4 ms·
There were demonstrations against Israel, for sure. The public perception so is shifting. Abu Ghraib like pictures, sieges of hospitals, large scale distruction
by hef19898 3y ago
There were demonstrations against Israel, for sure. The public perception so is shifting. Abu Ghraib like pictures, sieges of hospitals, large scale distruction of housing and so on and so forth.
The IDF is the heavy weight in this conflict, the Goliath and not the David. And when the Goliath, the heavy weight, continues punching the weaker foe, there is a point where he looks more like the baddy. Regardless of what the other party did initially. Not sure Israel can afford loosing support from its allies.
What does drive me crazy so, is the argument of "but they used civilian buildings, so they were legitimate targets". That's not how this works, and that it doesn't work that way is one of the reasons why asymetrical warfare is so damn hard. That argument didn't fly in WW2, and it doesn't fly now.
As the stronger party, an overreaction doesn't make you look strong, it makes you look butt hurt. The US did after 9/11 as well, and it got them nowhere. Restraint, with the hint of being able to use much more severe measures, makes you look strong as oppossed to be a bully. Goes dor every conflict at every level throughout history, not just the current one in Gaza.
- nec4b 3y agoSo how should Israel respond in you opinion?
- ImPostingOnHN 3y agoThe first step would be to stop indiscriminately killing civilians (or discriminately killing civilians, whatever, just stop). The next step is up to them to figure out, but "commit war crimes" isn't an acceptable answer. Those pointing out the war crimes don't have to pitch an alternative to war crimes and hope the idea is accepted or whatever. Just stop killing civilians, then reassess. Just to clarify exactly where I sit morally: I do not find it acceptable to kill 10 civilians in retaliation for 1 civilian being killed, nor do I find it acceptable that such 10x revenge killing of civilians is allegedly done in the name of saving civilians. Such statements tell me that the ones making them, don't view Palestinians as civilians to be saved. Whereas I don't believe 1 Palestinian civilian life is any more or less important than 1 Israeli civilian life.
- candiodari 3y ago[flagged]
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago[flagged]
- candiodari 3y ago[flagged]
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago[flagged]
- nec4b 3y agoYour answer is for them to sit back and allow Hamas to fire rockets on them and not engage back?
- ImPostingOnHN 3y agoWe're discussing how to minimize the civilian casualties happening as we speak, right? Not just the civilian casualties on /one/ side of the wall, /right/?
- nec4b 3y agoIt's a simply question. What should Israel do when attacked?
- ImPostingOnHN 3y agoThat question is as "simple" as asking what Palestinian civilians should do when attacked. These are actually simple questions (yes or no format): > We're discussing how to minimize the civilian casualties happening as we speak, right? > Not just the civilian casualties on /one/ side of the wall, /right/? If your goal isn't that, you should speak up, because that is currently the goal of most of everyone else. Security considerations and guarantees for Palestine and Israel from each other don't come until after that goal is achieved. I'm going to write that again for emphasis, since you've tried to change the topic to it twice now: --> Security considerations and guarantees for Palestine and Israel from each other don't come until after that goal is achieved. <--- As it is, you seem a bit distracted from the goal of minimizing the ongoing civilian casualties happening as we speak. Focus. We can discuss your question after, and only after, the civilian deaths stop racking up.