7 ms·
> Hamas based their operations where conventional rules of war prohibit fire. This has not stopped the IDF
by phone8675309 3y ago
> Hamas based their operations where conventional rules of war prohibit fire.
This has not stopped the IDF
- sgift 3y agoYes, and if you look up the rules of war you will see that if you base your operations there the enemy is allowed to attack it. Besides a desire to not kill your civilian population that's another reason countries don't do that. But Hamas doesn't care for civilians.
- tacomonstrous 3y ago>But Hamas doesn't care for civilians. Neither does the IDF by all available evidence.
- kaba0 3y agoIDF cares for their civilians more, and to protect them they unfortunately have to accept Palestinian civilian casualties, there are no other way.
- SomeoneFromCA 3y agoyes, right. Lately they preemptively killed civilians when they were in a line for flour, because they were caring for civilians, and therefore prevented them from overeating.
- zelphirkalt 3y agoAfter so many dead Palestinians whether combatants or not, compared to the number of killed Israelis, there is no other way? Laughable. Don't buy into IDF propaganda too much.
- Vecr 3y agoYou have to think about the exploitability of your strategy. Both the IDF and Hamas optimize for a low exploitability number (though, Israel, really, you need to stagger your religious holidays, this is the second time this kind of thing has happened...), having a "kill count limiter" (in a value less than the mid single digit millions) is obviously a bad strategy and is extremely exploitable.
- czl 3y ago> But Hamas doesn't care for civilians. Are these civilians not their families and communities? According to Hamas does death for their cause not earn you points for your glorious after life? You have to understand their beliefs to understand how they justify their actions. I have no doubt what they are doing is sensible to them else why would they do it?
- psunavy03 3y agoProtected sites lose their protected status under the law of armed conflict if they are used to hide/support combatants. Agree or disagree with Israel's targeting policies; that's still the law and has been for decades.
- archagon 3y agoIf the law permits thousands of innocents to be slaughtered, then maybe it needs to change.
- gataca 3y agoHamas is free to hand out uniforms to its soldiers to prevent civilians getting killed. They’re also free to build barracks instead of tunnels underneath schools to house their fighters. Until they do so civilians will continue to suffer.
- vladgur 3y agoTHe reason these "international laws" are accepted by majority of modern nations is because they are somewhat reasonable and allow parties to military conflicts to wage military campaigns while attempting to minimize civilian casualties. If the laws are rewritten to state "you are never allowed to attack a hospital or a school. No exception", then what will follow is one party to the war will put their military installation insides schools and hospitals and the other party to the war to the war will say "these geneva conventions are unreasonable and we wont follow it" In other words, nobody would respect Geneva conventions if they are unreasonable
- archagon 3y agoRegardless of any second-order effects, the truth on the ground is that many thousands of innocents are suffering, and I have a hard time seeing any societal configuration where civilians can be legally blown up or starved en masse as anything but immoral. If a terrorist government is embedded in your population centers, it should not be legal to raze those population centers in retribution.
- tekla 3y agoAs it turns out, you can't say everyone is a noncombatant in an area, and then place combatants there and think everyone is ok with that.