JERUSALEM (AP) — The head of surgery at Gaza’s largest and most advanced hospital held up his phone Saturday to the hammering of gunfire and artillery shelling. “Listen,” said Dr. Marwan Abu Sada as fighting raged around Shifa Hospital.
Kinda similar to the “human shields” argument. When I read comics growing up, when a villain takes a hostage the answer was never “kill the hostage” except for the edgiest of antiheroes, yet here we are with “human shields” being used as a justification to kill civilians.
This exactly is my main gripe with how Israel is conducting this war. They’re completely unwilling to take any additional risk to preserve civilian life.
Even the US sent troops in to kill a scumbag like Uday Hussein instead of bombing with an airstrike.
This is just the Zionist creed of “unlimited Palestinian deaths don’t make up for 1 Israeli.”
Well, the US has shown that they couldn’t fight an insurgency with their level of protections for civilians.
Makes sense that Israel assesses that they have less resources than the US, and thus can’t fight the same way and have a hope of success.Of course they could have used that as a pretty good reason not to start this war in the first placez but alas, they didn’t.
What argument are you making here? Your first paragraph implies you believe that Isreal is justified in it’s approach based on the US’s failed conflicts with Guerilla warfare. But then your second paragraph implies that Isreal is not justified for exactly that reason, which is like… Yeah… That’s correct lol.
I feel like it shouldn’t be a controversial opinion to say that if you are unable to conduct a war without massive civilian casualties then you shouldn’t be conducting that war. If you do anyway you are, at the very best, a war criminal.
It’s not just in “this war”, they weren’t giving a shit about Palestinian civilians for decades.
Not like they care about any non Israelis in the area. Especially if they are press
I wonder if a lot of people’s idea of war has been shaped by the recent American occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, which were wars of choice where at least in theory American soldiers were fighting largely for the benefit of the natives. Countries that believe they actually need to win and don’t have the option of just giving up and going home fight wars in a very different way. Consider for example World War II, the proverbial “good versus evil” war fought by the generation that originally came up with the comic book characters you read about. The Allies certainly didn’t hesitate to kill enormous numbers of Axis civilians in the course of destroying military targets. (IMO the Allies actually went way too far and a lot of the strategic bombing of Germany and Japan served no military purpose, but I suppose they were more worried about bombing too little than they were about bombing too much.)
The total war tactics of WW2 are unthinkable by modern standards, but it’s hard not to sympathize with an outgunned army fighting for their home. They fight because they’d rather die than lose.
Maybe instead of fighting people in that position, you talk to them and work out a peace deal. If they’re willing to be reasonable, end the violence.
Do you think that Hamas will negotiate a peace deal in good faith?
Do you think Israel will?
Yes.
Hamas attacked on October 7th. Not the other way around.
Didn’t happen in a vacuum though, did it.
Do not confuse me saying that with sympathising with Hamas. It is possible to recognise that both sides have bloody hands, and have done for decades.
Can you explain what you mean by “Didn’t happen in a vacuum”?
Best I can figure is that you disagree with the act itself, but agree with their motives or desires. But I really don’t want to assume, and would prefer to understand from you.
If they’re willing to be reasonable
they’ve shown time and time again, through actions and words, that they are not
A total war is when you utalize all of a societies resources for war. That’s essentially what Hamas is doing, they have been syphoning the tiny economic capability the Gaza Strip had to arm themselves and are not hesitant to employ every available human being as a fighter or as a shield. Hamas also is in favour of Palestinian civilians dying,
The time to facilitate a peaceful solution was decades ago but the Israeli government missed that opportunity for selfish reasons. Now there is a conflict with no good solution available for Israel.
Now there is a conflict with no good solution available for Israel.
There is, but it’d require gasp giving up on their expansionist ambitions, and the only one willing to do that was Rabin, who got assassinated for it.
So, in WW2, the vast vast vast majority of the fight against “evil” was done by the USSR, because the Third Reich had, as one of its pillars, the destruction of the workers’ movement and the enslavement of the Slavs. The USSR lost far more than any other party to the war because the Third Reich made the war of choice, dehumanized the Slavs, and engaged in genocidal mass murder as a choice. The USSR defeated 80% of the Third Reich’s forces.
On the flip side, the American and British government and business communities were pro-fascist. They funded the rise of the Third Reich, they funded domestic and international eugenics programs, they were deeply invested in apartheid states and women’s oppression. (By way of contrast, the Brits and Americans used women as prostitutes to support the war effort while the USSR had women all over their military as snipers, tank operators, pilots, machine gunners, etc.)
So given that context, let’s look at the end of the war and what happened after. At the end of the war, the US wanted to make sure that the USSR didn’t liberate the rest of Western Europe from the Third Reich because they were anti-communist. The USA led the Western allies to Germany to create a border with the USSR (also a member of the allies, remember). It was this insistence that divided Germany into East and West Germany. Berlin was in East Germany because the USSR was the predominant victor in the war.
But then what of Japan. Before the USA nuked Japan, the USA and Japan were negotiating terms of surrender. The USA had made a very strict and ultimately untenable set of terms. Japan replied that they needed some domestic face saving in order to prevent their country from descending into violent and bloody internal revolution immediately. The USA received that message, and then chose to nuke 2 civilian cities. There was no emergency. The US wasn’t fighting for survival. Everything had already been secured. The USA was in active negotiations and Japan was participating (albeit through third parties because of the political sensitivity). The USA made an active deliberate choice to nuke civilians unnecessarily.
Why? Because communism was their real enemy. It was the reason they got involved in the war, it was the driving force behind their strategic decisions. They got involved against communism, they went to Germany against communism, they partitioned Germany against communism. And they nuked Japan as a show of force, or to demonstrate how bat shit they were, to create conditions of fear and restraint.
But if that were true, then wouldn’t the USA have just launched a war against communism? They did. They launched wars of choice against Vietnam and Korea. They destroyed Cambodia. They bombed Laos. The most bombed countries in the world were bombed by the USA, with multiple countries having the USA drop more bombs on them than all bombs dropped by all parties in WW2 combined.
They continued their eugenics programs for 20 more years after WW2, they advanced their chemical weapons programs and deployed atrocity after atrocity in these wars of choice, mostly against civilians.
Are people in the USA used to wars of choice? Yes, because in essence all USA wars have been wars of choice, even before the USA existed. Was it a necessity to invade The Phillipines? How about Grenada? Overthrow the Iranian government? Afghanistan in the 80s? Was it an existential necessity to genocide the indigenous peoples of the Americas, poisoning their water, destroying their ecosystems, destroying their agriculture and their sources of food?
The entire Western European project, which became the North Atlantic project, is about wars of choice - brutal wars of choice of genocide through war, through rape, through collective punishment, through environmental devastation, through eugenics, through slavery, through death camps, through occupation and extraction. The number of necessary wars the USA has been in is so vanishingly small that the very few exceptions prove the rule.
So, in WW2, the vast vast vast majority of the fight against “evil” was done by the USSR, because the Third Reich had, as one of its pillars, the destruction of the workers’ movement and the enslavement of the Slavs. The USSR lost far more than any other party to the war because the Third Reich made the war of choice, dehumanized the Slavs, and engaged in genocidal mass murder as a choice. The USSR defeated 80% of the Third Reich’s forces.
Ignores the fact Stalin sided with Hitler and invaded Poland. The Allies also had a substantial supply train back and forth between the UK and Russia to help fight the Germany army there.
On the flip side, the American and British government and business communities were pro-fascist. They funded the rise of the Third Reich, they funded domestic and international eugenics programs, they were deeply invested in apartheid states and women’s oppression. (By way of contrast, the Brits and Americans used women as prostitutes to support the war effort while the USSR had women all over their military as snipers, tank operators, pilots, machine gunners, etc.)
Governments were shits back then across the world. As for the Eugenics, that was how the world worked. You are using the current standards to demonise the past. We know the past was broken, that is why we have change. Eugenics is still a thing today. There will always be those who think they are better than everyone else. As for using women for prostitutes, just read on how the Russians treated the German women. Or more so what is happening in Ukraine right now.
Countries have been funding partisan groups and wars for time immemorial. The enemy of your enemy is my enemy etc. The west is funding Ukraine right now. Ukraine is funding partisan groups in Russia. Russia in turn has mercenaries from all over the world. The Wagner group is active in many areas.
But then what of Japan. Before the USA nuked Japan, the USA and Japan were negotiating terms of surrender.
No they were not. The emperor of Japan refused to surrender, the Allied forces did not see the need to offer good terms. There is a famous scene in the movie Oppenheimer, where Roosevelt gets the news of the successful test of the nuclear bomb at the Potsdam summit. Good terms are at the behest of the position you are in. Japan was not in a good place.
The USA made an active deliberate choice to nuke civilians unnecessarily.
Damned if they did and damned if they didn’t. The counter argument is that it has prevented the use of Nukes since then. Or rather anyone who commits to using one know exactly what they are doing. What is a certainty is that fewer died as a result of the bomb. Not the most palatable end justifies the means, I agree.
Why? Because communism was their real enemy. It was the reason they got involved in the war, it was the driving force behind their strategic decisions. They got involved against communism, they went to Germany against communism, they partitioned Germany against communism. And they nuked Japan as a show of force, or to demonstrate how bat shit they were, to create conditions of fear and restraint.
Japan was nuked in the fight against communism>? Stalin was making imperial demands. The land grab by the Russians was the beginnings of soured relations. Remember Russia was directly responsible for the UK and France entering the war when it invaded Poland.
As for the rest, no one could argue that governments have only just moved away from being shits. It is a recent thing, and not all governments are complying with the change in attitude. Judging the actions of the past by the standards of today is just a “better than thou ism”. It is easy to be pompous and pious in the current environment. Not so much when the whole world is working to different values. I am 100% certain that they will be shits again should the need arise. Looking in the direction of Israel on that one.
We need the whole world to agree to not invade each other. We do not need to justify the actions of today by the misdemeanours of those in the past.
Your understanding of pretty much every single point you made is entirely ahistorical and inconsistent with actual records. However, it’s 100% consistent with Western liberal propaganda including schooling.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement was made, according to historical record, to give the USSR a better chance at surviving the coming onslaught. There were no illusions on Stalin’s part that the war was coming for the USSR as Hitler literally announced his intentions in Mein Kampf.
The idea that the USSR invaded Poland is a Western narrative reframing of the conflict between the USSR and the Third Reich.
The idea that allied supply lines are equivalent to millions of Soviet deaths is divorced from reality.
The idea that Stalin engaged in a land grab is equally a Western narrative reframing the post-war reality. The USSR marched all the way to Berlin. Every country they marched through had been destroyed by the war. The options were to leave them for the anti-communist to come through and attempt to destroy the USSR or stay behind and build self-governing Soviet republics. Unlike the land grabs of Japan, Germany, England, France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, and the USA, the USSR built democratic republics and gave them the right to secede from the union. The majority of people in the former republics have said, through polls, that dismantling the USSR did more harm to them than good.
In the years immediately following the war the USA built NATO, staffed it with Nazis, executed Operation Paperclip to distribute Nazis all over the Western hemisphere, and executed Operation Gladio to arm, train, fund, and organize fascist militias all over Europe so that if the USSR ever backed out of any place it would immediately be taken over by fascists. Then the USA went on a massive killing spree all over the world.
As for your incorrect understanding of the Japanese surrender, you need to actually read the historical record. The USA and Britain disagreed on the terms and the USA insisted in strongarming the negotiations. The Soviets were trying to negotiate with Japan, but the USA wanted the Soviets out of the Pacific. The Japanese were in active negotiations and after several back-and-forths the USA made the Potsdam Declaration. The Japanese, imagining they were negotiating with rational human beings, rejected the terms and asked for specific conditions about maintaining their social institutions around the monarchy. The USA nuked hundreds of thousands of civilians in response.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that it saved lives. Your entire framing is that the USA was allowed to just decide to do whatever it wanted because it won, up to and including nukes on civilians. This position is psychopathic.
Governments were shit back then
Mother fucker it was only 80 years ago. Are you that fucking daft? The USA got WORSE in those 80 years, not better.
Comparing Wagner group to the Mujahideen is ridiculous. Just pure brain rot.
As for this ridiculous idea that governments are better now… Isn’t it curious that it happened after you were born? Almost like now that you’re here, things are better. Of course they’d have to be, otherwise you would be living in an evil empire. And you aren’t are you? That would be terrible.
The reality is that the CIA still operates black sites where they torture people, the supreme Court protects them, the Congress protects them, the executive branch protects them. The US has invaded more countries after WW2 than before. In Libya, the country with the highest stand of living in all of Africa, the US bombed it to oblivion. After the president was lynched in the streets, Hillary Clinton, paragon of governments not being shits anymore, said “We came. We saw. He died.”
The amount of violent oppression the USA has delivered around the world since the end of world war 2 is unfathomable. The School of the Americas, alone, is responsible for so much bloodletting, and that’s just a fucking school.
Your entire world view is a collection of false narratives created by North Atlantic propagandists based on cherry picked facts that give them the veneer of authenticity. The reality is that the USA is the inheritor and current head of the 6 century North Atlantic project of global domination and nothing is off the table for them: nuking civilians, genocide, species extinction, child trafficking, systematized torture, overt military occupation, assassination, coups of democratically elected governments, medical experiments, apartheid, ghettoization, mass incarceration, slave labor.
Just because you’re here now doesn’t mean that suddenly governments are more rational.
except for the edgiest of antiheroes
lol’d
If you kill hospitals, you kill a generation.
Because that’s where the Palestinians are, and this is a genocide.
Because both sides are fighting are major assholes. Hamas does hide arms and fighters in and around hospitals. Israel doesn’t hold back attacking the hospitals to get at that gear, because they care more about killing Hamas than saving Palestinians. The civilians in Gaza are surrounded by assholes.
This is true in general, but this time they’re literally in Israel’s crosshairs. These people are dying to sniper fire.
Source?
Ya, fair request. Not that the end result would be any worse than bombing, etc. But that would be the first report of sniper fire on civilians, afaik.
deleted by creator
Here you go
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8phw94
Rockets literally stored 1m from the doorstep of a class room
Why are hospitals in Gaza under Israel’s crosshairs? Why? Is it truly that difficult to step back and think for a moment about why Israel would want to erase the current populace entirely?
Amazing, what a mystery
I don’t know why people insist on this narrative. Isn’t the truth horrible enough? Hamas is allegedly using hospitals as shields, which is horrible. Israel is willing to kill countless civilians to get at Hamas, which is also horrible.
Because it’s what Israeli politicians and government officials actually believe. They aren’t even quiet about it. It’s genuinely not hard to prove the genocidal intent of the Israeli government.
Unfortunately western media just tends to gloss over it all. I’m not sure if reporters can’t fathom the US supporting ethnic cleansing or if they just want to avoid the flack they’d receive by being honest. Either way, it’s unfortunate because well meaning liberals are left to assume Israel genuinely cares about stopping Hamas and aren’t using them as a pretext to ethnically cleanse the Gaza strip.
erase the current populace entirely
Do you realize that the population of Gaza grows by over 50,000 people every year? Even if we accept the casualty figures provided by Hamas (and I don’t) then unless this war goes on at its current intensity for another four months (which it won’t) the population of Gaza will actually increase rather than decrease in the one-year period that includes the war.
The idea that the war in Gaza is “[erasing] the current populace entirely” is disconnected from reality.
Wow.
Are you literally saying it’s not a genocide because the population is growing faster than the IDF is killing?
I don’t know what happened to your brain, nor your heart, but I am sad whatever happened to you, happened.
Civilian casualties aren’t the same thing as genocide.
genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
When a country with access to the full destructive power of a modern-day military (including nuclear weapons) fights a war in such a manner that at the end of the war there will be more enemy civilians than there were before the war, it is entirely unreasonable to claim that genocide or any attempt to commit genocide is taking place. You might as well call it cannibalism or pedophilia - those are also really bad things that Israel isn’t actually doing.
Keep telling yourself whatever you need to support your own narratives. I just wanna let you know that I think you are a cold-hearted person, and I hope that you, your family, or your people will never be thought of, as you are thinking and/or talking of the Palestinians right here.
They are deliberately bombing hospitals, schools and people fleeing. If you cannot open your eyes to see this, but rather argue about the technicalities of semantics to feel better, I wish you good luck in life.
When you’re arguing the definitions of words you’ve already lost.
When you are arguing that words have no meaning, you have already thrown away your own argument.
Do you believe the IDF is incompetent at doing a genocide then?
That’s a false dichotomy. They are killing them as fast as they think the international community will tolerate. They won’t kill them fast enough to provoke any major entity into opposing them, they will just stay firmly in the “everyone will wag their fingers at us and argue about whether it’s right” zone, which is where they sit currently.
And what will make you believe genocide isn’t the end goal? The refugees leaving through Egypt don’t?
The refugees leaving through Egypt don’t?
How could they? Reiterating my prior point:
They are killing them as fast as they think the international community will tolerate. They won’t kill them fast enough to provoke any major entity into opposing them, they will just stay firmly in the “everyone will wag their fingers at us and argue about whether it’s right” zone, which is where they sit currently.
So the fact that this leaves open the possibility that some people get to flee their homes in terror, knowing that their friends and loved ones who refuse to be chased out of their homes by Israel are likely to be killed by the IDF, is one of the things that you feel might convince me that Israel doesn’t have genocidal intent?
And what will make you believe genocide isn’t the end goal?
Clearly nothing that you’re going to accept.
But that’s impossible to argue. You can claim for any ratio that it’s a silent genocide as long as even a single citizen is killed. And we know a war without civilian casualties - even forgetting the situation of Hamas putting civilians forward as shields and even killing some themselves. Where do you draw the line?
Instead of examining the facts, you’re opting for an easy cop-out that requires no proof and cannot be disproved.
You did use the term “erase.”. What about all the Palestinians living inside Israel.
Obviously it sucks that people are dying, but hamas started the war FFS. They 100% knew it would cause huge civilian losses.
Sorry, what? Newborn babies can’t shoot a gun and can’t take care of themselves if their homes are bombed and their parents die. Not to mention that half of Gaza is already under 18 and probably won’t be having babies any time soon, given that hospitals are being targeted. What the fuck is wrong with you?
You do realise that the birth rates will slow down during the conflict, right? Who’s going to be having a baby when the nearest hospital is being shelled? Assuming of course that both parents even survive.
That 50,000 per year won’t hold for this duration and I won’t be surprised if it shrinks to below 1,000 by the time Israel is finished.
Israel doesn’t wanna wipe out Gazans; that’s just unrealistic. However, a sizeable part of the Israeli government is very much fine with expelling them.
Complete displacement of a peoples is a genocide
Even if we accept the casualty figures provided by Hamas (and I don’t)
I don’t know why you wouldn’t, unless your justification is just your own bigotry.
One snippet out of a lengthy article.
Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements.
“Everyone uses the figures from the Gaza Health Ministry because those are generally proven to be reliable,” said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch. “In the times in which we have done our own verification of numbers for particular strikes, I’m not aware of any time which there’s been some major discrepancy.”
Shakir said Human Rights Watch would not use figures provided by parties with “a propensity to misrepresent information.”
Why news outlets and the U.N. rely on Gaza’s Health Ministry for death tolls
And another:
Throughout four wars and numerous bloody skirmishes between Israel and Hamas, U.N. agencies have cited the Health Ministry’s death tolls in regular reports. The International Committee of the Red Cross and Palestinian Red Crescent also use the numbers.
In the aftermath of war, the U.N. humanitarian office has published final death tolls based on its own research into medical records.
In all cases the U.N.’s counts have largely been consistent with the Gaza Health Ministry’s, with small discrepancies.
— 2008 war: The ministry reported 1,440 Palestinians killed; the U.N. reported 1,385.
— 2014 war: The ministry reported 2,310 Palestinians killed; the U.N. reported 2,251.
— 2021 war: The ministry reported 260 Palestinians killed; the U.N. reported 256.
What is Gaza’s Ministry of Health and how does it calculate the war’s death toll?
I can’t imagine ever having such a cynical and apathetic worldview. All of this death is acceptable to you because more children will be born? Because they’ll be replaced?
Set a reminder on your calendar for March, and we’ll take a look at the news at that point. I have a sneaking suspicion that you may be surprised. While you’re at it set a reminder to get some therapy too, christ
Because Israel is committing war crimes. Because Israel has stated, unequivocally, that Palestinians are animals and must be scourged off the face of the earth.
And also because Hamas is using Hospitals as base of operations because they will get sympathy for it and human shields. No side is right here
You really think using human shields is really a good excuse to bomb hospitals. “they’re using hostages! Quick teach those hostages a goddamn guided 2000lb lesson!”
Can you please reread what you just said? You’re saying it’s okay to kill children and innocent people in order to kill someone else you actually want to kill?
I think you need glasses or some mental help because that’s not what I said.
Hamas isn’t forcing Israel to commit war crimes.
According to international law they are. If they shoot from a school, Israel has to shoot back. Do they are forcing their hand
Could you cite that law for me? Because last I checked there is no such law forcing Isreal to shoot back, school or otherwise.
Intentionally bombing civilians is a war crime. I don’t care how many of your “intended targets” you think you’re getting. If you are bombing civilian centers, like, oh let’s say a hospital for instance, then you are a war criminal, Full stop. There is nothing forcing Isreal to do that.
So, if Hamas hid in a Israeli hospital would it be justifiable to bomb it?
Hamas must be completely eliminated, period. No cost is too great, for the good of the entire world and all its future children.
Please explain your strategy which accomplishes that goal while not harming the human shields they’re using, and collect your Nobel Peace Prize.
Would you say the same thing is the US was the one shelling hospitals?
deleted by creator
You clearly do not understand what a war crime is.
The way I see it, Israel is doing its best to free the hospital from Hamas with as minimum innocents getting hurt as it can.
If that were true, then they would be sending in troops on the ground instead of indiscriminate bombings.
That not how that works the us tried that a few times in Afghanistan and the risk to their own people was too large compared to the lives saved which were next to none because of the hostage taking I know Israel is a shithole and Palestine is too but war isn’t as simple as just send people
So it’s better these children die than the soldiers killing them put their lives at risk?
From an outside perspective of course it isn’t but when you are a part of the military and you have the responsibility over your comrades lives you will do anything to protect them including killing people who you don’t know
Including commiting genocide and various war crimes?
I mean you have a point from a judicial standpoint and I’m not saying theyr behavior is ethical but I understand why they do what they do and i dprobablty do the same if it means my friends wouldn’t have to risk their life
Anything? Like punishing soldiers who kill innocent civilians including children and journalists during times of relative “peace”? Because that would surely have gone a long way to reducing the deaths of your “comrades”. Instead we have an Israeli sniper kill journalists and then the government says “they were armed with a camera”.
No. They are not doing everything they can to protect their soldiers. They are not seeking peace. They are seeking silence and subjugation.
No, they decided after a while that Afghani civilians were not worth the equivalent of an American soldier. And that was several years after the invasion which took literally less than a month.
Then they switched to bombing via drone, and Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize for convincing us that significant civilian collateral is a totally acceptable practice and definitely not some form of negligence for human life.
Even then, it was during the post invasion state. After the Taliban had been mostly destroyed and left in a dismantled state.
Israel just started its slow Gaza ground invasion. Bum IDF just barely stepped into the Urban zone earlier this week, yet they’ve been bombing civilians for the past month.
Obviously I don’t expect them to actually care about civilians or even the hostages, but I really wish they’d stop acting like they can’t actually engage in a proper ground battle.
Although with the tank kills Hamas has somehow been achieving, maybe the IDF really does suck at ground battles.
Right because they are responsible for keeping their soldiers safe
There are troops on the ground and the bombings are not indiscriminate, but on legitimate military targets.
What does the civilian:soldier death ratio need to be in order for it to be considered a ‘legitimate military target’?
Honestly? As terrible as it sounds, it can be almost arbitrarily high if you look at the Geneva convention.
For example, a hospital can be targeted after nothing more than a warning if the hospital isn’t used for humanitarian purposes only. There is no minimum duration specified between the warning and the attack.
Not that the Geneva conventions are a guide for morality. They solely limit the maximum of cruelty during war.
Netanyahu doesn’t give a duck.
deleted by creator
Let this be a symbol of how much Hamas actually cares about the Palestinians. They prefer their own citizens to suffer than for them to be helped.
Go fuck yourself.
Fuck me for pointing out that Hamas are also the bad guys? Fuck you if you defend them you terrorist sympathizer
No no, don’t get me wrong. I didn’t say fuck you. I said “go fuck yourself”.
Just to be clear, you are telling me to go fuck myself because I’m pointing out how shitty Hamas is? I’m not defending Israel. You are really taking the mask off there buddy. I would tell you to go fuck yourself, but I have a feeling you already do that anyway
Hamas are bad guys. Israel is far worse.
Because someone decided it was such a funny idea to use these places to launch missiles at their enemies.
Fucking godawful people Hamas are, ruining the lives of 2 million people and assuring untold suffering for probably generations. The sooner those fucks are gone, the better.
Because all Israeli people are monsters
The truth. Israelis are racist as fuck!
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/5JzGzyaUnz0
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Good bot
Because the Palestinian elected government which happens to be a globally recognized terrorist organization decided to build headquarters below hospitals in hope of exploiting the rule of war you mention.
Except: doing what they did negates that rule, and all they did was put that entire hospital of their own people in the crosshairs.
This blood is 100% on the hands of the Palestinian elected government.
A significant portion of the Palestinian population in the Gaza strip were not even born when this ‘goverment’ was elected. They came to power over a decade ago and grabbed it by force so it is more or less a forced millitary leadership at this point
Rules apply only to peasants
Because Israel is trying to genocide.
They don’t care about Hamas, they just want Palestine gone.
That doesn’t explain why the rest of the world is ok with it.
Because if you don’t support genocide you are an antisemite, and only one of those can destroy your political aspirations (hint, it isn’t supporting genocide).
This is the best summary I could come up with:
JERUSALEM (AP) — The head of surgery at Gaza’s largest and most advanced hospital held up his phone Saturday to the hammering of gunfire and artillery shelling.
“It was the thing we somehow told ourselves wouldn’t happen,” he said, speaking by phone from the central city of Deir al-Balah, where he arrived by foot Friday after escaping what he said were strikes on the hospital with tens of thousands of others.
“It’s to say, ‘Not only will we kill and wound you, we will ensure you have nowhere to go to be treated,’” said Dr. Ghassan Abu Sitta, a British Palestinian surgeon working for Doctors Without Borders in Gaza City.
Nonetheless, there must be plenty of warning before attacks to allow for the safe evacuation of patients and medical workers, ICRC legal officer Cordula Droege said.
Even if Israel succeeds in proving Shifa conceals a Hamas command center, the tenets of international law remain in place, said Jessica Wolfendale, expert in military ethics at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio.
In an editorial published Friday in Britain’s The Guardian newspaper, International Criminal Court prosecutor Karim Khan issued a warning to combatants that the burden of proof is on them if they claim hospitals, schools or houses of worship have lost their protected status because they are being used for military purposes.
The original article contains 1,155 words, the summary contains 221 words. Saved 81%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
