Do you have a reason to assume they don’t do so? The reported 2:1 ratio is absolutely in line with modern warfares, especially considering the very very densely populated urban environment.
And I'm sure you will accept Hamas strikes against Israel as justified as long as they deem the IDF as a terrorist organization? Or is it only your view of who is or is not a terrorist organization that matters?
We should never let labels like "terrorist" be used to justify using any means neccassary to ensure their removal. There is always the null option - do nothing. How much civilian casualties are there with that option vs. indescriminate eradication of anyone near Hamas?
I mean, fire the general in charge of security and put competent people on your walls to avoid any further incursions, and then work to remove the million settlers you've pushed onto stolen lands.
It's insane how Israel has managed to sell this fiction that they have a right to slaughter tens of thousands because a few terrorists must be hiding amongst them.
1) An air strike at the building, destroying it and killing most of its inhabitants, and leaving a minority of them wounded.
2) A squad of soldiers enters the building and executes most of the inhabitants at close range, and wounds and leaves alive a minority of them.
Most people would call scenario 2) a deliberate massacre that cannot be justified. Many people would, however, call scenario 1) a legitimate military strategy with unfortunate collateral damage that cannot be avoided. Question is, why? The outcome is the same, but for some reason the impersonality of striking from distance (air strikes, missiles, or artillery fire) seems to make it acceptable in many bystanders' eyes.
The outcome is not the same, because scenario two involves a high likelihood of more casualties on your side. It is legitimate to care more about your own soldier casualties than about enemy civilian casualties.
If you want to minimize your civilian casualties, you’d do well to clearly delineate between your civilian and military zones. If you fail to do so, and your people die as a result, that’s on you, not on your enemy. If you don’t care about your people dying, and your people generally support you regardless, that’s on your people, not on the enemy.
But in scenario 1, one is bombing unarmed civilians residing inside their homes. The only reason they do not literally have their hands up is that they do not even see the strike coming before they and their families are killed; and they pose even less of a threat to the person sending the missile than they would pose to a soldier that is physically located next to them.
> The outcome is not the same, because scenario two involves a high likelihood of more casualties on your side. It is legitimate to care more about your own soldier casualties than about enemy civilian casualties.
My initial reply to the parent was in the context of "deliberate massacres of civilians", pointing out that people seem to find such massacres much more acceptable when done from a distance. The rest of your reply seems to provide motivations for such actions, and your last paragraph even provides justifications (unless I horribly misunderstood it). Regardless of whether one agrees with the motivations and justifications, the reality of the outcome is what it is — a deliberate massacre of civilians. Whether that is done by bullets at gunpoint or by a missile from a long distance makes little, if any, difference to the people being slaughtered by tens of thousands (and ongoing), and makes no difference at all to the death reports.
We must be talking past each other. I don’t see how any of this contradicts or lessens what I’ve said.
> pointing out that people seem to find such massacres much more acceptable when done from a distance.
You misunderstand. People such as myself find such “massacres” (loaded term, by the way) acceptable when they’re part of collateral damage rather than intentional killing of civilians.
> The rest of your reply seems to provide motivations for such actions, and your last paragraph even provides justifications
Of course. Like I’ve just explained, killing civilians is justified when it’s collateral damage. You understood me correctly.
> the reality of the outcome is what it is — a deliberate massacre of civilians.
That phrasing sounds like civilians were deliberately targeted. They were not. They were simply in the way of the military assets that were deliberately targeted.
> Whether that is done by bullets at gunpoint or by a missile from a long distance makes little, if any, difference to the people being slaughtered by tens of thousands (and ongoing), and makes no difference at all to the death reports.
I’ll grant you that. But intentions matter. Intention implies that if civilians and combatants were clearly separated, the IDF would not continue to kill civilians at the same rate they’re doing now. If the IDF does not have the intention to target civilians specifically, then the only other party that can make a difference is Hamas, and that is where the blame lies for all civilian deaths.
> But intentions matter. Intention implies that if civilians and combatants were clearly separated, the IDF would not continue to kill civilians at the same rate they’re doing now.
Agreed, intentions do matter. While it is impossible to see inside any person's mind and determine precisely their thoughts, we can look into the trend that is visible in the rhetoric of Israel's leaders, and which influences opinions of the soldiers and signals to the them how much they can most likely get away with. Some examples that signal barely any concern for civilians follow below, and cast doubt on the assertion that IDF has no way to reduce civilian deaths. The statements suggest that they are pursuing revenge on the whole Gaza strip, and aiming to inflict as many casualties as they can get away with without losing the protection of USA in the UN security council. I argue that it is reasonable to use words "deliberate massacres of civilians" after listeaning to what Israeli leaders are publicly saying themselves.
- Prime Minister Netanyahu pledged to reduce parts of Gaza “to rubble” and invoked the people of Amalek, the foe that God ordered the ancient Israelites to genocide in the Bible, in a recent speech. [1]
- Defense minister Yoav Gallant called for a “complete siege” on Gaza and stated that “we are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly.” [1]
- Army spokesperson Daniel Hagari said forces would turn Gaza into a “city of tents” and admitted that Israel’s “emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy” in dropping hundreds of tons of bombs on Gaza. [1]
- Ariel Kallner, a member of parliament from Netanyahu’s Likud party, wrote on X after the Hamas attack: “Right now, one goal: Nakba! A Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of 48. Nakba in Gaza and Nakba to anyone who dares to join!” [2]
- Giora Eiland, a reservist major general and former head of the Israeli National Security Council, wrote in a popular Hebrew-language newspaper, “The State of Israel has no choice but to turn Gaza into a place that is temporarily or permanently impossible to live in.” Elsewhere, he specified that “Israel needs to create a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, compelling tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands to seek refuge in Egypt or the Gulf” and indeed that Israel must demand that “The entire population of Gaza will either move to Egypt or move to the Gulf.” Finally, he said that “Gaza will become a place where no human being can exist.” [2]
- “Human animals must be treated as such. There will be no electricity and no water [in Gaza], there will only be destruction. You wanted hell, you will get hell.”, IDF general Ghassan Aliyan [3]
- Revital Gotliv, a Parliament member from Netanyahu’s ruling Likud party, called for Israel to use nuclear weapons in Gaza: “It’s time for a doomsday weapon. Shooting powerful missiles without limit. Not flattening a neighborhood. Crushing and flattening Gaza.” [1]
- Galit Distel Atbaryan, also of Likud, posted on X in Hebrew that Israelis should invest their energy in one thing: “Erasing all of Gaza from the face of the earth” and forcing the “Gazan monsters” either to flee the strip to Egypt or to face their death. [1]
[1] https://www.vox.com/world-politics/2023/11/13/23954731/genoc...
[2] https://www.vox.com/world-politics/23933707/israel-palestine...
[3] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/cogat-chief-add...
While I’m skeptical that this is actual formal policy, this is at least a position that I can take seriously, so thank you for elaborating. I would not be surprised if the IDF is currently conducting strikes with a lower threshold for confidence than usual, and if the protests were merely aimed at pressuring the IDF to take greater caution with civilian casualties, I would be a lot more sympathetic to them.
Nowhere in any civilised state in the world do the authorities just go in and kill everyone in a building to get to a few.
It's beyond insane.
The fiction you've created to rationilise this is that there is a "war", but there is no fucking war. It's an occupying force slaughtering its hostages to punish a relative handful among them.
If there's a war, where is the army that the IDF is fighting? How many losses have the IDF had? Where is the front-line of this war? Where is the footage of this so called "war"?
These answers are obvious. You would’ve been able to answer your questions yourself if you were earnestly looking to do so.