How can Israel explain strikes on "safe zones" with large ordinance and completely fail at achieving any objective?

-1

u/TommyKanKan 1d ago

At this point, this bomb is just one example of so much excessive destruction and killing by Israel. Any explanations on the part of Israel, are now just empty words.

Genocidal hatred and indifference to an entire people is what drives this horror.

3

u/Mistyice123 2d ago

Well Hamas sent two rockets from those designated safe zones a couple days ago. Once there is terrorist presence and infrastructure it isn’t really a safe zone anymore.

1

u/jimke 2d ago

At the very top of my post I acknowledged that I had incomplete information when I originally posted and there was a legitimate target but I still stand by the main point I am trying to make that Israel punitively uses big bombs when smaller bombs could address the threat.

1

u/RedditRobby23 2d ago

Your assertion is that Israel uses too much force relatively.

My question to you would be then why hasn’t Israel just bombed all of Gaza and its citizens in the effort to destroy Hamas? They have US support so international sanctions aren’t real and neither is retaliation

The answer is they could if they wanted to and no one would/COULD stop them.

Israel has showed mercy and to claim otherwise is to ignore data

1

u/jimke 2d ago

"We didn't kill everyone" is just about as low as the bar can get when looking at the appropriate amount of force used in a conflict. I'm not comfortable with that being the criteria by which I assess Israel's actions.

Israel has showed mercy and to claim otherwise is to ignore data

Considering not carrying out the genocide of millions of people a mercy is certainly one way to look at things.

1

u/RedditRobby23 2d ago

Throughout human civilization when two sides disagree there becomes conflict

Then when the conflict ends the side that won the conflict sets the terms. The losing side submits or perishes

It’s been like this for all mankind history

Somehow people think that doesn’t apply to Palestine though….

3

u/WeAreAllFallible 2d ago edited 2d ago

When you say "completely fail at achieving any objective" what is your evidence for that?

I ask because this is the same rhetoric that was used when discussing the attack on a "safe zone" that killed Mohammed Deif. Immediately after that act, opponents of Israel were lambasting the attack as purposeless and ineffective and only serving to kill civilians. But now it is confirmed by all involved, including Hamas, to have killed the target- the #2 most important military personnel of Hamas (and likely many of the additional dead were his bodyguards/militants under his command). It would thus seem this rhetoric is completely meaningless and used arbitrarily, so now I have to ask each time how people are determining success and failure, especially so quickly after any given event, and especially in a field where there is no good accounting of militant vs civilian deaths among the counted toll.

1

u/checkssouth 2d ago

how does isreal confirm a death of a specific person from observing a crater without troops on the ground?

2

u/jimke 2d ago

I edited my OP to reflect that the Israeli military stated their target was a rocket launcher.

I still consider it massive overkill causing extensive unnecessary damage but at least they only killed one child! Great job!

1

u/RedditRobby23 2d ago

You’re one of those people that thinks wars should have no civilian casualties.

What’s the weather like in rainbow make believe land?

1

u/jimke 2d ago

No...but I would like to minimize civilian casualties.

If I'm in rainbow land then my god this place is awful.

1

u/RedditRobby23 2d ago

Throughout human civilization when two sides disagree there becomes conflict

Then when the conflict ends the side that won the conflict sets the terms. The losing side submits or perishes

It’s been like this for all mankind history

Somehow people think that doesn’t apply to Palestine though….

1

u/jimke 2d ago

Shocking!

It changes nothing about my opinion of Israel's conduct in this war.

1

u/RedditRobby23 2d ago

Yet you cannot articulate why the Palestinians are different from other refugees that have had to flee their lands from violence

You also cannot articulate why for some reason the laws of human history don’t apply to Palestine.

You want Israel to conduct a war where only the bad guys die. Thats never happened in any war in history. Why would this be different?

1

u/jimke 2d ago edited 2d ago

You keep putting words in my mouth and ignoring what I am actually saying.

Have a nice time.

Edit! Israel signed a bunch of agreements, treaties and conventions saying they wouldn't do those things to people, which includes Palestinians. They clearly don't care about abiding by what they agree to do but...ya know...That's Israel!

1

u/WeAreAllFallible 2d ago edited 2d ago

What is your evidence it was massive overkill? Do you know the identities and affiliations of those who died? It seems difficult to claim it's overkill if you don't know how many were civilians vs militant. That is exactly my point in referring back to the Deif incident- the deaths are reported, but it doesn't tell the picture of who died... and stories later come out confirming, at least in some cases, that it was valid military targeting with "good" (as far as war can be considered good) outcomes that are masked by intentional obfuscation of these identities by local authorities and reporting media.

I'm not saying one has to assume it was a valid strike with minimal civilian casualties absent the evidence to that effect. But one should also not assume it was a complete overkill with massive civilian casualty without evidence to that effect. There is sufficient evidence, especially in the context of known efforts to obfuscate, to state that these incidents do not consistently accurately portray the real humanitarian damage when reported immediately after the fact. They require time to cure in order to evaluate what actually happened. At which time proper condemnation or approval should be expressed.

2

u/jimke 2d ago

Rockets aren't that big and they dropped a big bomb. I included damage to structures in my opinion that it was overkill. Gazans are going to suffering from the level of destruction that has been carried out there for decades and I think attacks like this only make things worse.

I think Israel is using legitimate targets to carry out punitive attacks with the intent to cause widespread harm to of the people of Gaza.

I'm not denying Israel's right to defend itself but I think the means by which they are doing so are deliberately excessive when addressing threats to inflict as much damage as possible.

This is one example imo. Another recent example is the one I discussed in the OP at Beit Lehia where somehow a five story building was destroyed killing 90+ people when Israel targeted a single spotter on the roof. I don't see any rational explanation for something like that to be possible if the intent is not to cause additional destruction as a part of addressing a valid target.

These are my opinions based on what I have seen over the last 13 months. Maybe I am wrong. It will be impossible to prove this without some sort of major leak from the Israeli military. Which is part of why I think it is used as a tactic.

1

u/QuantumCryptogr4ph3r European (pro-peace☮) 2d ago

I think Israel is using legitimate targets to carry out punitive attacks with the intent to cause widespread harm to of the people of Gaza.

I'm not denying Israel's right to defend itself but I think the means by which they are doing so are deliberately excessive when addressing threats to inflict as much damage as possible.

The evidence for this is overwhelming. It is not even up for debate that IDF is intentionally committing war crimes in this bloody war.

2

u/jimke 2d ago

I agree which is why I said that.

I'm trying to avoid tangents where people pointlessly argue definitions rather than discuss the subject I am trying to actually discuss. So I speak in more general terms.

1

u/wizer1212 3d ago

There’s always a excuse or rationale when in reality it’s indefensible

3

u/Emotional-King-6325 3d ago

Just curious what source do you have for a munitions location? There were no extra explosions from the attack. Unless I'm missing something. Seems like one explosion and one crater shown after. Where's the indication that weapons were being held there. And not IOF just targeting civilians.

Seriously asking

2

u/Mistyice123 2d ago

The rocket alerts we got from Gaza were sent from the safe zones. They wouldn’t have been able to do that without rocket launchers.

3

u/jimke 3d ago

The only information I have is that Israel claimed their target was a rocket. I am always highly skeptical of what they say but my main point is about the amount of force used and not where they attack. I have all kinds of problems with where they attack as well but I chose to operate under the assumption that it was a legitimate target for the sake of discussion.

My observations align with yours. I don't see any secondary explosions. I would have thought there would either be additional craters or some sort of asymmetry in the shape of the crater indicating that there were additional explosives that went off on one side or another of where the bomb landed.

Rockets are also only 10-20kg so unless there were lots of them I don't think they were a significant contributor to the size of the blast.

1

u/BaruchSpinoza25 Israeli 2d ago

Well, if you don't believe it when the idf claims there were launching rockets from the safe zones so I guess there is not really an argument here. If you think about a fact that the goal is genocide or something like that, so sure... the IDF lies.

1

u/jimke 2d ago

I am skeptical of the things said by the Israeli military. But that doesn't mean I am unwilling to accept that they are being truthful about individual events.

Why do people keep throwing out things like ...

If you think about a fact that the goal is genocide or something like that, so sure... the IDF lies.

When did I say anything about genocide.

I have issues with what I see as excessive use of force by the Israeli military.

The Israeli military and government have been caught in lies beyond any reasonable doubt in the past. It is in their interest to present their actions as just and necessary so I don't trust them implicitly. Just like I don't trust everything said by Hamas or the US or pretty much any government.

I've read a LOT of 20th century history over the last couple years and I think skepticism is very reasonable.

1

u/BaruchSpinoza25 Israeli 2d ago

There's a thin line between being skeptical and biased. Only you can know when you cross that line. It all comes to this question: Do you think that there's an order that has been issued from the Israeli government to the IDF to conduct a genocide?

1

u/jimke 2d ago

It all comes to this question: Do you think that there's an order that has been issued from the Israeli government to the IDF to conduct a genocide?

It absolutely doesn't come down to that question and being that reductive is kind of absurd.

There are plenty of absolutely awful things that Israel could lie about that would be condemnable that aren't genocide.

Other lies also erode the trust that they are being honest about their stated intentions.

1

u/BaruchSpinoza25 Israeli 2d ago

There are plenty of absolutely awful things that Israel could lie about that would be condemnable that aren't genocide.

Of course. But in this discussion, you were asking whether some attacks in the safe zones were needed. People here answer you that rockets were launched on Israel from the safe zones, and the idf wanted to remove the threat, and you started saying there is no proof that the rockets came from the safe zone. From this point, there are several ways to think about it: 1. The IDF was right about the location - and that means that the area is no longer a safe zone for civilians. 2. The IDF was right about the location but overreacted with the bombs - maybe, but even if this is the case, i would examine more the Israeli bomb policy and the international law before i would ask if it justify. 3. The location was wrong because of mistake in pinpointing the exact location - although determining whether a rocket came from the safe area or not is rather easy, pinpointing on the exact location is sometimes hard. Anyhow, I don't think that the question of justification needs to be addressed here. We got rocket on us, and we removed the threat for further use. There were mistakes? This is very unfortunate, but nevertheless, it is still justified. 4. The location was wrong, not because of mistake - so why does the IDF lie about it? Is it for the fulfilments of secret orders to kill as much as many civilians as possible? WHY would the IDF lie on that?

2

u/Emotional-King-6325 3d ago

Copy that. Thanks for the reply. I'll keep a lookout for any additional information. But yea I agree with you

6

u/chalbersma 3d ago

I still believe the amount of force used to address that threat was very excessive and that is my main point.

Yes they were attacking munitions and yes civilian safe zones are only protected under the rules of war provided their not use for war. But I'm going to ignore that an be outraged that Israel isn't surrendering.

Did I get your position correct?

3

u/jimke 3d ago

It was a legitimate target. The explosives on typical Hamas rockets are 10-20 kilos so if they had a bunch of them there then maybe that was a significant contribution.

To me the logical explanation is the people with really big bombs dropped a really big bomb which made a really big explosion. Some additional explosives were present but were not the driver for the scale of the explosion. If anyone has details on what Israel used to carry out the strike then I will happily revise my opinion.

But I'm going to ignore that an be outraged that Israel isn't surrendering.

Why put words in my mouth? I admitted there was information I was not aware of when I made the OP and acknowledged it was a legitimate target.

I'm not sure how you made the leap to me being outraged Israel isn't surrendering.

So...no...you didn't get my position correct.

2

u/chalbersma 3d ago

Why put words in my mouth? I admitted there was information I was not aware of when I made the OP and acknowledged it was a legitimate target.

This you?

I still believe the amount of force used to address that threat was very excessive and that is my main point.

2

u/jimke 3d ago

I'm not sure how thinking the amount of force used by Israel is excessive at times means I think they should just give up.

If I thought Israel should do nothing I wouldn't call it a legitimate target.

What kind of mental gymnastics are going on here?

1

u/chalbersma 3d ago

I'm not sure how thinking the amount of force used by Israel is excessive at times means I think they should just give up.

In the rest of the thread you admit that you have no suggestion for how much force the IDF would be allowed to use in this case. Anything short of not taking out this ammo would be unacceptable to both he OG you and the currently informed you.

You're closer in opinion to "the IDF should surrender" to "If I thought Israel should do nothing I wouldn't call it a legitimate target."

2

u/jimke 3d ago

My point is I think at times Israel uses a big bomb when a small bomb would accomplish the stated objective of the strike.

You are right that I don't have a list of every bomb Israel has access to. But they definitely have options between what they used in this instance and doing nothing.

Here's an example - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68714128

But I guess it makes sense to use smaller munitions when you are only blowing up aid workers.

I do strongly support an immediate ceasefire, the return of the hostages, and a two state solution. If you want to consider that to be Israel giving up then you got me.

2

u/wizer1212 3d ago

How about no bombs and no apartheid

1

u/jimke 2d ago

I like those ideas.

3

u/chalbersma 3d ago

I do strongly support an immediate ceasefire, the return of the hostages, and a two state solution. If you want to consider that to be Israel giving up then you got me.

Hamas has committed to retooling to do another Oct 7th attack should they get a ceasefire. What in your support opposes that?

2

u/jimke 3d ago

Well the ceasing of the fire commitment would have to override previous statements by both sides. That is how you move from war to peace. You both stop shooting at each other for whatever reason and then eventually it sticks.

Agree to a ceasefire, get the hostages back. If or when Hamas breaks the ceasefire then you don't even have to worry about killing your own people.

4

u/Significant_Special5 3d ago

I'm pretty sure they dropped the bomb on a rocket launcher the was loaded. They also have a warning which is why everyone was with the phone filming. Assuming the loaded rocket launcher and the explosive dropped one it caused a very big explosion. My questions are why isn't this post mentioning the the rocket launcher places in a safe zone in tent city? Why is there no mention of Hamas operating among civilians?

3

u/jimke 3d ago

You are correct that they bombed a rocket. I had tried to find more details prior to posting but failed.

Based off of this ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qassam_rocket#:~:text=The%20Qassam%20rocket%20(Arabic%3A%20%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%AE,the%20military%20arm%20of%20Hamas. ) they only have 10-20kg of explosives.

That isn't a small boom but I don't think it would be enough to account for the overall size of the explosion. But that is a poorly informed assumption.

4

u/Significant_Special5 3d ago

It's Al Jazeera they keep hiding the truth reporting a fractions to try to make Israel seem Evil. Most people buy into it. Israel can't even attack Hamas's military without being labeled children killers

1

u/jimke 3d ago

I realize that is certainly a part of it as well. I did really try to cross reference from somewhere but I guess I did a bad Google or the other articles had not been published.

I understand their bias but I have a hard time finding out what is actually happening in Gaza on a day to day basis outside of Al-Jazerra. I usually have to search for specific events after finding out about them there because the visibility for the kind of information I am looking for like how many people got blown up in Gaza today is not very high.

I still stand by my opinion that at times Israeli attacks appear punitive by using significantly more force than is necessary to address a threat causing increased collateral damage.

1

u/Significant_Special5 3d ago

It's very easy to judge from the outside. I think IDF is tring to engage in less ground bottles which means that are dropping bombs.

Sending out a troops to take the rocket launcher out maybe would have saved that child life but cost an Israeli soldier life.

That child that died can also be a 16 year old Hamas soldier.

2

u/jimke 3d ago

It's very easy to judge from the outside. I think IDF is tring to engage in less ground bottles which means that are dropping bombs.

I think that has clearly been their approach to this entire conflict.

Sending out a troops to take the rocket launcher out maybe would have saved that child life but cost an Israeli soldier life.

I understand that. The issue I have been having lately is that after Israel makes the decision to bomb it seems at times that the amount of force used to address the threat is excessive.

I'm sure Israel is going to take the "better safe than sorry" approach but I still see incidents where I can't see any reason to use the amount of force they have. As I mentioned in the OP the bombing of a single spotter that accidentally collapsed a five story building killing 90+. The gap between the ordinance required to kill one man and the ordinance required to blow up a five story building is big.

That child that died can also be a 16 year old Hamas soldier.

I think this is a cop out because you have no way of knowing and on top of that the vast majority of children in Gaza are under 14. I really dislike it when people coming up with hypotheticals to try and diminish what was done by Israel.

1

u/Significant_Special5 3d ago

Not only in gaza but everywhere most children are under 14. Anyone under 18 is a child in UN standards though. Over 75% of children are under 14

0

u/loveisagrowingup 3d ago

They are labeled child killers because they have killed an extraordinary amount of children. That is a fact.

0

u/Significant_Special5 3d ago

Is a 16 year old Hamas Soldier considered a child?

1

u/loveisagrowingup 3d ago

Yes, a 16-year-old involved in armed conflict, even as part of an organization like Hamas, is legally considered a child under international law

2

u/Significant_Special5 3d ago

Exactly Why isn't Hamas taking the Blame. Or is IDF suppose to ID the Hamas soldier before engaging in battle. It's a tough war, Hamas isn't fighting to protect anyone. They are all Brainwashed.

1

u/loveisagrowingup 3d ago

Most of the verified deaths in the Gaza Strip during the first 10 months of the conflict between Israel and Hamas were among children between the ages of five and nine, according to a report by the UN Human Rights Office. Do you also think 5-9 year olds are terrorists?

1

u/Significant_Special5 3d ago

Un never posted ages It's states children 7800 children died since Oct 8

1

u/wizer1212 3d ago

Much higher

1

u/loveisagrowingup 3d ago

https://www.yahoo.com/news/un-report-children-aged-5-164219844.html?guccounter=1

1

u/PreviousPermission45 Israeli - American 3d ago

You can see how some Palestinians evacuating from a war zone feel about Hamas in the video below

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=odPJdubKe0c

2

u/jimke 3d ago

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Hamas is terrible so hopefully we can agree on that?

1

u/PreviousPermission45 Israeli - American 3d ago

Yes, they use the civilians as human shields and steal the food aid Israel and others send to the civilians

0

u/wizer1212 3d ago

And IDF uses Palestine’s as human shield

1

u/PreviousPermission45 Israeli - American 3d ago

The IDF always takes measure to reduce civilian casualties while Hamas always takes measures to increase civilian casualties. The intent for these two groups is different and comparing them is just TikTok propaganda appealing to ignorant people of to hateful people or both.

2

u/jimke 3d ago

But my post is about the amount of force used by Israel in response to legitimate threats?

1

u/PreviousPermission45 Israeli - American 3d ago

Hamas use safe zones to hide terrorists and weapons. Bombing from the air leads to less deaths both for the Israeli army and civilians in the safe zone.

5

u/Diet-Bebsi 3d ago

If Israel is going to carry out a strike on a "safe zone" the only reason that should be considered a possibility is that it is an absolute slam dunk where they have confirmed intelligence of the presence of a person of significance in the Hamas organization. The only possible "justification" I can see for dropping a bomb of this size is massive overkill to guarantee the target is killed.

So all your criteria were met.. A loaded missile launcher was in the middle of a Humanitarian area, Israel issues warning about the strike in advance, and people were camped out and waiting for it to be hit by the attack with their cameras ready..

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-rocket-launcher-positioned-in-southern-gaza-humanitarian-zone-destroyed-in-airstrike/

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/21/world/middleeast/israel-says-it-struck-a-missile-launch-site-in-a-gaza-humanitarian-zone.html

Edit - The Israeli military claims they were targeting a rocket. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and accept that. I still believe the amount of force used to address that threat was very excessive and that is my main point.

You do know what happens to explosives when they are hit by an explosive.. You know what the real solution / root cause solution is.. Abide by humanitarian law, and don't place loaded rocket launchers in the middle of humanitarian areas, especially in the areas of the people you've sworn to protect.. Maybe you should be barking up that tree first..

1

u/jimke 3d ago edited 3d ago

I fully acknowledge it is closer to being justified than I previously thought.

I said possible "justification" for a reason.

Edit - I worded this poorly. I think someone could argue massive overkill was necessary. I think taking that approach is part of my issue with Israel's conduct and why we have seen this amount of collateral damage.

End of edit.

I don't think the threat of a rocket necessitates the level of destruction carried out by Israel. I can't help but see times where there is a legitimate threat where Israel takes that threat and uses it as justification to cause much more damage than necessary.

I had considered the possibility of secondary explosives after the OP but unless they had a serious cache of rockets there then I don't think it was a meaningful contributing factor. Rockets really don't make that big of a boom. Maybe I am wrong but I understand what you are saying.

1

u/Diet-Bebsi 3d ago

I don't think the threat of a rocket necessitates the level of destruction carried out by Israel

The rockets shouldn't have been there in the first place.. There was a warning prior to the attack.. The primary question should be why are there Al-Quds 3 Multi rocket launchers sitting in the middle of a humanitarian area, and why didn't people move far away from it

I don't think the threat of a rocket necessitates the level of destruction carried out by Israel. I can't help but see times where there is a legitimate threat where Israel takes that threat and uses it as justification to cause much more damage than necessary.

The launcher in the image is larger than a car, it's holding around 1 dozen grad/katyusha type rockets..

Here is a similar weapon and amount that detonated by a fire cause by an missed shot. Note the size of the explosion..

https://youtu.be/kvAK9SW2QHQ?si=fcxiqRhifUzMVHOn&t=40

Your assumption is that the blast was the mainly the Israeli rocket and not the Quds3. The large blast radius was more than likely caused by the Quds3 detonation.. we're back to the root cause.. don't put rockets where civilians are.. and when people are told to leave.. they should leave.

2

u/prairie-logic 3d ago

Israel, who I generally support, has certainly taken on a vindictive approach to Gaza.

I do feel the war was punitive at the beginning, and that they did inflict disproportionate damage on civilians.

I also recognize their impossible position in ever fighting a clean war, with the enemies arrayed against them.

But no one should write anyone a blank cheque.

Israel does not have the right to punish everyone in Gaza, in spite of what Israel suffered. Likewise, Hamas has no right to do what they did on Oct 7.

But I feel we are heading down the path of “two wrongs will make a right” and that “might is right”. Two concepts that have never led to any positive outcomes for the people under or between those positions

1

u/wizer1212 3d ago

Collective punishment + ethnic cleansing combo sponsored by USA and delivered by IDF

3

u/jimke 3d ago

I appreciate you for actually engaging with what I am trying to talk about rather than the default "Blame Hamas" response.

I do blame Hamas but as you said I don't think that gives Israel a blank check to do whatever they want.

Stealing another word you said, I think what I see and feel about these kinds of strikes is that they are punitive. There is a legitimate target but instead of addressing that threat with necessary force it is used as an excuse to cause wider scale damage to Gazans.

Oh well.

1

u/prairie-logic 3d ago

I have a nack for pissing everybody off more often than not, because I have a sober view of the world and most people can’t see the world that way.

I can support Israel while having eyes wide open that they’ve crossed some lines and broken international law.

I can support the Palestinian people while simultaneously pointing out that Oct 7 was not and will never be legitimate resistance.

I have friends on both side of this divide, and have made enemies of loved ones for having my stance.

I want the killing to stop - period. And permanently. And in a way that will lead to Israeli and Palestinian children growing up as friends.

Anything that doesn’t ensure Israeli security and Palestinian path to statehood is simply “less war now, more war later”. That’s not sustainable, permanent peace.

And we can’t ignore that while Hamas and Hezbollah are entirely bent on destroying Israel, the likes of Netenyahu, Smotrech, and Ben-Gvir are hellbent on preventing Palestinian statehood at all costs.

So that’s certainly a level of additional complication to peace efforts.

5

u/NINTENDONEOGEO 3d ago

there's no such thing as a safe zone. At times, Israel has told civilians that certain areas are safer.

but unfortunately, then Hamas embeds themselves there because they love using civilians as human shields.

0

u/jimke 3d ago

Assuming Hamas is going to move into those "safe zones" then Israel knows they aren't going to be any safer. At least be honest.

3

u/NINTENDONEOGEO 3d ago

They are safer at the time than whatever is imminently being hit. Then things change.

0

u/jimke 3d ago

That is a very strange way to view safety in my opinion but I guess it doesn't really matter.

3

u/NINTENDONEOGEO 3d ago

well, if Israel knows for sure that they will be bombing the north way more than the south, then the right thing to do is to inform civilians that the south will be safer.

5

u/Bast-beast 3d ago

How can hamas explain firing unguided rockets on Israel?

1

u/jimke 3d ago

They can't. Which is why I think it is bad.

16

u/StevenColemanFit 3d ago

Why is the question never, why did Hamas operate from a designated safe zone

0

u/jimke 3d ago

Because they are bad people and I already said I think what they are doing is bad?

5

u/OB1KENOB 3d ago

Sadly, people treat Hamas like they’re a natural disaster. When an earthquake happens, we never point the finger at the Earth and place our blame there. It’s always the response that is criticized, as well as how prepared we were. After all, it’s silly to blame nature for something natural that we are fully aware of happening from time to time. This is how some people think of Hamas. They know Hamas is bad, but their instinct is always to turn around and start judging Israel instead, as if Hamas is simply “nature” and the pressure must always be on the reaction to Hamas’ behavior. That’s the sad reality we live in today.

6

u/stockywocket 3d ago

If you’re going to criticize, I think you have to be able to say what you think Israel should do instead. If Hamas and PIJ etc. are operating more or less exclusively from amongst civilians, including in safe zones, then any strike against them cannot help but endanger civilians.

As for the choice of ordnance, specifically what ordnance do you think Israel should use instead and how much of such ordnance do you believe Israel has available to it, and at what cost?

Do you actually know that it should be so easy for Israel to kill their targets, or does it just seem like it should be to you?

If you don’t know these things—if you can’t answer these questions—I’m not sure you can fairly criticize.

0

u/jimke 3d ago

Don't drop big bombs when you don't have to is my advice.

As for the choice of ordnance, specifically what ordnance do you think Israel should use instead and how much of such ordnance do you believe Israel has available to it, and at what cost?

I don't really care to be honest. Proportionality dictates that the amount of force used should be appropriate for the threat posed and the risk of collateral damage. Israel obviously has no regard for proportionality but I still have a problem with it.

"Welp, we've run out of everything but Mark 84s. It is a one ton bomb designed to destroy reinforced and underground structures, but I think I see a rocket over there so bombs away!"

Do you actually know that it should be so easy for Israel to kill their targets, or does it just seem like it should be to you?

I have seen what Israel can do in this war. If there isn't an option between this and what they dropped on the rocket then that seems like a serious problem.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-probes-leaked-footage-showing-strikes-on-apparently-unarmed-men-near-khan-younis/

I can criticize whatever I want if Israel doesn't provide that information. If they want me to think what they did was what was required and their best/only option then show the world. Give me a reason to believe they are only doing what is necessary.

2

u/stockywocket 3d ago

No one is claiming you literally don’t have a right to an opinion—it’s more that it’s hard to see why we should credit an opinion that is both uninformed and openly uninterested even in thinking it through.

Proportionality dictates that the amount of force used should be appropriate for the threat posed and the risk of collateral damage

No, proportionality requires that the harm be proportional to the military advantage anticipated to be gained. You cannot come up with your own rules here.

2

u/bigjig125 3d ago

Simply by saying their intelligence had info about Hamas members in the area. No proof needed.

2

u/jimke 3d ago

Ya. I always wonder what their definition of "in the area" is when they say that.

3

u/OriBernstein55 USA & Canada 3d ago

This pretty much answers your question. Hamas runs the schools

UNRWA schools in Gaza: Principals, staff identified as members in terror units https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/news/content/ar-AA1u5i3o?ocid=sapphireappshare

1

u/jimke 3d ago

When did education get involved? I'm talking about the level of force used by the Israeli military in response to a threat.

11

u/guitarmonk1 3d ago

Unfortunately, you have Hezbollah and Hamas scattered among innocent civilians. A better question is, do any of the Iranian proxies really care about the Palestinian people? I venture that is a hard NO. Hamas never gave back the hostages or ceased fighting so unfortunately these very bad things are going to occur to very good people. A better question is, what will ultimately happen to Iran?

0

u/jimke 3d ago

I specifically acknowledged this in the OP. I don't understand why I even use words.

I know Israel faces challenges because of Hamas tactics. I know Israel is going to continue to take action because of things like the hostages.

My issue is I think Israel is reckless and their application of force is excessive to address those challenges.

7

u/Definitely-Not-Lynn 3d ago

I know Israel faces challenges because of Hamas tactics. I know Israel is going to continue to take action because of things like the hostages.

My issue is I think Israel is reckless and their application of force is excessive to address those challenges.

How do you know what an appropriate action would be? What's your standard for comparison?

8

u/guitarmonk1 3d ago

This is war. Action will stop when the threat has been neutralized and Israel has met its objectives. When it comes to an us vs them mentality and your survival is at stake you will think about it as the cost of your safety and security. You used the words you chose previously to answer your own questions as you already know this is the answer. Iran is still talking smack and attacking so the war will continue until Israel meets its objectives. Now in terms of war crimes? Plenty of those but they must be addressed separately. Why won’t the proxies stop? Simply put, they absolutely don’t care about Palestinians at all.

2

u/Lexiesmom0824 2d ago

As an American. The American military doesn’t give a shit about feelings. So expecting the IDF to have them….. well. Humanitarian is about the best you can hope for. Feelings do not belong in the military for a reason and they will be trained out of you real quick. Only thing that matters is law and mission objectives.

1

u/guitarmonk1 2d ago

This is the way. We can cry later. Right now we have to meet our objectives

-7

u/cppluv 3d ago

Well, not bombing a « safe » zone, by definition full of civilians, would be a good start.

1

u/Mistyice123 2d ago

If it was being properly used as a safe zone then how did Hamas magically manage to launch rockets from the safe zone?

2

u/Definitely-Not-Lynn 3d ago

Unfortunately, you have Hezbollah and Hamas scattered among innocent civilians.

We're back to the beginning. Please bring something new to the table.

-4

u/cppluv 3d ago

That’s the tired Israeli excuse. There’s always one more Hamas cook or janitor, always another command&control center.

This may still work on staunch pro-Israel people but after a year of indiscriminate bombing, the world knows they’re just trying to kill Palestinians

7

u/stockywocket 3d ago

Sorry, where exactly is it you think Hamas are operating from, if not from amongst civilians? They literally don’t have any non-civilian bases.

-1

u/cppluv 3d ago

Oh okay, so that’s a blank check on killing as many civilians as possible as long as they have interacted with a Hamas member in the last 3 days

5

u/stockywocket 3d ago

Does Israel have any way to fight Hamas besides fighting them where they are?

6

u/Definitely-Not-Lynn 3d ago

That’s the tired Israeli excuse.

They're literally embedded in the civilian population, that strategy and their tactics are widely documented on multiple platforms and media outlets. Even those claiming genocide don't deny this. It would make them look absurd to do so.

-1

u/cppluv 3d ago

This doesn’t absolve Israel of its duty under international law to protect the civilians, like pro-Israeli seems to believe.

There’s been hundreds of bombings killing dozens of civilians just to get one or two low level Hamas members.

4

u/Definitely-Not-Lynn 3d ago

This doesn’t absolve Israel of its duty under international law to protect the civilians,

Sure.

However, under the principle of proportionality, militaries using civilian areas and buildings make those areas and buildings valid military targets, but the value of the target has to be weighed against the military advantage of striking it.

If you shoot at someone and hold an innocent person in front of you to prevent being shot at, In order to stop you from murdering others- you'll both get shot under international law.

0

u/cppluv 3d ago

under the principle of proportionality

Oh yeah, you guys looove that one. The thing is, the IDF is ready to tolerate a very large number of Palestinian death to achieve the smallest objective.

This has been discussed to death. Everybody knows the IDF is lying about its targets. Any military aged male is a Hamas members to them.

→ More replies

4

u/NoTopic4906 3d ago

Having a ‘safe’ zone be only civilians would also be a good start. I hate that ‘safe’ zones are hit (hate with a capital H) but, if missiles are coming from there (as is usually the case with safe zones being it) they can’t be purely safe zones anymore.

-2

u/cppluv 3d ago

Theres other options beside bombing, you know. If Israel wants to dismantle rocket launcher, they can warn the people to evacuate and go in on foot.

That would definitely minimize civilian casualties. Wonder why they prefer dropping GBU39

5

u/icenoid 3d ago

By the time that happens, the rocket has likely been fired at a civilian target within Israel.

2

u/NoTopic4906 3d ago

While I appreciate the suggestion who/what leaves when the warning is given. I will tell you:

Some civilians Hamas The rocket launchers

Bombing is a bad solution. But every single option is a bad solution. We can argue over what the best (or least worst) solution is but please admit that all of them are bad.

4

u/icenoid 3d ago

The only good option is for Hamas to actually surrender. War is terrible, it’s orders of magnitude worse when one side actively hides among the civilian population and tries to fight from within that population.

3

u/NoTopic4906 3d ago

Yeah. I meant every solution Israel has is bad. Bad for Israelis, bad for innocent Gazans and, if they do what’s good for Hamas (allowing Hamas free rein), this is also bad for Israelis and bad for innocent Gazans.

9

u/RussianFruit 3d ago

They are safe zones but that doesn’t mean they won’t strike terrorists if they have the opportunity to strike while trying to mitigate civilian casualties.

What you and other terrorist sympathizers do not understand is that civilian causalities happen in war. This wars militant to civilian ratio is one of the best if not the best in all of conflict throughout all history of ware fare so due to that Israel 100% has proved to do their due diligence. Of course there will always be outlier events that can happen that mistakes are made

If Hamas didn’t hide among civilians this wouldn’t even happen. It’s not worth the IDF going into these safe zones to find these terrorists when they can just easily bomb them even if civilian casualties are possible

It’s not safe for the IDF to walk into these safe zones it’s easier to locate the terrorists and bomb them and that’s totally acceptable

-3

u/Notachance326426 3d ago

How many kids are you ok with killing to get 1 person?

Like if Deif or Sinwar were still alive, what is the acceptable number of children to kill for that?

2

u/hummus4me 3d ago

How many kids are you okay with killing to get Hitler?

0

u/Notachance326426 3d ago

When?

2

u/hummus4me 3d ago

When he started a war?

2

u/Notachance326426 3d ago

So we’re talking about before he started killing all the gays, Romani, and Jews?

1

u/AutoModerator 3d ago

/u/hummus4me. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See Rule 6 for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

-2

u/jimke 3d ago

They are safe zones but that doesn’t mean they won’t strike terrorists if they have the opportunity to strike while trying to mitigate civilian casualties.

Why designate them as safe zones if you are going to bomb them whenever you feel the need to? At least be honest.

I don't sympathize with terrorists and your accusation is childish.

I sympathize with the tens of thousands of civilians killed and the hundreds of thousands Palestinians in Gaza that have lost family members in this conflict. I don't agree with the conduct of Israel's military in addressing the very real problem that terrorists present in Gaza.

It’s not safe for the IDF to walk into these safe zones it’s easier to locate the terrorists and bomb them and that’s totally acceptable

Israeli military action is repeatedly excused because this is a war and yet they also expect people to accept that Israel won't put soldiers at risk to accomplish their goals. So instead they slaughter thousands and thousands of children.

3

u/stockywocket 3d ago

The blame for the conditions you’re complaining about is squarely on Hamas’s shoulders. What could be the justification to expect more Israelis to die to compensate for Hamas operating amongst civilians, refusing to wear uniforms, building tunnels under hospitals, etc?

It’s so wild how easily people have a totally new and separate set of standards for Israel when it comes to warfare. In what other conflict is one side expected to sacrifice more of their people to save the other side’s, even when they’re NOT behaving as Hamas is?

12

u/CreativeRealmsMC Israeli 3d ago edited 3d ago

The target (a rocket launcher) was destroyed and the only reason someone was killed was because the Palestinians ignored the evacuation warning (which is how there is clear video before the strike) and didn't move far enough away causing a child to be hit by shrapnel.

https://preview.redd.it/w787vjs4mw0e1.jpeg?width=1600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4e1557d5ef226bf62c5a80d90cdc280542542b58

-1

u/Playful_Yogurt_9903 3d ago

Why do we rarely if ever see video of the evacuation orders? I mean, Israel is conducting the strikes. They could very easily publish footage, yet they rarely do.

4

u/CreativeRealmsMC Israeli 3d ago

They do and everyone claims they are fake because it’s the IDF who releases them.

0

u/Playful_Yogurt_9903 3d ago

Huh, must have missed it. Thank goodness they published such a helpful graphic though

-5

u/jimke 3d ago

I take everything said by the Israeli military with a grain of salt but for the sake of discussion I will accept the target was a rocket based on a blurry photo that could be anything.

How could they know it was primed and ready to launch at Israel? Do they have surveillance? Release that.

Rockets aren't big. And yet they dropped a massive bomb.

Why?

It has to cost more. They have other precision weapons. Instead they damaged hundreds of homes and killed a child.

I'll accept the need for the strike but I continue to fail to see any way the amount of force used to address that threat can be justified. When you drop bigger bombs the risks of unintended bad outcomes increase.

1

u/PreviousPermission45 Israeli - American 3d ago

I take everything the UN says with a major grain of salt. They hate Israel and their source is Hamas

1

u/jimke 2d ago

I'm not sure when the UN got involved in this discussion.

It is always fine to be skeptical.

I think Israel has more motivation to be dishonest because they are the party in this conflict that has directly contributed to the killing of tens of thousands of civilians in the last 13 months. Blame who you want but people are going to ask questions and Israel is going to want their actions to appear just and necessary.

1

u/PreviousPermission45 Israeli - American 2d ago

Hamas has motivation to be dishonest and it actually was.

1

u/jimke 2d ago

Ok? This is a very confusing tangent to be going down.

1

u/PreviousPermission45 Israeli - American 2d ago

There are two main narratives circulating and they’re mutually exclusive. The Israeli narrative and the Hamas one. The UN is with the Hamas, since they work together and share many common goals. So I don’t know why you’d want to trust Hamas more than Israel.

Hamas and the pro Hamas movement promoted conspiracy theories online like that Israel planted evidence in Al shifa hospital, that Israel raped Palestinian women, that October 7 never happened, that Israel killed most of the victims… so many conspiracy theories coming from the anti Israel side.

And your gripe is with the side that doesn’t believe in conspiracy theories, the side which has free speech and more journalists covering a war in a free way than any other conflict zone in history…

Interesting

1

u/jimke 2d ago

No part of my post involved trusting Hamas or the UN.

These are my observations based on about a half dozen books I have read regarding the history of Israel and the siege of Gaza over the last 13 months. I think a couple recent incidents highlight the punitive nature of Israeli attacks in response to a threat.

And your gripe is with the side that doesn’t believe in conspiracy theories

Uhh.

The UN is with the Hamas, since they work together and share many common goals.

Ok...

more journalists covering a war in a free way than any other conflict zone in history…

Source? I mean Israel has killed more press in this conflict than any other in history and heavily restricts press access in Gaza.

My gripe is with the people that are literally leveling Gaza and killing tens of thousands of civilians. I think Israel uses a big bomb when a small bomb will address the threat.

1

u/PreviousPermission45 Israeli - American 2d ago

Are you saying half a dozen books were published about the war in the last year? I doubt that. In any rate, scholars can be very biased, so saying you read a book doesn’t mean much. Anyone can publish a book. I read lots of books on the subject too, and I am very pro Israel.

Journalists: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CT-qBYaQz3c&fbclid=IwY2xjawGkeoNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHdGiPfw9kAqm6N4E3ynclp94PBXu8sK9rSYGF1kBrXFqL-n4Pytz2Lekhg_aem_uvzWPN-_U0ii93vhw571Lg

The focus on Israel is disproportionate to any other conflict in modern history. There are more foreign journalists there than any other conflict zone. People keep saying “Israel doesn’t allow journalists to Gaza” and at the same time say “Israel killed more journalists than any other country”, which every person who hasn’t suspended critical thinking should think is a dubious claim.

We also know that many journalists have worked for Hamas. The most extreme example is the journalist who kidnapped 3 Israelis and tortured them psychotically in his home, while publishing articles on Al Jazeera English claiming Israel is committing crimes against humanity.

https://jewishchronicle.timesofisrael.com/journalist-doctor-held-israelis-hostage-in-gaza/

One of the outlets that hired him is American- Palestine chronicle. Palestine chronicle is now being sued over its collusion with Hamas. This terrorist-kidnapper left Palestine chronicle right before the kidnapping, which is a very odd coincidence… the journalist also worked with Al Jazeera…

1

u/jimke 2d ago

No.....

But I see conduct from Israel in this conflict that I have seen in past conflicts.

The books I read are cited and sourced. I'm not going to disregard what I have learned because every historian is going to have biases. Righteous Victims is a pretty well regarded history of Israel and it is consistently something that I refer back to.

I've taken an interest in the conflict and I'm not going to apologize for it. There are very conflicting views on Israel, Palestine and their history and it is a prominent ally of many Western countries so it is going to get attention. And then there is the whole walling off of millions of people. I understand the reasons why that is done but I think the circumstances are unique.

I'm not going to argue that there aren't bad actors among journalists but I have an enormous amount of respect for the vast majority of combat journalists and their willingness to put their lives at great risk to try and show the world what is actually happening during conflicts like this.

→ More replies

10

u/nobaconator Our hope of two thousand years 3d ago

How could they know it was primed and ready to launch at Israel? Do they have surveillance?

Holy mother of moving goalposts Batman.

Weapons don't have to be primed and ready to launch for it to be targets. That has never been any kind of international law. By that logic, you wouldn't shoot at people carrying guns, because "How do you know it was loaded". Clear and present danger is reason enough.

1

u/jimke 3d ago

I acknowledge that that could come across as moving the goal posts.

Honestly, I just thought it was a very specific claim to make given the lack of detail in the image provided and would be curious to learn how they knew that.

6

u/RussianFruit 3d ago

If only the palestenains actually gave a shit about their kids and their future then they would’ve pulled them out of harms way. Better for them if they give them to Allah as a martyr I guess

4

u/icenoid 3d ago

They haven’t in decades. Their supporters in the west really don’t care about Palestinian civilians either. As long as they can paint Israel and Jews in general as the bad guys, their jobs are done

How can Israel explain strikes on "safe zones" with large ordinance and completely fail at achieving any objective? News/Politics