• @NevermindNoMind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Sacrificing significant numbers of your own soldiers to save enemy civilians sounds noble

    It sounds consistent with the international laws of war. Everything you listed, especially being politically unpopular, is not a legitimate consideration for the use of military force against civilian populations. Under international law, the party using force must weigh the expected military advantage against the anticipated harm to civilians and civilian objects. If the same objective could be achieved via a means less harmful to civilians, that is the required option. Maybe you don’t give a shit about international law, Israel never has. It is also completely disingenuous to frame loss of IDF soldiers on the battlefield as some “win” for Hamas or a risk to Israel’s security. Hamas is terrorist organization fighting with soviet era junk and homemade rockets going up against a nation-state backed by the US. IDF losses would be in the hundreds at most in the worst conditions.

    They certainly aren’t trying to maximize civilian casualties…At very least it’s obvious they want to minimize the blowback from the media

    Now that’s just silly. Israel doesn’t care about the media. The Israeli UN ambassadors were wearing gold stars to protest the overwhelming UN resolution calling for a humanitarian cease fire, and Israel got called out by the Holocaust Musuem for the tactic. Israel does not care about media criticism. But you are right, they are not trying to maximize civilian casualties. They are trying to inflict maximum suffering as a means of ethnic cleansing.

    See the link in my above post for detailed info and examples of how Hamas intentionally uses human shields and puts their bases in and under hospitals, churches, mosques, etc.,

    Your link is nearly 10 years out of date. Also, there’s no “its ok to bomb entire neighborhoods if a enemy combatant has a home in the neighborhood so is therefore using human shields” exception to the international law of war obligation to protect civilians. Not even if you, like Israel, view Palestinians as subhuman and not deserving of basic rights.

    These countries are at war with each other,

    There are not two countries at war. There is one country, Israel. This is an anti-terrorism operation, by definition.

    and someone currently on your side today is better for your national interests than someone who might potentially be on your enemy’s side in the future.

    That’s just some cold ass shit. Really all about wining those hearts and minds. At any rate, its a violation of international law so ok.

    Would you enthusiastically join them in such an incursion, without air support, to save enemy civilians who are likely to support said enemy?

    Ah this old chesnut, how lazy. I could easily ask the same thing to you - would you enthusiastically support your country bombing civilian neighborhood because there might be an enemy combatant in a tunnel underneath the homes? Really waiving the flag after that one?

    How about the cutting off food and water for millions of people? That’s a legitimate thing to do, right?

    • DarkGamer
      link
      fedilink
      -1
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      There are not two countries at war. There is one country, Israel. This is an anti-terrorism operation, by definition. …
      Hamas is a fractured and opportunistic militia, without enough sovereignty to actually govern.

      Thanks for the correction, country is not the right word as Palestinian statehood is not recognized by all, nation is more accurate.

      So your position is: Hamas isn’t actually the government of Gaza, despite the fact that they were elected, took control in a coup, have been negotiating on behalf of Gaza, and demonstrated the capability of launching a massive coordinated attack against Israel? Please. Whether a state or not, they are clearly the government in control of Gaza and are being treated as such.

      That’s just some cold ass shit.

      Yes, realities of war and realpolitik are often, “cold ass shit.”

      would you enthusiastically support your country bombing civilian neighborhood because there might be an enemy combatant in a tunnel underneath the homes?

      Might be? Israel supposedly has solid intelligence supporting their targets, so let’s assume that is the case in your hypothetical.
      If this happened in a vacuum I’d probably protest against it. If my country were in Israel’s exact position I would absolutely support it. A century of guerilla attacks and wars topped with the brutal slaughter of thousands of civilians has a way of making one care less about the well-being of the ones committing such deeds and their human shields, and more about one’s own personal safety.
      If this happened to the US, Palestine would probably be shock and awed into oblivion and then forcibly regime changed, if our response to 9/11 is any indication.

      How about the cutting off food and water for millions of people? That’s a legitimate thing to do, right?

      Maybe they shouldn’t have bitten the hand that feeds? Seems like a pretty obvious consequence of slaughtering civilians of a nation they are entirely dependent on. Demanding they keep supplying Hamas’ territory with resources while at war with them is wild, and seems like an attempt to bind Israel’s hands. They must fight well-fed and hydrated soldiers when their ground forces go in, I guess.