zlacker

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.

>>meowfa+(OP)
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?

>>meowfa+(OP)
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?

>>markdo+Xm
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.

>>markdo+Sm
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.

>>kaba0+sO1
> 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?

>>accoun+kK5
The null “option” is forever letting Israeli civilians living in constant fear of rocket attacks. That’s no way of living.

>>C6JEsQ+KL
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.

>>kaba0+sO1
> 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.

>>kaba0+AK5
It's a better way of living than what the palestinians are subjected to right now.

>>accoun+cN5
With hamas in the picture, both Palestine and Israeli civilians will suffer indefinitely with no peace ever. With a hopefully short war that manages to cut out the cancer that is hamas, healing can begin for both nations.

>>markdo+nL5
Wow, hello hyperbole and loaded terms. If we can’t even agree on basic facts like the very existence of a war, then there’s simply no point in discussion.

>>selest+8S7
I agree. So long as all you know is Israeli propaganda, you're blinded to the truth and there's no point in discussion.

If there's a war, where is the army that the IDF is fighting? How many losses have the IDF had? Where is the front-line of this war? Where is the footage of this so called "war"?

>>markdo+ab8
The Hamas military is embedded in the civilian population, as everyone knows. IDF has sustained minimal losses after getting their act together after Oct 7th, but if your definition of war precludes one sided casualties, then I guess operation Desert Storm wasn’t part of a war. If you need a very explicit front line, then I guess the Vietnam and Iraq wars weren’t wars either.

These answers are obvious. You would’ve been able to answer your questions yourself if you were earnestly looking to do so.

>>markdo+nL5
I am not in favour of striking, and you have misunderstood my message. You can see that if you read my replies to the other person who replied to me.