CNN’s Wolf Blitzer seemed at a lost of words at the justification being used to bomb a refugee camp in Gaza.
The “it’s all so complicated” MFs have been quiet
Oh, I’ve seen them saying a bunch of things. Combinations of “Well, it’s not actually a refugee camp” and “the US also bombs civilians to take out military targets” and the long-used canard “they were warned to go south”.
Thanks, it’s like being flogged with warm lettuce
Nice metaphor, it’s mine now
“the US also bombs civilians to take out military targets”
Not wrong though.
IRC the initial shock and awe coordinated ‘surgical’ bombing at the beginning of the 2003 Iraq war cost the lives of up to 8000 Iraqi civilians. I remember watching it at the time, and American media were really gushing about that whole thing. Going on about how precise it all was. Apparently if you dress it all up in a bit of newspeak (collateral damage, precision bombing, surgical strike, …) you can convince most people that the pressure wave from a large bomb stops at the window of a building.
Maybe international law is too lax. Maybe the US is too powerful to face consequences for anything but the most egregious examples, but then again it’s not as if the world (including the middle-east) gives much of a shit when Assad barrel bombs yet another a hospital. And no one gives a shit about the thousands who died in Sudan this year, because they’re black, so they apparently don’t count.
In a deeply cynical way, it makes sense that the IDF and Israel think it’s unfair. Why should they get so much flack for war crimes, when others get away with it consequence free? China got to demolish ten thousand or more mosques, Russia got to demolish multiple cities and deliberately murder sheltering children, it’s only fair that Israel gets to commit a bit of genocide.
I’m old and tired, and please understand this is an angry and sarcastic comment, but I do wonder what people think war is actually like. Especially urban warfare. Because given history, it seems to me that this is what it’s always like. Thousands of dead civilians, razed buildings, and flimsy excuses and technicalities which allow countries to get away with (not so) accidentally murdering thousands. The world’s biggest and least funny joke.
Though my point in bringing it up is that it’s not even an actual excuse when Israel defenders use it. We Americans actively protested such things as well, as war crimes and violations of international law.
Trying to blatantly use illegal US actions as an excuse for one’s own illegal actions, such as Netanyahu in his speech trying to use the US response to 9/11 as a reason for Israel to do the same, is appalling at best.
Perhaps I would be more appalled if I was even slightly surprised by it. You know how there were protests in Israel before the war about the supreme court?
This is one of the reasons why:
Fuck them both, is my view.
Fucking hell. IDF is doing an indefensible acts speedrun, I guess.
Hamas was the target, they surrounded their leaders with innocent people. It’s a common tactic with terrorists.
And? If there’s a hostage situation, the answer is not to blow up the entire building, hostages and all.
Even Russians don’t blow the entire building, they just gas it.
Nah. We watched the Russians blow up the buildings in realtime without even worrying if military personnel were housed there. IIRC that was the theater bombing one that I am thinking of.
Yeah, Israel are straight-up taking plays from the Soviet handbook here. Indiscriminate murder of civilians is okay if you get one bad dude. They’ve already dehumanised Palestinians beyond belief, it’s no wonder that they view murder of innocent Palestinians as being completely different to murder of innocent Israelis.
I feel like too many people here play Fuze in Rainbow 6 siege.
Answer? They’re at war
I agree, but militaries will absolutely strike any high value target no matter the civilian cost. That’s the human cost of war and why we have rules of war. Hamas doesn’t follow those rules and the IDF has labeled them illegal combatants. Thus, in a legal sense, these strikes are being carried out. It absolutely is sickening but this is what Hamas wants to happen.
Thus, in a legal sense, these strikes are being carried out.
That’s not how it works. The failure of an enemy to abide by the laws of war does not absolve your side of the necessity of following the laws of war.
Jesus, fuck, it’s the Bush administration all over again. I’m having fucking flashbacks to “Why it’s actually totally legal to torture ‘unprivileged combatants’”
That’s not how it works … Jesus, fuck, it’s the Bush administration all over again. I’m having fucking flashbacks to “Why it’s actually totally legal to torture ‘unprivileged combatants’”
They shouldn’t have gotten away with it… but they largely did, didn’t they? Plenty of tales of US forces executing men of fighting age, based on very spurious allegations. The US killed two Reuters journalists and convicted… Chelsea Manning for leaking the footage to wikileaks. Not as if this was new. Colin Powell started his career by arguably whitewashing the My Lai massacre and ended it by fraudulently justifying the war in Iraq. Certainly didn’t hurt his career. So apparently, it often does work that way. You hire some lawyers, you find a technicality, and you can get away with pretending it was legal. I look forward to seeing George Bush Jr. on dancing with the Stars.
You might suspect that might makes right, and the US, China and Russia get away with war crimes and/or a bit of genocide because they’re nuclear powers.
But that can’t be it, can it? Because Assad gets away with war crimes constantly. IRC there was a story a few years ago, about how doctors in Syria no longer told the UN where their hospital were located. The Syrians were deliberately targetting hospitals, based on UN information. You know, the UN says: ‘don’t bomb this, it’s a hospital, that would be a war crime’. So Assad bombs them all anyway. I think at one point they bombed 4 in one day. Anyway, Assad’s still in power.
Actually, it does if justified. I don’t agree at all with it, but that’s war. The IDF will justify it and no one will do anything but look the other way.
Actually, it does if justified. I don’t agree at all with it, but that’s war. The IDF will justify it and no one will do anything but look the other way.
what
That is actually how it works. It is not against international law to strike civilian areas if it cannot be avoided in order to attack military targets. It needs to be done in a manner appropriate to the situation, for which there is obviously no hard line defined. Assuming that Israel is not lying regarding the military target around/under the location of this strike (which they probably aren’t, because murdering civilians without reason hurts their interests), it is explicitly legal without any loopholes or weird interpretations.
That is categorically not how it works. We had trials over this after WWII. The international law was delineated quite clearly. Intentionally targeting civilians to hit military targets is still a war crime. Even if enemy combatants are hiding among civilians to use them as human shields, even if you can prove that it is a standard practice of your enemy. It’s still a war crime. Israel is just so confident that the US will back them up all the way down to total genocide that they don’t even pretend they are trying to follow IHL anymore.
Civilians should never be the target. The Israei government will be questioned for their actions, but I’ll be surprised if they are held responsible for them.
That is actually how it works. It is not against international law to strike civilian areas if it cannot be avoided in order to attack military targets.
It is if the collateral damage is considered ‘excessive’ in comparison to the military benefits that would be gained if the strike was successful and in relation to the level of precision available.
You know, like murdering 50 civilians in a refugee camp with a guided munition to kill an enemy officer.
Like murdering 8000 civilians in a coordinated ‘surgical’ strike in an operation the media would glowingly call Shock and Awe, and getting re-elected on the back of it.
Or demolishing thousands of mosques, then signing trade deals with Muslim countries, as part of the Belt and Road initiative.
Or forcibly conscripting Muslim men for the meatgrinder in Ukraine, previously leveling Chechnya, then inviting over Hamas for a visit where they praise your leadership.
I wouldn’t get your hopes up too high. Once everyone’s bored of this war and distracted, and the man on the street in the Arab world is once again existentially preoccupied, it’s not unlikely Arab leaders will end their performative outrage and return to real politik, making money and throwing Palestinians under the bus.
Is bombing a hospital ok in the rules of war? Because they bombed the only cancer hospital in Gaza yesterday.
Ask Assad. He once bombed 4 hospitals in a day, and IRC at one point doctors in Syria stopped telling the UN where their hospitals were located, because their warnings to not target these hospitals was being used by the Syrians as targetting suggestions.
Hamas bombed a hospital by mistake. War zones are dangerous.
You’re referring to the PIJ, not Hamas. And even the PIJ being responsible is very much in question at the moment as more information is obtained on those events. See the New York Times analysis from the other day.
It’s not really relevant what Hamas wants to happen. The civilians don’t want to be murdered.
These are war crimes no matter what either of the beligerants think/want.
Most international law experts are already coming down on the side of civilian starvation being war crimes. History is going to judge this a lot more harshly than the talking heads of US/Israeli news.
I don’t think anyone is saying they do.
No idea why you’re downvoted, this is objectively true. One may consider it disgusting or morally indefensible, but a) unless Israel is lying about the presence of legitimate targets in the area it is not illegal b) using civilians as human shields is a staple Hamas tactic.
The truth is very hard to swallow. I served in Iraq and Afghanistan, I’ve witnessed this stupidity first hand. Terrorists are cowards who hide behind civilians. They want civilians to die because for every civilian killed they gain more bodies to their cause.
So so very close to piecing together why bombing a refugee camp even if there are terrorists or supporting infrastructure located there is a terrible idea.
I truly don’t know how you can recognize that Hamas wants civilians to die because it will strengthen their numbers, and still excuse the bombing of civilians. Perhaps you’re just trolling?
I served in Iraq and Afghanistan
This explains so much about all the shit you’re smearing all over Lemmy. You just miss murdering Arabs.
I am an engineer, I built schools, hospitals, and other public services. Few military personnel serve in combat roles.
I can’t help but parrot exactly what @V17 said. People just don’t want to hear the realities of war.
“But even if that Hamas commander was there amidst all those Palestinian refugees who are in that Jabalya refugee camp, Israel still went ahead and dropped a bomb there attempting to kill this Hamas commander knowing that a lot of innocent civilians—men, women, and children—presumably would be killed?” Blitzer asked. “Is that what I’m hearing?”
Dude, Wolf Blitzer gets it. Don’t let yourself seem like the less reasonable party when Wolf Blitzer’s involved.
I don’t think the Israeli government cares anymore than the Iranian government cared about killing its people. Any government based on religion is going to be intolerant of nonconforming behaviors and other religious beliefs. Separation of church and state is a requirement for successful societies.
Iran killing it’s own people or the Israelis? For sure on religion being a blight to the progress of humanity. I’d say I’m still perplexed, but honestly just meh. I’ve read enough weird shit today.
Ive witnessed too much of it in the last 20 years. I’m tried of seeing innocent people killed to defend a religion.
I feel like we’re already at the bottom of the barrel when serial teleprompter reader Wolf Blitzer gets it.
It’s unreal right? It’s like some body snatcher type shit and it’s everyday. Tomorrow some even more baffling combination of sorrows will somehow make this look tame. We are living the curse of “may you live in interesting times.”
Everyone knows that if a terrorist takes a hostage, you murder the hostage and their entire family!
It’s the Israeli way!
Human shield? SHOOT THROUGH IT. WE KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE.
“Shoot the hostage” worked for Keanu.
“We’re doing everything we can to minimize civilian deaths” Except not bombing civilians I guess.
I don’t get the headline. The topic is far too important for a click bait title. He was not stunned… just asking the tough question.
The Times of Israel’s take on this:
The Israel Defense Forces says it has killed the commander of Hamas’s Central Jabaliya Battalion, Ibrahim Biari, in an airstrike in the Gaza Strip a short while ago.
The military said the strike killed Biari and several other terrorists and caused underground terror tunnels to collapse, bringing down several nearby buildings.
Palestinian reports said at least 50 people were killed in the strike and subsequent collapse.
According to the IDF, Biari was one of the Hamas commanders responsible for directing members of the terror group’s elite Nukhba forces to invade Israel on October 7.
The IDF says the airstrike in Jabaliya was part of “a wide-scale strike” on Hamas operatives and infrastructure belonging to the terror group’s Central Jabaliya Battalion.
According to the IDF, the Central Jabaliya Battalion took control of several civilian buildings in the area.
“The strike damaged Hamas’s command and control in the area, as well as its ability to direct military activity against IDF soldiers operating throughout the Gaza Strip,” the army says in a statement.
It says “numerous” terrorists were killed with Biari, and “underground terror infrastructure embedded beneath the buildings, used by the terrorists, also collapsed after the strike.”
The IDF says it also “reiterates its call to the residents of the area to move south for their safety.”
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-says-jabaliya-strike-killed-top-hamas-commander-collapsed-terror-tunnels/So, they have no actual evidence they killed the guy.
And the move south rhetoric is clearly irrelevant, since if there are any Hamas people in the south, they’ll bomb the civilians there anyways. So why does the location matter?
True, it appears they will indeed hit Hamas targets no matter where they are:
“Wherever a Hamas target arises, the IDF will strike at it in order to thwart the terrorist capabilities of the group, while taking feasible precautions to mitigate the harm to uninvolved civilians,” the military said on Wednesday, reiterating previous statements.
The military has said the homes where militants live are “legitimate targets” even if civilians live alongside them.However, it seems like going south is probably still in civilians’ interests, IDF says there are more targets in the north and once ground forces go in they are going to consider anyone remaining north of the Gaza river to be a potential enemy combatant:
The military said the order was aimed at moving civilians away from “Hamas terror targets”, which it believes are concentrated in the north. …
Military spokesman Jonathan Conricus subsequently said: “We are preparing the area for significant military activity in Gaza City. That is the next stage. That’s why we are asking civilians to go south of the Gaza River.” …
Israel renewed its warnings on Oct. 22, saying that anyone staying in the north could be identified as sympathisers of a “terrorist organisation” if they did not leave.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/why-is-israel-attacking-south-gaza-after-telling-people-go-there-2023-10-25/
So the argument here is that Hamas’ military commander, the commander of the raid that started this current conflict, set up his command and control network inside of a refugee camp. And Israel bombed it.
If the command and control center for the on the ground active military commander isn’t a valid military targets, what is?
According to the sentiment of many other comments, no targets are acceptable if there’s any chance of civilians getting hit as collateral damage. This essentially means no targets in Gaza are acceptable for air strikes, and the consequence of this would be sending IDF ground troops into a densely populated and well-prepared guerilla fighters’ den with extremely high casualties. It seems like most of the critics can’t accurately imagine themselves in Israel’s position, portraying them as cartoonish villains rather than people trying to keep themselves safe.
Yeah just people trying to keep themselves safe in that land they took that did not belong to them.
Yeah just people trying to keep themselves safe in that land they their ancestors took that did not belong to them.
1948 was a long time ago.
deleted by creator
Zionist psychopaths.
