently. I want no holy wars, but I definitely don’t want to be allied to a belligerent to one.
Hadn’t heard of the Western Sahara case before, thanks for the reading 👍
Reported
I'm not sure what is reportable there. Im literally saying civilian deaths should be minimized. Is it because I'm acknowledging Israel has repeatedly targeted civilians?
I think you've replied to the wrong comment
Anyway that user has a history of, how should I put it... Not really valuing opposing viewpoints
Not appreciating genocide is a better description. Get outta here.