I’m in the US.

I haven’t discerned a pattern, by the media, in the titling of the horror currently underway.

I’ve seen Al Jazeera use both phrasings. I haven’t determined that other media sites are hardlining their terminology either, but I notice the difference as I browse.

Maybe it doesn’t mean anything, but these days people seem extra sensitive about names.

  • silicon_reverie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    They’ll still be fucked but they’ll at least stop worrying about this particular enemy.

    The difference is that “in for a penny, in for a pound” implies all options are equal as long as the objective is achieved. “Surgical strike that kills 24 civilians? Nuclear strike that kills 2,400,000? Something in between? Why bother weighing the pros and cons because we’re fucked on the world stage either way. Might as well go big.” It’s an argument designed to sidestep the very real debate over “acceptable loss” calculations and the duty to safeguard human life. No one is saying that Israel shouldn’t retaliate. No one is saying that Hamas is playing fair. What they are saying is that 10,000 dead refugees might look like Israel doesn’t care that they’re dead. Especially when Israel says they targeted refugee camps and ambulances on purpose. And when you chime in saying “fuck it, just kill 'em” to a simple plea of “maybe count the kids before killing 'em all.”

    The IDF is in an impossible situation, but the answer isn’t to shut down debate, it’s to actually talk about where the line should be drawn and try to minimize civilian harm. Allow foreign aid to reach the starving children. Allow civilians to leave the city. Listen to why there’s an outcry against indiscriminate bombings. Palestinians aren’t “meat shields.” Hamas might be hiding behind them, but that doesn’t mean you have to aim straight at the “shields” and pull the trigger. They’re people, and deserve more consideration than a simple “fuck it, what’s a little genocide if the bad guy’s dead?”

    • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t really know how you came to the conclusion that I somehow endorse the killing. I’m just a realist and Hamas gave Israel these options:

      • pretend nothing happened, let Hamas repeat such attacks and kill more civilians
      • hide among civilians to force Israel to kill civilians if they want to target Hamas, which will (understandably) piss off just about anyone

      I’m just saying that’s kinda easy decision on Israel’s side, I’m not saying “fuck it, just kill 'em”.