uncle bernard

1) No it wouldn't have unless they used their nukes (which they wouldn't because they would deal with the environmental fall out). 2) They care about killing *too many* civilians. This is a documented fact. They want to put as much pressure on the Palestinians as international optics will allow them. If they went and killed 2 million Gazans in a week, Israel would have no future as a nation in that region. Even the US couldn't save them at that point. But they're very clearly comfortable killing tens of thousands and destroying the entire infrastructure of Gaza because that's what the US will allow them to get away with. The famous example of this dynamic is "Putting Gaza on a diet" which was quoted from a senior Israeli minister. The goal was to bring Gaza as close to the point of famine as possible without crossing the line. They calculated the daily caloric intake of the population to accomplish that and only let that much food in. "The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger." -Dov Weisglass, 2006 The entire Israeli approach to Palestine is putting as much pressure (blockade, occupation, shootings, prevention of medicine, etc...) on them as possible without crossing the lines set by the Western allies that protect Israel. This conflict won't end with the elimination of Hamas. It will end when the US and other allies can no longer stomach the death count and tell Israel to stop. That's the whole game. We appear to be approaching it quickly with Biden's talk of a ceasefire and the recent report from the UN about over a million Gazans on the brink of starvation.

Thank you for this info. The larger example still stands. Our police departments are armed better than most militaries and that's not necessary. When you give them cool toys, they're gonna want to use them, and that makes us all less safe. When I was growing up, there was a fight at a party in my neighborhood involving a knife. The entire police department showed up in armored vehicles and assault weapons with attack dogs to "locate" the perpetrator. Totally unnecessary but my town hadn't had a murder in 20 years so they jump at every chance to play with their toys. It was ridiculous.

What does this mean?

We've covered them a million times. I've never disputed them. This is what breaks your brains. You can't fathom someone being consistent. You guys never acknowledge Israeli crimes in this conflict and then you piss and moan about me not talking about Hamas even though I do it *constantly.* It's pure projection from you. You know you're ignoring atrocities from one side because you support that side, so you have to accuse me of doing the very thing you all do even though I've condemned Hamas a million times over.

my guy....

@JimmyBT supports the genocide of every muslim on the planet. did he post that? no, but who cares. that's how we do things on here.

it’s not

Where does this rank?

This is what we’re paying for. It doesn’t have to be like this.

it is an every day type of thing because hamas does it every day. that’s the world we live in. you can pretend otherwise if you’re a tiny child. i’m sorry the world is scary and difficult. given the *reality* on the ground, israel now has a choice. do we kill the human shields or not? what do you think they should do?

Well, like everyone on here I have a personality defect that leads me to post on internet forums. I have strong feelings on this topic and the one-sided, often gleeful, commentary on the death of thousands of children really upsets me and I feel compelled to post. I know it's a pointless battle. This entire sub-forum is a pointless battle of people shouting into the void. Why do we all do it? Who knows!

that's a civilian setting. it's a war crime. you literally posted the definition that proved my point lmao.

That's a reasonable counterargument, but I think it's dangerous. The answer could be hundreds. It could be zero. The only thing we do know is that in order to kill him *at that moment* it costs 7. When you open things up to that kind of speculation, people can justify all sorts of bad decisions. What if they see a terrorist in a crowd of 50 civilians? They could justify those 50 deaths by saying he would have killed more in the future, though they don't know that. And again, I stress the *at that moment* part. It's inconvenient for Israel, but they should wait for opportunities to strike that will result in minimal collateral damage. And to take a step back, it's time for this to end. They've destroyed almost all of Gaza. The danger presented by Hamas is far less than the danger Israel creates for itself in the region by continuing this slaughter.

In this hypothetical, you don't have this intel. A suspect you identified as a likely terrorist enters a house. You are not sure of his full identity. You know civilians are present. That's all you know. What's your decision? This is the crux of the issue and the scenario the IDF deals with everyday. Their answer is to prioritize eliminating terrorists over protecting civilians when those two things are in direct odds with one another. I think that is a criminal decision. What do you think? For a high profile example, look at the food workers truck bombing. Those trucks were identified and cleared for passage by the IDF. They were clearly marked to prevent misidentification. The IDF knew exactly who was in those trucks. During surveillance, the IDF believes they saw a suspected terrorist join the caravan. They, by their own report, were not 100% confident he was there. They chose to sacrifice the lives of those 7 civilians on the off chance that he was there. You can argue that they weren't the primary "target" of the strike, but the IDF decided to kill those people if it meant they *might* kill one terrorist in the process. That is fundamentally evil imo.

Which part of your question didn't I answer? I gave explanations for my no's and yes's. And answer mine. I'll make it straight forward. You are in control of the military. You locate a terrorist in a house. You know for certain that civilians are in the house too. Would you still strike the house?

it quite literally is!

yes, those buildings are a civilian setting. do you not understand what those words mean?

it says humans, not civilians. i appreciate you providing the specific language that proves my point.

Thank you for being honest and actually answering the question. We disagree profoundly on the answer, but I appreciate the guts to answer. Civilian casualties are inevitable in war, but those casualties should be *accidental.* They should occur when you make a mistake and are not aware of civilian presence. If you know they are present and still kill them, that's murder, even if they aren't the primary target.

So unless, there were no humans in the house, it was a war crime. And if there weren't, it's still a war crime because the indiscriminate destruction of civilian property is also a war crime.

No matter who is in the building, the use of white phosphorous is a war crime.

Answer the question. Should they strike the house?