3 ms·

Since Hamas is deliberately hiding inside the citizen population (and threatening the population not to leave), its best the citizen population that can move aw

Since Hamas is deliberately hiding inside the citizen population (and threatening the population not to leave), its best the citizen population that can move away to the south do that. Btw there are quite a few temporarily displaced Israelis - either people whose community was shattered by the killing rampage or people who are traumatized by the constant missile sirens and running for shelter. Impossible to come by numbers but wouldn't surprise me if its in the hundred thousands.

megous 3y ago
> Since Hamas is deliberately hiding inside the citizen population And where should Hamas be? Hamas is a government of Gaza. They are part of the citizenry. It's not some third party entity. Entirety of Gaza is either populated, or consists of small areas of agricultural land, so there's no other place they can be, than among other population. Any armed group in Gaza will have to live among the population. > its best the citizen population that can move away to the south do that How so? If people concentrate in one place, they'll just be easier to kill. They'll not even have their house to cover them from shrapnel and bombs, because a lot of people will be forced to stay in streets if Israel has its way and forces 1 mil. of people south. And Israel will not stop the bombings in the south, either.
- tzs 3y ago
  > Any armed group in Gaza will have to live among the population. Look at an aerial or satellite map of Gaza. There are plenty of places that all of the Hamas fighters and officials could be that would not be near civilians.
- nradov 3y ago
  Hamas doesn't need to continue being an armed terrorist group. They can lay down their arms and stop killing people. For an example, consider the Irish Republican Army. They (mostly) transitioned from being a terrorist group to participating in legitimate political parties as part of a multiparty democracy. And that produced much better results for their cause than terrorism ever did.
- weatherlite 3y ago
  > And where should Hamas be? Well this is a good example for it now - Hamas is deliberately threatening Gazans not to evacuate the North. It wants to use them as human shields so Israel will be pressured to stop the invasion for humanitarian reasons. Hamas could have allowed the evacuation and went up North to fight for example, but obviously it won't do that. > How so? If people concentrate in one place, they'll just be easier to kill. Not sure what you mean here. Israel specifically asked for Northern Gazans to move to the South since Israel concentrates its attacks on the North, its not some conspiracy theory to then deliberately attack the South.
  - megous 3y ago
    > Not sure what you mean here. Israel specifically asked for Northern Gazans to move to the South since Israel concentrates its attacks on the North, its not some conspiracy theory to then deliberately attack the South. It's a simple fact, more people in one place are more vulnerable, easier to kill, and less resources will be available to them to survive, etc. Not sure what's not understandable about it. I didn't talk about intention or anyone's motivations. Anyway, tell me a simple thing, how many civilians in Gaza are you ok with Isreal killing (one number for direct killing and one for indirect killing), if Hamas doesn't do what Isreal wants for whatever reason, before you'd call Israel's state actions immoral and criminal and want them to stop? Where's the cut-off value for you? It doeesn't need to be exact. Can you please give two numbers: What would be the number for direct killings (by bombs, shelling, suffocating/dehydration/bleeding/burning to death under collapsed buildings, being shot, dying from shrapnel injuries, bullets, etc.): - 1/3 of them will be children due to demography, and being more vulnerable in general (and that's the ratio right now, so extrapolating from that) What would be the number for indirect killings (dehydration, death from preventable diseases due to being forced to drink polluted water, dying from simple injuries due to shutting down of health system after resources run out, etc. - basically deaths due to effects of Isreal siege and preventing other countries/people of providing humanitarian aid, etc.) Upper limit is 2.3 million or so. Lower limit would be the current casualty numbers. How does the math work for you? What are the cut off numbers?
    - fillit 3y ago

megous 3y ago

> Since Hamas is deliberately hiding inside the citizen population And where should Hamas be? Hamas is a government of Gaza. They are part of the citizenry. It's not some third party entity. Entirety of Gaza is either populated, or consists of small areas of agricultural land, so there's no other place they can be, than among other population. Any armed group in Gaza will have to live among the population. > its best the citizen population that can move away to the south do that How so? If people concentrate in one place, they'll just be easier to kill. They'll not even have their house to cover them from shrapnel and bombs, because a lot of people will be forced to stay in streets if Israel has its way and forces 1 mil. of people south. And Israel will not stop the bombings in the south, either.

tzs 3y ago
> Any armed group in Gaza will have to live among the population. Look at an aerial or satellite map of Gaza. There are plenty of places that all of the Hamas fighters and officials could be that would not be near civilians.
nradov 3y ago
Hamas doesn't need to continue being an armed terrorist group. They can lay down their arms and stop killing people. For an example, consider the Irish Republican Army. They (mostly) transitioned from being a terrorist group to participating in legitimate political parties as part of a multiparty democracy. And that produced much better results for their cause than terrorism ever did.
weatherlite 3y ago
> And where should Hamas be? Well this is a good example for it now - Hamas is deliberately threatening Gazans not to evacuate the North. It wants to use them as human shields so Israel will be pressured to stop the invasion for humanitarian reasons. Hamas could have allowed the evacuation and went up North to fight for example, but obviously it won't do that. > How so? If people concentrate in one place, they'll just be easier to kill. Not sure what you mean here. Israel specifically asked for Northern Gazans to move to the South since Israel concentrates its attacks on the North, its not some conspiracy theory to then deliberately attack the South.
- megous 3y ago
  > Not sure what you mean here. Israel specifically asked for Northern Gazans to move to the South since Israel concentrates its attacks on the North, its not some conspiracy theory to then deliberately attack the South. It's a simple fact, more people in one place are more vulnerable, easier to kill, and less resources will be available to them to survive, etc. Not sure what's not understandable about it. I didn't talk about intention or anyone's motivations. Anyway, tell me a simple thing, how many civilians in Gaza are you ok with Isreal killing (one number for direct killing and one for indirect killing), if Hamas doesn't do what Isreal wants for whatever reason, before you'd call Israel's state actions immoral and criminal and want them to stop? Where's the cut-off value for you? It doeesn't need to be exact. Can you please give two numbers: What would be the number for direct killings (by bombs, shelling, suffocating/dehydration/bleeding/burning to death under collapsed buildings, being shot, dying from shrapnel injuries, bullets, etc.): - 1/3 of them will be children due to demography, and being more vulnerable in general (and that's the ratio right now, so extrapolating from that) What would be the number for indirect killings (dehydration, death from preventable diseases due to being forced to drink polluted water, dying from simple injuries due to shutting down of health system after resources run out, etc. - basically deaths due to effects of Isreal siege and preventing other countries/people of providing humanitarian aid, etc.) Upper limit is 2.3 million or so. Lower limit would be the current casualty numbers. How does the math work for you? What are the cut off numbers?
  - fillit 3y ago