• oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 months ago

    How is this not super targeted? Hitting 3000 terrorists and and only a handful of civilians as collateral is exceptionally good. For you it’s probably bad anytime Israel kills one of their enemies.

    • acargitz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      So like killing a “handful” of Israeli civilians would be “exceptionally good” if the target was a bunch of IDF reservists?

    • Gerudo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      2 months ago

      Traditionally, a targeted attack minimizes collateral damage to almost zero. Do you have stats on who was killed/injured? I do know 2 children were killed. I’m sure they were hard-core Hezbollah.

      Doing this kind of attack indicates Israel didn’t care AT ALL who they took out. Ah, much like their reactions in Gaza.

      • oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        3000 pagers exploded. All had small amounts of explosive like 20 g. You can watch videos of them exploding in traffic, supermarkets, etc. people next to them remain unharmed. So you have 3000 explosions all over the place including crowded areas. Two dead children is a quota of 1500:1. That is exceptionally good.

        Compare that to the Hezbollah rocket than killed 11 Druze children in Israel.

        • Gerudo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          Are you both siding this shit? Let me be clear, Hezbollah, Hamas AND Israel each have done awful things to innocent civilians in the name of revenge. How hard is it to say enough is enough and want innocent civilian populations ON ALL SIDES to not die? Children born into these situations, and many adults have zero opportunities to get away from the violence. They should not die due to factions and government decisions.

    • filister@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 months ago

      https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule80 you know International laws exist for a reason, and Israel clearly violated many international laws, which by the way were created to prevent such events like WWII.

      You know Israel can find a peaceful solution if it only permits the establishment of an independent state of Palestine. But instead they prefer to continue their warmongering politics.

            • acargitz@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              The unsaid implication of your loaded question is that the absence of a Palestinian state is “the fault of the Palestinians”. The further implication is that “Israel has no partner for peace” even now. Basically, the implication being we need to keep doing whatever the Israeli right wants in perpetuity.

              If by some miracle you’re not just parroting right wing pro-Israeli talking points, please elaborate what the hell you mean with your question instead.

              • oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                This is primarily a call to learn about the history of the conflict.

                Palestinian political strategy and tactics have been moderately successful at best, IMHO. It’s worth knowing about them and their history. Black September and the role of Palestinian groups in the Lebanese civil war are also worth learning about to better understand the current situation.

          • oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Nakba was in 1948. 1949-1967 Israel did not occupy the West Bank and Gaza. Why didn’t Palestinians establish a state then and there?

                • filister@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  On a land that didn’t belong to them. And in the process killed 15000 Palestinians and expelled 750.000 to create their dream ethno state. Prior to 1900 very few Jews were living there and the local population was mostly Arabs.

                  • oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    The League of Nations created a mandate for the foundation of a state for the Jews in the Levante. So there’s a basis in international law for it.

                    Most of the land on which Israel was founded in 1948 was state owned land and land owned by Jews they had purchased.

                    No Palestinian would have lost their land, if the partition plan would have been accepted. Instead they chose war and lost it.

                    Prior to 1900 the land was only sparsely populated in the first place.

                    More than 800,000 Jews were expelled from Arab and Muslim countries in the region and had to flee to Israel. It was a population exchange like India and Pakistan around the same time.