1247
Sanders calls Israel's siege on Gaza 'a serious violation of international law' (www.politico.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
215 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Yes, the carpet bombing campaign has been Israeli troops going into Gaza. Oh wait, no it hasn't they have been amassing reservists at the border.

This includes multiple of my relatives who are Israeli reservists. Obviously I do not want them to be put into harms way, but I fail to see how carpet bombing a place where 2 million people live does that. Perhaps you have some magical insight that my Jewish reservist relatives don't.

Starving them out, cutting off water, power to hospitals... this isn't pre-emptively attacking terrorists using human shields, its cruel and unusual collective punishment, and even the govt. leaders of Israel don't bother to try to justify it when they are actually asked. Their response to these questions from journalists haven't been "these are human shields." The response has been "you didn't talk about dresden in WWII." Just disgusting.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yes, the carpet bombing campaign has been Israeli troops going into Gaza. Oh wait, no it hasn’t they have been amassing reservists at the border.

    You don't see the carpet bombing as a step one and step two, which is coming very soon, is Israel actually going into Gaza with force, with all those reservists they called up?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yes, but I don't understand how carpet bombing protects them or helps them rescue hostages. They will still be in grave danger if they enter gaza, perhaps even more danger in this environment. It's hard to pick out any military doctrine that suggests otherwise. This has been a repeated criticism of this type of military activity, across campaigns all over the world and recent history. I supposed you could compare it to allied bombing of axis forces, but I would argue that those campaigns were carried out as part of a much more stringently determined military strategy, rather than as a per reactionary action.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    They will still be in grave danger if they enter gaza, perhaps even more danger in this environment.

    The opposite, actually. There would be less places for Hamas to attack/sniper from, and easier to see the battlefield and all the participants in it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Perhaps you have some magical insight that my Jewish reservist relatives don’t.

    All I was trying to do was get a conversation going on the ethics of attacking someone who's using third-party innocence as shields, and not literally pass judgment on what's going on on the ground today, just using it as an example for the overall ethical discussion.

    There was a scifi book I read some decades ago they had the exact same scenario, and I was just trying to get input from today's Humanity to see if it jives with the solution that the author of the novel had come up with.

    People are being too emotional and defensive to have these kind of conversations though it seems.

    I was just trying to create content on Lemmy for us to read.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If you want to talk about ethics on Lemmy, go create an ethics discussion community or host your own server. Discussing "ethics" in the context of Israel's actions and policies is something that I have done over and over and over, unproductively. In less tense times, it is usually stuff like "should driving on highways be illegal on saturdays around the orthodox community?" and stuff like that.

    If you come onto a thread that is specifically about what is going on Israel right now, and say "I'm just trying to have an ethical discussion," it comes off as extremely disingenuous. I'm sorry.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    If you come onto a thread that is specifically about what is going on Israel right now, and say "I'm just trying to have an ethical discussion," it comes off as extremely disingenuous. I'm sorry.

    You're taking my words out of context of the whole conversation that's happening, and being intellectually dishonest.

    I was speaking about that question, as a "jumping off point" to the larger discussion on what's happening in Gaza right now.

    Again, no it's not disingenuous because it covers what's being discussed in the very same topic. It's real time and it's happening.

    You cannot hand wave that away as much as you want to. Both can be true, and allowed.

    You're just being emotional and defensive when you don't need to be, to protect your team.

    I'm not attacking your team, I'm just trying to have a conversation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    De-railing a conversation is a very well recognized form of logical fallacy. De-railing a thread is considered very poor etiquette on internet forums. I'm sorry for assuming we were having a conversation about the topic of the thread.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •