[delayed]

"I just follow my orders"

Naturally, in an ideal world no houses would ever be bombed. But given the status quo we are in, my question is: would you prefer they don't call?

> But given the status quo we are in

Why that’s a given? Why should we not try to demand a correction on the root cause of the issue instead of just accepting poor patches on top?

By all means demand the world peace. But while it's not there yet, back to my original question?

In fact often they do not call, as reported by sources on the ground. But even if they called always, tell me, would it be ok for you to receive a call ordering you to abandon your home and belongings within an hour, pending its destruction? Does that make it humane?

Naturally it's not something I'd be looking for. But on continuum of bad things to possibly happen it's far ahead of slowly dying under concrete rubble.

"The war crimes and genocide could be worse, so why is anyone complaining?"

The poster I replied to has suggested the man giving the heads up on bombings should not be doing that: that's what "I just followed orders" sarcastic line implies. Do you agree with that?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38187301 1 day ago, 51 comments, [flagged]

Very civil of them!

I'd prefer a heads-up before someone had planned on bombing my house.

I wonder if Hamaz would extend the same courtesy?

Agreed. As a privileged westerner, I don't genocide unless it's done cordially. Come on, we're not barbarians.

Well it's a damn poor job of a genocide if you warn the target before hand don't you think? Bit counter productive really.

I mean - if _I_ where to start a genocide I'd probably update my public policy first to align everybodies goal. You know to get the team spirit.

They could copy from Hamas - "destruction of Israel" or something like that!

This is a terrible burden to place on one man. Were there no official lines? Or were they somehow thinking that bypassing official lines and going directly to residents would preserve the element of surprise against whatever Hamas units they thought were operating from these locations?

Or they had no trust Hamas would pass this announcement to the concerned people?

The truth of the matter; there is no reasoning under which such a call can be considered as a "moral" or civilized. The motivation behind is not humanitarian, on the contrary it is pure terrorism in all-encomassig meaning of the word. If you doubt that, put your-self in the situation, right now as you sit wherever, receiving this call.

Another poster asked a question: Would you prefer that they dont call? I reject this frame of reference all-together as a valid one. So far, 10k people as per UN data ~70% of them children (and there are innocent men as well, which puts as per UN estimate >90% of casualties as pure non-combatants) and women have been massacred in openly admitted and self-proclaimed extermination process, and they received no such call. Nay, they actually are actively being starved and do not even have electricity for weeks now to even being able to take the call.

Therefore, if such call is made or are made, they are exception. Most people did not receive it before being murdered. Hence, its nature is not humanitarian but the contrary, calculated terror. Any sane human not consumed by ethnic or racial hatred (for which I have not need to comment) cannot accept this argument as moral. That BBC runs this an a tone and implied morals is despicable.

It isn't a humanitarian mission, it is urban warfare in a defensive war by Israel. It isn't much and pretty cynical to call in a bombing, but better than nothing and there is considerable risk too as the announcement could warn enemy troops.

I think you need to read up on Nakba. Israel is the invading force since 1948.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba

I did read up on it, did you read out about the plans of al-Husseini before it? The subjugation of Jews and the planned holocaust of the middle east?

Palestinian nationalism was attempting to genocide and ethnically cleanse the jews in the land way before 1948.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_political_violence

---

"The Arabs realized that the Jewish community, due to their lower numbers, was vulnerable to attrition and less able to take casualties. Therefore, they adopted a "war of attrition" tactic which was advantageous to the more numerous Arab community.[36]"

"For instance, in April 1920 about 216 Jews became casualties (killed or wounded) during a single day in Jerusalem. By May 1921, the casualty rate for Jews was approaching 40 per day and in August 1929 it had risen to 80 per day"

---

Only focusing on 1948 means one condones the attempted genocide that occurred. There will only be peace once the palestinian people and those that support them acknowledge that they attempted genocide and ethnic cleansing.

I'm not going to justify Israel's actions, even though I do think they are justified, though I can understand why others might disagree. I will however strongly argue that those that focus on what they call the Nakba without any acknowledgment of the attempted genocide that preceded it are people who have no problem with genociding and ethnically cleansing jews.

Nothing about this massacre is defensive. To even say such a thing is farcical. You don’t kill thousands of children in a defensive war.

It’s a war of terror. Full stop.

War of terror is what Israel would be subjected to if they didn't intervene and destroy the infrastructure that allows for thousands of rockets to be aimed at it. Without the iron dome, there would be countless dead.

Ah yes, the hypothetical menace justifies the actual terror.

Also those rockets barely do damage. “Countless dead” is hyperbole. And destroying hospitals, bombing civilians, and murdering journalists doesn’t stop the rockets.

Miss me with your Hasbara talking points, thanks.