• Victor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    106
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    [Drops flyers with warning message saying “we will attack soon; flee, those who can!”]

    [Attacks the refugee camps, oh and also hospitals]

    100% assholes. 👌 Equal to or worse than the Russians, I swear to freaking God.

    • prole@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      10 months ago

      I don’t think I remember hearing about Russians bombing Ukrainian refugee camps (though I could have missed it).

      Seems like Putin sees civilians as an inconvenience that get in the way of his goals. For Netanyahu, it seems as though killing the civilians is the goal. I would say that the latter is objectively worse (though they are both pieces of shit).

        • Mirshe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          10 months ago

          Yeah, I seem to remember a lot of cruise missiles hitting apartments and schools.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Not to mention eradicating close to the entirety of the military-aged male population in Donetsk and Luhansk by forced conscription.

          I might grant Putin though that he’s only doing a cultural genocide, that is, the attacks on civilian infrastructure have the actual military goal of breaking resistance – which is known to generally not work, hence why it’s a war crime. He’s perfectly fine with people staying alive as long as they bend the knee and become Russian.

          • 0000011110110111i@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            the attacks on civilian infrastructure have the actual military goal of breaking resistance – which is known to generally not work, hence why it’s a war crime.

            I think it’d be a war crime even if it generally worked.

            • barsoap@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              That’s the pacifist answer but no that’s not how war crimes work: The rules of war aren’t about avoiding bloodshed, they’re about avoiding pointless bloodshed, pointless from the point of winning an armed conflict, that is. If you can shorten a conflict and spare millions of lives by killing a couple thousands of civilians, well, a couple thousand is less than millions. War is erm dispassionate like that, a hard-nosed calculus.

              Hence why you also get rules like the ban on hollow-point bullets: They’re more likely to kill than to disable. Killing combatants, however, is less effective at binding up enemy resources and thus not a sound military strategy, using them means that you care more about killing people than winning the engagement. If, OTOH, the enemy started killing all their wounded soldiers instead of expending medical resources that reasoning would cease to apply and you’d be justified using hollow points. (Which are btw in ample use by police forces because they ricochet much less, leading to less injured bystanders, but you generally don’t have bystanders on the battlefield. Similarly tear gas is allowed for police use but outlawed for war because it could get confused with a nasty chemical attack very easily, possibly leading to a very nasty escalation when the attacked force responds in kind. Also for the record there’s plenty of legitimate uses of white phosphorous, tracer rounds and smoke screens all use it, the banned use is as an incendiary weapon anywhere close to civilians but that’s not special to white phosphorous, that’s a general thing about incendiary weapons).

      • andxz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Russia is bombing no less indiscriminately than Israel, it’s just a much larger theater of war, their aiming capabilities suck and their shit gets shot down a lot before ever reaching anything.

        They do the exact same thing day in day out. Taking out a cluster of civilians is probably worth an extra ration of vodka or even worse, a promotion, at this point.

        Two wars of terror, if you want. Irony is stone cold dead at this point.

      • Victor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        Putin sees civilians as an inconvenience that get in the way of his goals. For Netanyahu, it seems as though killing the civilians is the goal

        Yes exactly, that was basically my point, that Israel is actively attacking civilians almost exclusively (it feels like to me anyway).

        • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          If that were actually true, deaths would be several orders of magnitude higher. They have the munitions and capability to kill significantly more people.

          Bottom line is that anytime you conduct war in a dense urban area, or conduct a ground assault in a populated area, civilian casualties will be high.

          • dubyakay@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Bombing refugee camps, hospitals, schools and just plain carpet bombing districts does not seem like the IDF gives a shit about trying to minimize civilian casualties.

            We have tons of footage of Russians and Ukrainians engaging each other in battle. There’s no such footage from IDF, and whatever we got from Hamas looks like guerrilla fighters doing hit and run strikes on mostly armor. You know why? Because Israel is not engaged with “Palestine” in a war. Nor with Hamas. Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing in their own ethnostate.

            • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              You can say that - but seemingly also can’t explain why the death count isn’t stratospherically higher if that was their goal.

              Asymmetric warfare always sucks for civilians. The whole point is knowing who a civilian and who’s a combatant is intentionally difficult.

              Hamas doesn’t wear uniforms, because they’re terrorists and not a government or regular army.

              • Victor@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                10 months ago

                death count isn’t stratospherically higher

                You also can’t prove how much higher the death toll would actually be, because we’re all just speculating fools. You are using an argumentative fallacy, which is “you can’t explain why this hypothetical thing isn’t occurring” when it doesn’t really have to be occurring. Can’t remember which that is. Red herring? Straw man? Ah, I can’t remember.

                Anyway, we’re going by what we’re seeing, which is the bombing of innocent civilians. Terrible, terrible state of the world right now.

                • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  I can’t say exactly how many people they could kill if they were targeting civilians, but I can with certainty say it would be significantly more than have currently died.

                  They could drop many more bombs and shell the entire strip for weeks. These aren’t hypotheticals - we know they have the armament to do that.

                  There are around 20,000 people dead - out of almost 800,000 in Gaza. If their goal was a maximizing death, they could have killed significantly more. They certainly have the ammunition and means to do it - and that’s not a hypothetical.

                  • Victor@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    You’re phrasing it too black-and-white. If the “goal was maximizing death” they’d just nuke the site, right? But doing so has other consequences. It’s probably much more complex than that. You can’t just go all in even if you have the means, even if it accomplishes one of your goals. It’s obviously the goal of both sides to exterminate the other, as they openly say so, but there’s a process if you want to accomplish your other goals, whatever they might be. Or not cause unnecessary unrelated problems to the land itself if they want to conquer it, etc.

          • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Your downvotes remind me of the Reddit hive mind. But you are obviously 100% correct and anyone over the age of about 25 knows it.

            It has been almost 3 months since the Hamas terrorist attack. If Israel was trying to kill as many civilians as possible, as you said, the death toll would be orders of magnitude higher.

            So many people commenting here have no sense of historical perspective at all. I see people using words like “astounding” and “world record” and “genocide” to describe the death toll in this conflict. It’s hard to know where to start with that level of historical ignorance.

            • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              I should know better than to get sucked into this. But you’re right. I’ve been repeatedly told the most complex and longest lasting conflict in history is “simple”. Should stick to Israel bad / Palestine good, communists good / capitalists bad, no one likes nuance or shades of gray here.

      • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        They’re wildly different wars from a population density per square mile perspective.

          • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            10 months ago

            There are no good weapons for densely populated areas. Civilian casualties will always be high in populated urban areas unfortunately.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              There are better weapons though. Also, shooting people who are trying to evacuate through your lines is generally considered bad. Compressing the population into a smaller area that you’re using 2,000 pound bombs in is also bad.

              Nobody is expecting zero civilian causalities, but this is obviously the most inept army or a professional army conducting a genocide.

              • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                10 months ago

                But if it were a professional army conducting a genocide as you allege, wouldn’t they be much better at it? This is where I keep coming back to.

                I would agree with “professional army that is ranking military value significantly higher than minimizing civilian casualties” but that isn’t genocide.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  They don’t have to be doing it systematically to be doing it. And participation would still likely vary between units. It’s an extremely difficult thing to do psychologically. So some units are pulling all the military age men out to shoot and others are just shooting whoever they happen to see that’s not in an IDF uniform. Both are genocidal acts.

                  • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 months ago

                    OK… so any war crime is genocide now? It really feels like we’re broadening the definition substantially. And don’t get me wrong - war crimes are awful and should be prosecuted. But calling them all genocide feels… dilutive to systematic extermination of a people.

            • Snoozemumrik@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              Especially when you’ve cornered that population in an open air prison before bombing them.

                • Shyfer@ttrpg.network
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  So Israel can displace the whole population of Palestine? That’s genocide. You’re pro genocide.

                  • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 months ago

                    First, I’m not pro anything. I didn’t say anyone should do something. I said there are other parties who could do something.

                    Second, displacement isn’t genocide by any definition I’ve heard. And again, to be extra explicit, I’m not saying they should be displaced, or that it would be right to displace anyone.

                    But you can’t call it an open air prison and then call me a genocide supporter when I point out there’s another door to the “prison”?

    • Dubito_Cogito@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      10 months ago

      They have provided proofs about the hospitals… and also the refugee camp is a big city. it’s just called that

      • NobodyElse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Even if that was the case, the IDF have no moral high ground when attacking the hospital. That just makes their job of killing Hamas harder. Hamas is an irregular force, a terrorist organization. They don’t follow the rules of war. But IDF is a regular army and should act like one lest we see them as a terrorist organization too.

        If a dangerous criminal is found milling about in a crowd of people, even if some of of the people are sympathetic to him, the police don’t get to just mow the crowd down to get to him.

        • Mirshe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          Exactly this. Hamas forces are shit for using hospitals and schools as shields, I’ll grant that. But the IDF is a proper first-world military force, and should act the part. Dislodging an occupying force from a command center or strongpoint that also happens to be full of civilians shouldn’t involve bombing the place flat with civilians inside, especially when it’s clearly marked as a noncombatant area (like a hospital or a school). The US Air Force did that, with camera and audio footage that showed the crew knew they weren’t in the right, in Afghanistan (the Kunduz hospital airstrike, 2015), and were roundly vilified for it - why should we not hold Israel to the same standard?

        • Seventhlevin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Do you realize that a “regular army” would level the place entirely with airstrikes and artillery? --Because that’s what would be most expedient and cost the fewest Israeli lives and least money overall.

      • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        This wasn’t a hospital. They don’t a get a pass to bomb a refugee camp today because Hamas fighters hid in a hospital last week.

        • TserriednichThe4th@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          27
          ·
          10 months ago

          Hamas should stop hiding in refugee camps too…

          Extend the logic, come on.

          It is well known hamas hides among civilians. That is the main reason there is so much civilian collateral damage. Hamas themselves said it is their strategy ffs.

          • Snoozemumrik@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            And Israeli officials (Netanyahu, Gvir, Smotrich, etc.) have stated that their goal is genocide. How do you feel about that?

            • TserriednichThe4th@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              No they havent lmao.

              The worse netanyahu has said is that he prefers a one state solution and that hamas existing is useful in polarizing people towards that solution. That doesnt mean genociding arab muslims, because there are plenty in israel.

              But no person in israel with any substantial support believes in genocide.

        • TserriednichThe4th@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          They are both. How is that hard to understand? It is a decentralized organization that fits both roles depending on the faction.