Comment by meowface
2 years ago
I wasn't ignorant of it - that's why I said "any modern Israeli party". I'm aware past Israeli/Zionist groups have engaged in terrorism and in some cases deliberate civilian massacres. As far as I know Likud hasn't within the past 50 years.
What do you call what's going on right now, if not deliberate civilian massacres in order to get to relative handful of freedom-fighters/terrorists hiding amongst them?
Let us imagine a residential building with about 100 people living there, and let us imagine that there is information that some enemy combatants are living among them. A decision is made to strike at the building in order to eliminate the combatants. Consider two different approaches:
1) An air strike at the building, destroying it and killing most of its inhabitants, and leaving a minority of them wounded.
2) A squad of soldiers enters the building and executes most of the inhabitants at close range, and wounds and leaves alive a minority of them.
Most people would call scenario 2) a deliberate massacre that cannot be justified. Many people would, however, call scenario 1) a legitimate military strategy with unfortunate collateral damage that cannot be avoided. Question is, why? The outcome is the same, but for some reason the impersonality of striking from distance (air strikes, missiles, or artillery fire) seems to make it acceptable in many bystanders' eyes.
You seem to have rejected 3: do nothing at all.
Nowhere in any civilised state in the world do the authorities just go in and kill everyone in a building to get to a few.
It's beyond insane.
The fiction you've created to rationilise this is that there is a "war", but there is no fucking war. It's an occupying force slaughtering its hostages to punish a relative handful among them.
4 replies →
[flagged]
4 replies →
What do you call what's going on right now, if not deliberate civilian massacres in order to get to relative handful of fighters hiding amongst them?
Well, what other way is there? Hamas is a terrorist organization, with in the picture, there will never be peace. The only option thus is the most targeted elimination of all terrorists. Unfortunately, 100% specificity is impossible to achieve. So the question is, is Israel doing their absolute best on minimizing casualties or not?
Do you have a reason to assume they don’t do so? The reported 2:1 ratio is absolutely in line with modern warfares, especially considering the very very densely populated urban environment.
> Well, what other way is there? Hamas is a terrorist organization, with in the picture, there will never be peace. The only option thus is the most targeted elimination of all terrorists.
And I'm sure you will accept Hamas strikes against Israel as justified as long as they deem the IDF as a terrorist organization? Or is it only your view of who is or is not a terrorist organization that matters?
We should never let labels like "terrorist" be used to justify using any means neccassary to ensure their removal. There is always the null option - do nothing. How much civilian casualties are there with that option vs. indescriminate eradication of anyone near Hamas?
3 replies →
> Well, what other way is there?
I mean, fire the general in charge of security and put competent people on your walls to avoid any further incursions, and then work to remove the million settlers you've pushed onto stolen lands.
It's insane how Israel has managed to sell this fiction that they have a right to slaughter tens of thousands because a few terrorists must be hiding amongst them.