Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I agree that intent is an important consideration. In war, combatants are obligated to be intentional with who they target. That intentionality is even codified into international law. It's why we say that civilian casualties must be minimized whenever possible. By law, commanders must attempt to discriminate between military and civilian targets, applying force appropriately to target only those who are part of the conflict. By law, retaliation is governed by the principal of minimum force, meaning only so much force as is required to remove the threat, and no more.
When those of us outside the conflict zone are confronted with dead children on the front page, that's the standard of "intent" we're weighing our reactions against. For many, it's hard to see how attacks on refugee camps were intended to spare refugees. How attacks on aid convoys and ambulances intended to spare the sick and wounded. How refusing to allow food, water, and the gasoline that hospitals need in order to operate is intended to safeguard the welfare of civilians who have been forced to drink sea water just to stay alive. Even if Hamas is using the population as human shields, it doesn't change that the intent should be to spare those civilians in spite of Hamas' actions. They're fellow human beings. They deserve that bare minimum of thought. Sure, dropping an atomic bomb on Gaza City would wipe out the terrorists, but I think we'd all agree that'd be a war crime since it would also murder millions. The same logic applies here on the smaller scale (though 10,000 residents - half of them children - isn't exactly "small scale"). That's why it's hard to see intention in those headlines. At least aside from the intention to do exactly what you'd expect bombing a refugee camp to do - murder refugees. The indiscriminate leveling of a region isn't targeted, but it sure as hell looks intentional.
I desperately want to be wrong here, and like I said, I'm an outside observer from America just like you. But that's the train of logic that I see dominating calls for a humanitarian pause over here, and it's rather compelling.
That's what Hamas wants - forcing Israel to either not attack them because of civilians or for the whole world to condemn the attacks. That's why they use civilians.
But they don't particularly understand that you have to give your enemy an out - if Israel is fucked whether they attack or not, why shouldn't they attack? They'll still be fucked but they'll at least stop worrying about this particular enemy.
The difference is that "in for a penny, in for a pound" implies all options are equal as long as the objective is achieved. "Surgical strike that kills 24 civilians? Nuclear strike that kills 2,400,000? Something in between? Why bother weighing the pros and cons because we're fucked on the world stage either way. Might as well go big." It's an argument designed to sidestep the very real debate over "acceptable loss" calculations and the duty to safeguard human life. No one is saying that Israel shouldn't retaliate. No one is saying that Hamas is playing fair. What they are saying is that 10,000 dead refugees might look like Israel doesn't care that they're dead. Especially when Israel says they targeted refugee camps and ambulances on purpose. And when you chime in saying "fuck it, just kill 'em" to a simple plea of "maybe count the kids before killing 'em all."
The IDF is in an impossible situation, but the answer isn't to shut down debate, it's to actually talk about where the line should be drawn and try to minimize civilian harm. Allow foreign aid to reach the starving children. Allow civilians to leave the city. Listen to why there's an outcry against indiscriminate bombings. Palestinians aren't "meat shields." Hamas might be hiding behind them, but that doesn't mean you have to aim straight at the "shields" and pull the trigger. They're people, and deserve more consideration than a simple "fuck it, what's a little genocide if the bad guy's dead?"
I don't really know how you came to the conclusion that I somehow endorse the killing. I'm just a realist and Hamas gave Israel these options:
I'm just saying that's kinda easy decision on Israel's side, I'm not saying "fuck it, just kill 'em".