briefly locking this thread to do some cleanup; it’ll be unlocked again in a moment.
edit: unlocked
Western leaders literally face Nazi opposition parties, yet they can openly welcome Netanyahu do genocide WTF
Netanyahu the holocaust revisionist of all people.
The fact that this is only an “opinion” is a fucking travesty
The travesty is how many people are unable to say this out loud. Everyone is stuck in their black & white tribalism, making them blind for their own sides atrocities.
You can be pro Palestine and still condemn Hamas. You can be critical of the Israeli government and still grief for all the innocent Hamas victims. It’s not actually that hard to be a decent human being.The travesty is how many people are unable to say this out loud. Everyone is stuck in their black & white tribalism, making them blind for their own sides atrocities.
Personally I don’t want to say it out loud because I’m just so mentally exhausted from the screaming. I know (like know, not just feel) that if I say this out loud in a more public space then somebody is gonna scream at me over it. And I just don’t want that anymore. I feel in this instance it’s better to just keep silent because I just hate it when people get so uppity at me over this kind of thing.
uhhhHHHH nuh-uh dude, you have to pick ONE OR THE OTHER
I got downvoted for arguing with a douche that was actively taking sides in a debate over which side kills more children.
This is where we are now.
I mean it’s not a debate, Israel by 36x.
(2008-2020 because those are the numbers I was able to find: https://www.ochaopt.org/data/casualties)
So frustrating that this is a point that needs arguing in the modern day.
deleted by creator
I can be pro-palestinian people and still think that after several decades of not being able to suppress the violent factions inside their nation, they should completely bail off from that general area.
would you say that to people in every single colonialist country? e.g. the US?
USA seemed to rather successfully suppress the violent factions inside their nation, several times.
their nation was literally built on top of violence.
All nations are built and maintained by violence, either directly or by threat of it.
It’s a core component of sovereignty. To be able to call your government sovereign you must have the capacity to resist both external and internal actors from being able to overthrow you.
You must also be willing and able to use violence against those under your rule who disobey your laws (i.e, arresting a murderer).
That’s probably the norm. Finland, the posterboy of peace, started its independence with a civil war and continued by joining the Nazis in WW2 against Soviet Union.
Seems to me that there are two kinds of nations on this planet: dead ones and those that were at some point based on violence.
Indeed. Every moral person should understand this without being told.
The fact that people don’t understand the differences in style and purpose between fact-based reporting and opinion pieces is a travesty. There is no way this can be anything other than an opinion piece because of its topic and tone. Whether you agree or disagree or find its position to be self-evident is irrelevant. It simply does not meet the standards of traditional fact-based reporting. Which people today don’t seem to understand the value of.
Obama changed the military’s criteria for civilian deaths so he could pretend his numbers were lower.
I don’t know that I’d call it an opinion. Civilian deaths are an eventuality we have no choice but to accept, especially here in the US, where we’re making war in six, seven, or eight countries at once and it’s normal.
Sounds like you don’t know what the word opinion means. Hint: literally any statement based on morality is an opinion.
That’s an opinion, though. Not a fact. It’s actually just one theory in ethics.
The definition of what an opinion is is not an opinion.
No, but this is an opinion:
literally any statement based on morality is an opinion.
No, it’s not. Facts are statements about what is. Statements about what should be—which is what moral statements are—are always opinions.
I can’t fucking believe I’m arguing with people who literally don’t know what the word opinion means. It’s not rocket science.
Perhaps you should read about more about the different theories surrounding whether morality is always objective “as a fact”.
I wonder what Nelson Mandela would think about that.
That’s simply not true. If you hide ammunition, fighters amongst civilians, to use the as meat shield or their deaths as propaganda, they become collateral damage.
It’s horrible, but Hamas is counting on this! They could avoid this, by not hiding behind their own people.
Targeting civilians specificaly is a war crime.
EDIT:
please, do explain how it’s ok to hide behind civilians…sorry, this doesn’t helpso if hamas is exploiting civilians for their own protection, they should kill their victims too? cool dude. you’re totally not justifying killing civilians! it’s not technically a war crime, so its fine! fuck. off.
What do you propose? Let them shoot from there and not retaliate? That’s how you get killed you genious.
They even do roof knocking to evacuate people ffs…
that frankly isn’t the situation that we’re dealing with. the idea that israel either has to let Hamas operate unchallenged or kill civilians is a vast oversimplification of how conflict works, and giving the IDF blanket permission to kill civilians if it also hurts Hamas is fucking monstrous. you suck.
I would argue a blanket statement of “killing civilians is always reprehensible” is a vast oversimplification of how conflict works.
Yeah, it sucks, war sucks, and it often turns out that the least bad option involves a decision where innocent people die. I know it feels like a hot take to say we shouldn’t give blanket permission to kill civilians, but it turns out no one is claiming that.
This thread makes it clear that lemmy commenters are not equipped to debate the vanilla trolly problem, let alone the Iranian/Palestinian conflict.
“killing civilians is always reprehensible” as a moral statement has nothing to do with the mechanics of conflict. i’m telling you what i believe. giving room for acceptable civilian casualties in a moral framework provides a ready made justification for bad actors, that so long as they present a situation as looking enough like the acceptable kind of civilian casualty then its fine that an innocent person was killed.
i am taking issue with the rhetoric of acceptable casualties. no. there are only casualties, and they are all horrific. rhetoric that is not an explicit condemnation of war can be used as a justification for it.
Anytime you are doing any kind of military or police action within a civilian area there is always the risk of unintended civilian harm.
If police and military forces took this doctorine that any amount of risk is too much then they simply would be unable to operate.
There has to be a certain amount of acceptable civilian risk and that should be proportional to the threat you are attempting to stop.
Just to clarify, I’m not advocating that Israel is taking acceptable risks. But I am advocating that those risks will always exist with ANY police or military action and the primary debate is over where the red line of acceptable/unacceptable is.
That’s not what I said. There needs to be heavy pressure on them from the world. I’m putting pressure on my political representative exactly for that.
But a blanket statement like: “all civilian casualties are inadmissible” is just wrong.
all civilian casualties are inadmissible. its not wrong, its a moral imperative, and one that the state of Israel is blatantly disregarding. the framing that “okay, these civilian causalities are okay” is fucking monstrous, and gives a ready made excuse for Israel to escalate violence in Gaza.
No one is saying “all these civilian casualties are ok”, stop oversimplifilying the situation.
I know it’s tempting to make blanket statements about moral imperatives from your armchair, religion has been doing that to us for centuries, but it turns out the real world is actually full of moral dilemmas, where there IS no outcome where no one dies, and all you can do is pick the least bad option.
“All civilian casualties are inadmissible” is the coldest of cold takes, right there next to, “well I don’t think anyone should have a war at all!” Like, great, thanks, why didn’t anyone think of that?
i don’t think anyone should have a war at all. there, are you happy? i’m frankly uninterested in litigating what hypothetical circumstances under which it might be okay to kill a civilian.
You’re right, the Israeli should just say “too bad guys, they have hostages, we can’t shoot in that direction, check mate” and let hamas slaughter them
the scenario you’re imagining doesn’t exist. this isn’t a rock paper scissors thing, where Israel either shoots through hostages to kill insurgents or dies themselves. if Hamas is hiding amongst civilians, they aren’t attacking Israel, they’re hiding. if they’re attacking Israel, they aren’t in a crowd of Palestinian civilians. the IDF does not need to have a shootout with civilians in the crossfire to protect its people. the IDF does not need to bomb civilian residences to wage war against an insurgency.
you are so willing to conflate the two, assume that Israel must kill or be killed themselves. that is a fucking falsehood. there is so fucking much a military force can do to defend against attack that doesn’t involve shelling apartment buildings, shooting into crowds, and otherwise being monsters.
No amount of Hamas being wrong can make Israel’s response right.
True, they (israel government) fucked up the place, in so many ways. They’re not the only actors, but they’re the ones with most power and possibilities.
They are still effing up, because we’re talking about men of war with stupidly large guns, afraid (with good reason) for their whole people, who maybe know victims, know a hostage… everybody knows what happens when warriors are mad… so why the fuck poke that bear?
There’s no good move. If israel doesn’t react, hamas will attack again, because hamas wants to exterminate every jew, not peace. If they react, they have to take out civilians because hamas uses them as human shields. And now with all that rage, the most racists and extremists from each side will have a chance to assuage their bloodlust.
Hamas have ruined Gaza’s future in a way that, in almost 3 decades of following this conflict, I never thought would be possible. And the racists in Israels government are living their wet dream.
There are no heroes in this story.
I feel like I say this too much, but it is too often true.
deleted by creator
Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world, it’s also majority landlocked and has been under a naval and air blockade for nearly 2 decades.
You can make the case about the selection of which some specific civilian areas Hamas utilizes are intended to maximize the outage if struck, but ultimately there is NOWHERE inside Gaza that isn’t a civilian area, period. It’s just a matter of degrees i.e. retail shops vs schools.
Just looked at the gaza satellite map to be sure. There are kms of fields between the border and most cities. They’re cowards hiding behind their people.
Those are literally watched by automated and remote control machine guns, as well as 24/7 surveillance drones.
So you’re military strategic insight is to sit in an open field, just outside of range of the remote control 50 cal turrets, and wait for the drone to drop a PGM?
Feel free to browse my comment history. I’m no apologist for terrorists acts, but I’m also not blind to the realities on the ground, and what obstacles any opposition militant group within Gaza would have to plan around.
So because the situation is too risky, better hide behind your people? Of course not! Human shields are never acceptable.
No, I’m saying that any military strategy has to operate around it’s own operational and environmental constraints, and the capabilities and obstacles of the opposing force.
Whatever you’re opinions are on any conflict, you should still understand that rational actors will respond accordingly to their constraints.
Rational doesn’t mean moral, it means they have a clear mission and objective, and a plan to achieve it.
You’re suggesting that instead of being combat effective, they should instead suicide themselves by operating in an open field in close proximity, and with no cover, to a vastly superior force. That would be irrational.
Who gives a fuck if it’s combat effective when it kills your people? If you’re not fighting for the lives of your people? What are you fighting for? In the case of Hamas, the answer is in their charter: kill all jews. They admit it themselves ffs.
I’m providing an extremely high level and simplified outline of the operational and strategic constraints for militants operating within Gaza, not moral commentary on it.
If you want my opinions, or moral judgments, feel free to browse my comment history. Jump into any of those conversations if you disagree.
