- Hamas-run government says Israeli strikes on Jabalia refugee camp in Gaza killed at least 195 Palestinians, with concerns raised by the UN that these could constitute war crimes.
- Evacuation of foreign nationals from Gaza is underway, with 320 already crossed into Egypt; about 7,500 are expected to leave within two weeks.
- The strikes targeted Hamas military leaders and infrastructure, with Israel’s campaign responding to Hamas’ cross-border attacks from Oct. 7.
- U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is set to visit Israel and Jordan to discuss the conflict and the need to minimize civilian casualties.
Media Bias Fact Check (Reuters):
Overall, we rate Reuters Least Biased based on objective reporting and Very High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information with minimal bias and a clean fact check record.
There doesn’t need to be an alternative to killing children, just don’t.
But there are two options: kill the terrorist, or don’t kill the terrorist. Your choice is to let terrorists win, if they bring enough kids.
That would be exactly my choice. One terrorist is not worth blowing up children over. Wait for a better opportunity that doesn’t definitely have collateral damage. A terrorist does not “win” if he lives a bit longer. Nobody is “winning” anything in Gaza anyways right now.
Besides, blowing up children is a win for the terrorists.
What I hear from your comment is “let’s let them kill more Israeli kids”.
Removed by mod
You see? Just two options.
I mean if the person you’re talking to only believes in two options then you are correct and they are wrong. End of discussion. But there is always a 3rd option for those not talking: receive with empathy.
The thought of people killing Israeli kids makes us upset, to the point where we might consider killing other kids if it means rooting out evil. It seems like you’re not so much saying the option is between Israelites and Palestinians, but it’s to kill or be killed?
It is exactly that. Your third option seems too abstract to me. Would you mind clarifying what it means practically?
The third option is what I just demonstrated. Instead of me imposing my own feelings on the matter (pro-cease fire) I received what you were saying as an expression of a need and I try to understand it. Being able to understand this as “kill or be killed” gets more to the point, but I’m no Jesus so this is about as far as I can go… For now.
Have you considered rational thought instead?
Nah, that’s just the a false dichotomy that’s been used to manipulate public opinion.
This whole thing has to be address via Counter Insurgency methods, but that would mean actually listenning to the Palestinians, let them have enough that they don’t want to lose it and not commit random acts of violence and land theft against them, so that the Insurgency Movement which is Hamas has little or no popular support at which point it becomes very easy to find and kill the terrorists.
However Israel has a far right government (I would even say Fascist), so it’s all about Strength and thanks in a large extent to the support of the likes of the US (plus countries like France, the UK and Germany) they have the means and the “unwavering support” to be as violent as they feel like, hence their choice of purelly violent, no moral considerations (ultimatelly, genocidal), ways of “solving” the problem.
What they want is to “kill all Jews”. We’ve already passed that.
There’s also the option of a ceasefire and diplomacy.
Yep, that worked well before.
It never worked because Israelis would never admit their settlements are illegal and then break ceasefires. There is no pressure because the US waves away international courts. They have done this, blatantly, for decades.
So it’s about settlements all of a sudden? People who yell* “kill all Jews” just want to settle.
*not just yell, they actually tried
A lot of the Gaza’s anger is undoubtedly misdirected at the Jewish people. Let me ask you a question, if someone evicts you and destroys your home. Then kills your extended family. Then I trap you in an open air prison so you can live in squalor. Will you be a peaceful and rational person?
Yes I will. And you too, I imagine, as most of the people.
Fortunately, there are some very good historical examples of how and why you’re very wrong. Maybe you’re not the best example of what one would do under such circumstances.
If you choose to kill a terrorist leader despite them having a bunch of civilians and children around, are you meaningfully different from them?
In this scenario, is that terrorist leader who is hiding among civilians from his country actively killing civilians from my country? If so, it sounds like you’re suggesting the moral choice is to sacrifice my own people to save his, while they continue to wage war against my civilians. Bonkers.
Nope, never said anything close to that. There are myriad ways to kill a terrorist without sinking to their level.
Name one.
Just go shoot him. What’s the matter? Can’t do that without losing some soldiers? How many children is a soldier worth?
deleted by creator
How many foreign citizens children is a soldier from your country worth? Let’s not pretend any country sees all lives as equal. The US for example uses Dron strikes for strategic targets even tho they’ve harmed civilians countless times. They see avoiding American deaths as better than killing a couple civilians.
“What about the US” isn’t a valid excuse. Just admit that you’re down with genocide and stop trying to justify it.
I’m not justifying it. I’m stating you’re phrasing is missing perspective.
That’s actually a valid question. There are calculations for almost every human life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life
Damn, killing kids can actually prevent terrorism. I guess all these school shooters are the real heros.