The Israeli army fired artillery shells containing white phosphorus, an incendiary weapon, in military operations along Lebanon’s southern border between 10 and 16 October 2023.
The Israeli army fired artillery shells containing white phosphorus, an incendiary weapon, in military operations along Lebanon’s southern border between 10 and 16 October 2023.
You mean the refugee camp that has been there so long there are multistory buildings and voting residents? Just because it is labeled as a refugee camp does not mean it functions as such. Is it worse than Hamas hiding in a regular residential area? If so, you should not be demonizing the Israeli military but instead Hamas who is using it for military purposes. Go look at what was labeled as a refugee camp and tell me that it was not an area with permanent structures. Striking legitimate targets in civilian areas is ethical, full stop. You cannot provide a legal argument otherwise and being unwilling to strike targets in those areas encourages militaries to use civilian shields further endangering civilians.
I have been involved in targeting within the conduct of warfare before. Yes, this is how it is done by the best armies on earth. It is infinitely better than indiscriminate artillery fire that preceded directed munitions. Yes, the prior solution was to level entire sections of the city in prior wars. This is not abhorrent within the context of military conflict.
I highly encourage you to look into the history of targeting approaches and see which is the more ethical approach. If you would like to compare it to other more recent conflicts with less sophisticated weapons, please look into the following.
2022 Bakhmut 2017 Mosul 1945 Manilla
Let me be completely clear. The above examples of absolute depravity are legal and ethical within armed conflict. Israel has declared war on the government of the West Bank, Hamas. They did so in reaction to a horrific terrorist attack against unarmed civilians planned and executed by real flesh and blood people and not as a result of mistaken intelligence. Israel has every right to absolutely level the West Bank as they fight to take it block for block within the laws of armed warfare. You may not like it but they do. It is not genocide. It is not a war crime. It is just simply war. It is simultaneously much worse for Palestine and much safer for Israel and that should be remembered that they are not choosing to take that approach.
They have lessened their approach to potentially minimize civilian casualties. They did not have to do this. You actively discourage them from doing this when you demonize them anyway. Why bother giving the enemy time to prepare and kill more of your forces if it does not further you towards your political goals? There is a reason why the coalition came out on the better end of the conflict in Syria instead of Russia/Assad’s government. The coalition was not indiscriminate in their targeting and Russia was.
Furthermore, every chance that they have given the Palestinian people to better their position is used as leverage to wage more war against Israel. Without the removal of Hamas, they will continue to leverage their position to conduct further attacks against Israel because they have done it continuously and increasingly since 2006. I do not envy the position they are in but I certainly understand it. It should be remembered that Israel plays by the laws of war and Hamas does not.
I too am not okay with the deaths of innocent people which is why Israel is stopping with these half-assed solutions and is going in to remove Hamas. This is a limited ground operation even though they have declared war. You are using these terms that you do not even understand. They have never claimed otherwise as an organization and have remained consistent with that in their decision-making. When they get a system in charge there that can be trusted to not literally use every resource they have to kill innocent Israelis, they can open back up the movement corridors and start working towards autonomy again like they were in 2003. I do not see a fully sovereign Palestinian state until then which I actually do believe Israel wants. They just don’t want one led by literal terrorists. A fully sovereign and stable Palestinian state is the only lasting peace that can end the bloodshed. Simply declaring Hamas full power and autonomy is a quick way to enable the spread of violence into a much wider and more deadly conflict.
Wow. Just… wow. I’m not going to respond to everything because frankly, I don’t feel like debating this and worse yet, you’re absolutely right that I don’t fully understand the situation, the rules of engagement, the legal/militaristic terms, etc. But I do have a few things I’d like to say, not that I think it will make a lick of difference for you.
First and foremost is that just because something is legally allowed, whether it’s in war or in peace, does not make it morally okay. I recognize that you seem to be thinking of this from a purely militaristic point of view. I’ve never tried to argue that they’re breaking international law or anything like that. I am fighting this from the perspective of someone with half a shred of empathy, but it seems you’ve come unarmed.
As far as the refugee camp goes, it only counts if civilians seek refuge on some flat unbuilt land and pitch tents? If that were the case I can all but guarantee you would still excuse it so what difference does it make? Again, arguing from the perspective of an empathetic person, to me a refugee camp is anywhere that people seek refuge. I don’t care about legal definitions or military rules of engagement, I care about people. But it apparently wouldn’t matter if civilians were seeking refuge in tents in the middle of nowhere, as long as “Intel suggests” Hamas activity in the newly erected campground you’d justify the bombing the exact same by your logic.
As far as leveling entire sections of the city, I suggest looking for the publicly released satellite images of Gaza from before and after this most recent conflict. Not that it matters to you because “this is not abhorrent within the context of military conflict.” But, you can probably guess from my first points that I couldn’t give two flying fucks about what is seen as okay in “the context of military conflict”. It’s a tragedy and should be abhorrent in any fucking context. The loss of life alone is terrible enough, not to mention the damage to the Earth when all of that has to be rebuilt. Justifying this in any way shape or form is nothing less than evil. Full stop.
Time and conflicts have proven time and time again that killing innocent people in the name of fighting terrorism breeds terrorists. If you critically think for a moment (and based on your militaristic view I’m not sure you can) it only makes sense. If you kill someone’s family, if you take away all they have to live for, they have no further reason not to seek revenge. But I guess that doesn’t matter because it seems like you’re ok justifying what amounts to an endless game of whack-a-mole; you smack one down and wait for the next to pop up.
Once more I ask you to try to put yourself in their shoes. Play devil’s advocate with yourself for a while. You never did tell me what you think should be done about the terrorists in your home town. If you live in an urbanized area they almost certainly exist. Do your precious rules of engagement still apply? And more importantly, outside the context of the almighty law, are you okay with it? Or would you feel upset (or anything really) if the military leveled your loved ones’ block in the name of fighting terrorism? Would you still be happy if they bombed your innocent family because “Justice was served”?
The fully sovereign Palestinian state you’re referring to should be in neighboring Egypt according to Israel if the articles I saw last night are to be believed. I suppose passing what you seem to view as unwanted pests off on the neighbor is a solution though?
Or perhaps it’d be more accurate to say that you label all Palestinians as “the enemy” that you shouldn’t give preparation time to unless it furthers your political goals? Ugh just typing that makes me physically ill. Fuck political goals. These aren’t some theoretical unknown life forms we’re talking about. These are living, breathing people getting caught in the crossfire. These are kids that belong in school, families, people that are trying to go about their day and greet their family at the end of it. They and myself don’t give a rats ass about these made up political goals.
From the bottom of my heart, and please take this to the black hole where your heart should be: Fuck you and the horse you rode in on for justifying unnecessary loss of life because it lines up better with political goals.
Finally, again I reiterate that I am not an authority on this or any military conflict. I am apparently more of an authority on empathy though, so take that for what it’s worth.
I also reiterate that all attacks by Hamas that have taken unnecessary innocent lives is nothing short of tragedy. Absolutely evil.
I also also reiterate that all attacks by Israel that have taken unnecessary innocent lives is nothing short of tragedy. Absolutely evil.
ESH. Politics? Fucking suck. Military? Fucking suck. Anyone and everyone that is okay with innocent people of any nation, culture, skin color, etc. dying? You fucking suck worst of all for enabling all the other shit that fucking sucks. If I had a better mind for politics I’d probably ask you kindly to go find a ditch and swallow a tidepod. But that’s not who I am. I love you for the human you all are and view your lives as sacred. But if you justify the deaths of innocent people in the name of political goals, would you kindly go choke on a lifesaver for a bit.
Yours truly,
Stanard
Just because you think something is morally wrong, does not mean you understand the full context. What is legal matters because they are the rules by which we play and they set expectations and consequences. Just because something is illegal does not make it wrong but ignorance of the law doesn’t help your argument.
The ends don’t always justify the means but sometimes they do of it means less suffering.
My claim is that you don’t understand the situation and take the claims of religiously motivated murderers at face value. Your claim is that my side are genocidal maniacs who just want them to die. My claims have evidence and I have personally seen them. You base yours on what?
Additionally, my side categorically follows the laws of war, regardless of the narrative.
War is politics. That’s been defined since the 1800s by Clausewitz. Your failure to understand that is not anyone’s problem but your own. I’d like for war to not exist but it does and it would be nice if people would not be what are known as useful idiots in the western geological community.
You’re making several assumptions that I don’t think I’ve said or even alluded to. I don’t think I’ve mentioned religion or motivation at all. All I’ve been trying to say is I disagree with the death of innocent people. I’ve agreed with you 100% that I do not have a good grasp of the situation and frankly I don’t think you or most people do have a full grasp of the situation. You probably know more than me, good job. I still disagree with any person, country, military, religion, etc. taking the lives of innocent people. I recognize that sometimes it can mean fewer deaths in the long run, but seeing as I don’t have absolute knowledge of the situation it’s not my call to make. I’m not arguing whether one side is doing more harm than the other. I’m not arguing whether one side is more evil, or what their reason for killing is. I’m arguing that innocent people dying sucks. This will be my last reply to you/this thread because I don’t have anything else to say. Killing innocent people should be avoided wherever possible because innocent people dying sucks. I’m not sure how that’s such a hard concept to grasp or why anyone would argue that killing innocent people is good but evil does exist in this world and it sucks.
Have a wonderful day and may you achieve any and all of your non-evil dreams.