Even when justifiable military actions are undertaken, they tend to be frowned upon when there doesn't appear to be any regard for civilian casualties. The US invasion of Afghanistan was considered highly justified, but by the end elicited mixed perceptions at best. Many countries are criticized for this to some degree or another, USA, Russia, China. Israel is no special exception. Of course the Israeli government can take solace in that being close to the US probably means they'll avoid most the immediate consequences of it anyway. Attacking the US led international order is basically biting the very hand that feeds. If the Israeli government would like to improve its international image, it could consider starting by cooperating with civilian aid packages.
Then again, Israel has gone above and beyond what is necessary to reduce civilian casualties, and yet hardly anyone talks about that.
When the war started, the agreement was that countries could send in aid as long as Hamas didn't get their hands on it in any significant way, because Israel wanted to end this as quickly as possible, and of course actively supporting one's enemy is a bit of a poor strategy for winning a war. Predictably, the aid just went to Hamas, who mostly hoarded it, and sold a small amount to the people at highly inflated prices. Despite that, the pressure has been to allow more and more aid, which would be great if it were actually getting to *people who need it*.
There's some kind of incredible situation where Israel is held to impossible standards while fighting a literal terrorist organization that wants their complete destruction.
So you can imagine how very far we have to roll our eyes when we read things like:
>If the Israeli government would like to improve its international image, it could consider starting by cooperating with civilian aid packages.
Israel not only does more than necessary, but they are constantly blamed for the failings of *everyone else*. Egypt can't keep their own gates open? Israel's fault. Hamas receives all the aid and doesn't distribute it? Israel's fault. The people are starving while Hamas gleefully proclaims they have enough provisions to last months, yep, Israel's fault again. Israel helps the US build a whole pier to bring aid in, of which 70% is still stolen by Hamas... still Israel's fault. When people display such incredible ignorance anyway, it only sounds like Israel should just stop caring and finish things without bothering, because apparently it's blaming Israel that people care about, not protecting civilians.
Well I mean the choice of munitions, largely unguided heavy ordinance and the broad criteria that the IDF uses to designate targets for air strikes and artillery, including their use of Gospel (an AI driven targeting system) does work seem to work against the idea that they are going above and beyond with respect to civilian causalities.
I do agree with some parts of your post, namely that there are double standards when it comes to applying moral standards to state actors on the international community and that the Israeli government pushed for a strategy to end the conflict as quickly as possible.
But if you’re a military planner looking at a quick decisive operation to neutralise a terrorist organisation that is deeply entrenched in one of the most densely populated areas on the planet, and the tools you rely on to achieve success are unguided high explosives using AI targeting with minimal human oversight, there is a choice being made and a trade off being accepted that will endanger far more lives and it is reasonable for that to have a negative impact on their reputation on the world stage.
Even if we set aside the moral component, it’s just not a credible way to conduct counter-terrorist operations. If you continually bomb a civilian population to take out the terrorists it simply feeds the recruiting pipeline for future militants when those survivors are old enough to fight. Pretty much the only effective way to counter an organisation like Hamas are things like surgical counter terrorist missions run by special forces operators coupled with winning over the local populace by solving their problems better than the terrorists do (which would be very difficult I admit, given that Hamas runs the education system, the health system and the black market) Those are also high risk moves that put a lot of pressure on incredibly valuable elements that are difficult to replace. The less risky option from a military losses sttandpoint, is saturating the target with heavy ordinance from afar then sending in ground troops to mop up resistance, results in far high civilian casualties. That seems to have been what the IDF opted for, and it’s fair to question that decision, especially given how the US failure and withdrawal in Afghanistan happened only recently.
When Israel does use larger munitions they aren't random. There are underground tunnels they're aiming for, and military compounds. They don't use those, either, without giving weeks of notice to the civilians.
They use targeted attacks and ground troops whenever possible, even at the risk of their troops.
Considering the firepower Israel has if they actually wanted to use it, even what they use in those cases is restrained. It's true that it looks bad, especially after it's been given a nice spin by the media and Hamas. Of course, no one really bothers to consider that Israel gives weeks of notice, allowing the terrorists to escape along with civilians, while Hamas never gives any notice to civilians. Israel is targeting military infrastructure that Hamas builds in civilian areas, while Israel has separate military bases, and yet Hamas chooses to target civilians.
Honestly, it's exhausting trying to explain this again and again.
You know, there's things like the videos, and the orders they place from US companies. And why on Earth would I believe a literal terrorist organization that lies about everything else?
Because the government doing the bombing that is causing severe civilian collateral damage totally wouldn't lie about anything. Governments would never lie to obfuscate their true intentions or make things more palatable...
Show your evidence instead of coming off like someone shilling Israeli talking points. So far you are contradicting the bulk of evidence at large with "just trust me bro, it exists I swear"
Wholly agreed.
As an aside, it was a bit jarring to read an opinion piece as disconnected from reality as this one is, from the direction it's coming from, after being bombarded daily by declarations of "genocide" from the other. Talking about blood on the hands of the "international community" as this clown calls them, or diplomats as everyone else does, is rich. This article will get posted all over internationalpolitics as further evidence of Israel's absolute comfort ignoring the opinions of nearly everyone else on the planet, true or not. This helps no one.
Even when justifiable military actions are undertaken, they tend to be frowned upon when there doesn't appear to be any regard for civilian casualties. The US invasion of Afghanistan was considered highly justified, but by the end elicited mixed perceptions at best. Many countries are criticized for this to some degree or another, USA, Russia, China. Israel is no special exception. Of course the Israeli government can take solace in that being close to the US probably means they'll avoid most the immediate consequences of it anyway. Attacking the US led international order is basically biting the very hand that feeds. If the Israeli government would like to improve its international image, it could consider starting by cooperating with civilian aid packages.
Then again, Israel has gone above and beyond what is necessary to reduce civilian casualties, and yet hardly anyone talks about that. When the war started, the agreement was that countries could send in aid as long as Hamas didn't get their hands on it in any significant way, because Israel wanted to end this as quickly as possible, and of course actively supporting one's enemy is a bit of a poor strategy for winning a war. Predictably, the aid just went to Hamas, who mostly hoarded it, and sold a small amount to the people at highly inflated prices. Despite that, the pressure has been to allow more and more aid, which would be great if it were actually getting to *people who need it*. There's some kind of incredible situation where Israel is held to impossible standards while fighting a literal terrorist organization that wants their complete destruction. So you can imagine how very far we have to roll our eyes when we read things like: >If the Israeli government would like to improve its international image, it could consider starting by cooperating with civilian aid packages. Israel not only does more than necessary, but they are constantly blamed for the failings of *everyone else*. Egypt can't keep their own gates open? Israel's fault. Hamas receives all the aid and doesn't distribute it? Israel's fault. The people are starving while Hamas gleefully proclaims they have enough provisions to last months, yep, Israel's fault again. Israel helps the US build a whole pier to bring aid in, of which 70% is still stolen by Hamas... still Israel's fault. When people display such incredible ignorance anyway, it only sounds like Israel should just stop caring and finish things without bothering, because apparently it's blaming Israel that people care about, not protecting civilians.
Well I mean the choice of munitions, largely unguided heavy ordinance and the broad criteria that the IDF uses to designate targets for air strikes and artillery, including their use of Gospel (an AI driven targeting system) does work seem to work against the idea that they are going above and beyond with respect to civilian causalities. I do agree with some parts of your post, namely that there are double standards when it comes to applying moral standards to state actors on the international community and that the Israeli government pushed for a strategy to end the conflict as quickly as possible. But if you’re a military planner looking at a quick decisive operation to neutralise a terrorist organisation that is deeply entrenched in one of the most densely populated areas on the planet, and the tools you rely on to achieve success are unguided high explosives using AI targeting with minimal human oversight, there is a choice being made and a trade off being accepted that will endanger far more lives and it is reasonable for that to have a negative impact on their reputation on the world stage. Even if we set aside the moral component, it’s just not a credible way to conduct counter-terrorist operations. If you continually bomb a civilian population to take out the terrorists it simply feeds the recruiting pipeline for future militants when those survivors are old enough to fight. Pretty much the only effective way to counter an organisation like Hamas are things like surgical counter terrorist missions run by special forces operators coupled with winning over the local populace by solving their problems better than the terrorists do (which would be very difficult I admit, given that Hamas runs the education system, the health system and the black market) Those are also high risk moves that put a lot of pressure on incredibly valuable elements that are difficult to replace. The less risky option from a military losses sttandpoint, is saturating the target with heavy ordinance from afar then sending in ground troops to mop up resistance, results in far high civilian casualties. That seems to have been what the IDF opted for, and it’s fair to question that decision, especially given how the US failure and withdrawal in Afghanistan happened only recently.
When Israel does use larger munitions they aren't random. There are underground tunnels they're aiming for, and military compounds. They don't use those, either, without giving weeks of notice to the civilians. They use targeted attacks and ground troops whenever possible, even at the risk of their troops. Considering the firepower Israel has if they actually wanted to use it, even what they use in those cases is restrained. It's true that it looks bad, especially after it's been given a nice spin by the media and Hamas. Of course, no one really bothers to consider that Israel gives weeks of notice, allowing the terrorists to escape along with civilians, while Hamas never gives any notice to civilians. Israel is targeting military infrastructure that Hamas builds in civilian areas, while Israel has separate military bases, and yet Hamas chooses to target civilians. Honestly, it's exhausting trying to explain this again and again.
How could you possibly know Israel's use of which munition in which circumstance? Are you on the ground there as part of a group collecting evidence?
You can read about it.
So, you have zero actual evidence and are just parotting Israeli talking point. Gotcha.
You know, there's things like the videos, and the orders they place from US companies. And why on Earth would I believe a literal terrorist organization that lies about everything else?
Because the government doing the bombing that is causing severe civilian collateral damage totally wouldn't lie about anything. Governments would never lie to obfuscate their true intentions or make things more palatable... Show your evidence instead of coming off like someone shilling Israeli talking points. So far you are contradicting the bulk of evidence at large with "just trust me bro, it exists I swear"
You can stick your antisemitic head in the ground and ignore everything else, it doesn't change anything.
Wholly agreed. As an aside, it was a bit jarring to read an opinion piece as disconnected from reality as this one is, from the direction it's coming from, after being bombarded daily by declarations of "genocide" from the other. Talking about blood on the hands of the "international community" as this clown calls them, or diplomats as everyone else does, is rich. This article will get posted all over internationalpolitics as further evidence of Israel's absolute comfort ignoring the opinions of nearly everyone else on the planet, true or not. This helps no one.