๐ณ๐ฑ
Well Israel murdered 5000 peoplesince oct 7, 400 int he last 24 hours. Of those murdered 40% were children.
Its like every time Hamas goes terrorist the Israelis need to to out-terrorist them and then they get surprised when things dont get better....
@mjambon because its intentional.. if theyactually solved the problem then they couldnt justift stealing more land. I mean afterall what is easier stealing 60% of the land and having to force relocate an entire people... or eliminate the hamas and install a transitional govt? But they would never eliminate the hamas, the hamas is Israel's biggest ally, they keep doing exactly what Israel needs to justify their genocide.
@freemo what was the solution?
@freemo ok, but this is so short-sighted and will obviously fail.
I mean I don't care that much about this particular conflict because I have no ties there. I'm more worried about the inability of so many people to do what's best for them. I blame some implementations of democracy.
@mjambon I mean, its worked brilliantly for them so far. Year after year they take more land for themselves and no one is stopping them...
@freemo We can choose between quick and self-proclaimed Hamas terrorism, or long-term, hypocritical Israelian one. :-/
I'm not an expert, but my 2cents are that without an external arbitration committee, this dispute will never be solved.
@mzan oh it will be resolved.. there just wont be any palestinians left alive on the other end of that "resolution"
I think the people want a resolution for sure.. .the govt doesnt want hamas to go away, they have been their biggest ally, hamas has been the reason they were able to justify taking so much land.
@freemo @mzan You think the state of #Israel is keeping #Hamas around to get more land? I think that theyโve either done it out of fear for what the West might say if used more aggressive tactics, or possibly to manipulate their citizens into supporting them more and thinking that they need them more than they do. The #USA does the latter all the time.
Dude you dont need **more aggressive** tactics to get rid of Hamas, you need **less aggressive** ones... How do you think killing mostly civilians will ever get rid of hamas short of completely killing off the whole population (which is the land ownership jackpot).
Thats exactly why its so obvious they intentionally keep the hamas around... they have put **way** more effort and death in play than would have ever been neccesary. A proper attack would have ground units going in and eliminating the hamas directly, not blanket bombing neighboorhoods and cutting off electyrcity.
Plus going in and only targeting hamas means less civilians dead and thus **less** support for hamas in the first place.
A ground offensive can kill more people, it can kill less... it largely depends on how its executed... Since Israel used palestinian children as shields during similar encounters int he past I am sure they are scared that israel wouldnt go in and handle a ground offensive responsibly. I assume you saw the recording of where they were calling palestinians "animals" and how they were going to deprive them of water and electricity and all that.... Obviously they arent in the headspace to even know how to be less aggressive.
@freemo @mzan How could a ground assault kill more civilians? Letโs say that #Hamas is hiding in a building with 75 civilians as human shields, and there are two commanders among them. With the #IDFโs current approach, theyโd just bomb the building and kill everyone. In a ground assault, however, not as many people would likely die unless the #IDF soldiers kill the rest intentionally ofc. Maybe thatโs what youโre thinking theyโll do though.
Never seen 1 man hold 20 or 50 people at gunpoint at the same time before, so Iโm not apt to think that a ground offensive would be more deadly than any air offensive.
In a ground assult they can still just bomb it and move in.. blanket bomb an area, move in, secure, and take it for yourself.
Which is probably what they are scared they will do, especially given their track record of doing just that, and then keeping the land for themselves (ya know, rather than focusing on the hamas)
How is blanket bombing an area not going to result in more pelstinian deaths.
But your right, there would be more israeli deaths int he short term.. but thats war.. you dont commit genocide/terrorism just so yoru own soldiers arent "at risk".. if that was acceptable might as well just nuke them and be done with it.
And while it might put IDF at a bit more risk short term, overall it would save lives as it results in an actual resolution. bombing from afar and killing civilians indiscriminately, aside from being a war crime, only servers to enrage the people and empower hamas.. so int he end the death toll for the israelis will be higher.
How is blanket bombing an area not going to result in more pelstinian deaths.
Well, I donโt see how bombing by land would result in more Palestinian casualties than bombing by air.
And while it might put IDF at a bit more risk short term, overall it would save lives as it results in an actual resolution. bombing from afar and killing civilians indiscriminately, aside from being a war crime, only servers to enrage the people and empower hamas.. so int he end the death toll for the israelis will be higher.
Completely agree. I donโt really see any likely solution that leads to peace and doesnโt involve #Palestine being on the losing end.
> Well, I donโt see how bombing by land would result in more Palestinian casualties than bombing by air.
In and of itself it wouldnt. The difference is in the mentality. With IDF on the ground they would have more reason to completely flatten an area, to make sure no one is left to resist the troops ont he ground.
With a remote attack they cant retaliate because no one is there to retaliate against and they dont have the tech to send a bomb back with any accuracy.
Basically they can decide how much damage it does either way, the fear is with troops on the ground they will be motivated to kill more people for their own safety. My proposal is they taket he risk to solve the problem, even if that means more IDF killed in the short term it means fewer killed in the long term.. this implies that they resist the urge to blanket bomb though and I doubt they will.
@realcaseyrollins your reasoning can be correct if the building to reach is near the border with Israel. But, if the troups had to reach a palace in the center of Gaza, it can be a very long "journey".
"Within Gaza City, the population density is over 500 people per 100 square meters in many sections, according to data from the European Commission."
It is not credible that Isrelian soldiers will advance to the target, without self-defense. And self-defence in a city with this density, it is for sure a lot of civil deaths.
Its not like Israel makes an effort to avoid killing civilians either... they have often bombed such areas from afar when the risk to them was less immediate.
@freemo
I think the message I brought to last evening's solidarity demonstration for Israel in Tรผbingen was lost on virtually all of the audience.
@tatzelbrumm I can not read hebrew, I dont know what it says.
@freemo That's what Alt-Text is for.
Or Google Translate from images.
@freemo FWIW,
Tรผbingen is a university town full of academics, some of which can actually read Hebrew.
One of them, somewhat indignated, asked me if I even knew what my sign meant.
He didn't get the Princess Bride reference, but we actually did have a meaningful discussion what Entebbe has to do with the present slaughter on both sides of the Israel to Gaza fence.
@tatzelbrumm You can never go wrong with a princess bride quote :)
@freemo Yep:
Shema Israel:
My name is Benjamin Netanyahu.
You have killed my brother.
Prepare to die.
@freemo yes. Why is it not obvious from their perspective, especially since they're in the thick of it? Don't they learn this in military school, that whatever is being destroyed is a net loss, that it's not paying back for anything? Don't they realize that their thirst for revenge is a mental illness? It's one thing that the leaders are incompetent, but the people who vote for them? Is the majority of the people really like that?