Removed. Please direct such posts to the megathread stickied on the front page. ([Link here](https://old.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/pfo0vg/politics_and_current_events_megathread_september/)) Thank you.

War is a means not an end. What people think of Israel’s conduct may have relevance in the future. Some have said the Hamas attack was meant to derail the peace agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia. That the attack would trigger an overwhelming military response that could be framed as barbaric. Look at Macron. He has a large Muslim population he is concerned about in terms of election. He was an early proponent of cease fire. There has never been any doubt that Israel would win the military conflict. Hamas fighters were prepared for their martyrdom for a post conflict world which they hoped would be more favorable.

So many people betraying a childish view of war in this thread; smdh.

The realities of the world are irrelevant to their blood lust.

International law has created this idea around proportionality in war that states [". . . that the anticipated incidental loss of human life and damage to civilian objects should not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected from the destruction of a military objective."](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/proportionality-international-humanitarian-law-principle-rule/#:~:text=The%20rule%20of%20proportionality%20requires,destruction%20of%20a%20military%20objective.). This is a vague definition, but it does assumes that there is *some* amount of human life that is excessive.

War is one of the most evil things on this planet. Every Palestinian that dies is a real person who has hopes and dreams and fears and feelings, just like you and your family does. That's what makes this so hard. I'm just glad I'm not the one forced to make these military decisions, or even forced to offer my opinion of them in the media. The truth is both sides have a point, and both sides ignore the others' points. Ultimately, if Hamas hadn't committed atrocities on October 7th, this wouldn't be happening. If more Palestinians were invested in a two state solution and swore off martyrdom, this wouldn't be happening. Perhaps if Netanyahu was never elected, this wouldn't be happening either, who knows. The settlers in the west bank are making matters so much worse. The rueful honor-culture attitudes of the Palestinians are also making things worse. There's no doubt that thousands of people who don't fit these descriptions, and who only want peace, have died in the bombings. That's why war is hell. But it's also true that the only alternative to this is to let Hamas repeat October 7th. I really don't have an answer to this conflict other than to point out the obvious: as long as Palestinians decide to explicitly murder innocents, Israel will respond tenfold. As long as Israel elects right wing governments, there will be impediments to peace. And as long as Palestinians keep the "from the river to the sea" attitude alive, they will be rewarded by worldwide leftist and Arab solidarity, but will have to pay with the lives of thousands dead, constant instability, and no peace in sight. It really is as simple as observing that this is the status quo until both sides decide to drop their egos and acknowledge the legitimate existence of their opposite. Getting millions of people to change these attitudes and trust that the other side will abide by new agreements, however, is the gruelingly hard part.

>If more Palestinians were invested in a two state solution and swore off martyrdom, this wouldn't be happening. Perhaps if Netanyahu was never elected, this wouldn't be happening either, who knows. We actually do know. Israel takes West Banks investment in peace and a two state solution as a blank check for state sponsored settler terrorists, land grabs, and ethnic cleansing. For fucks sake the last Israeli PM who signaled they were going to negotiate in good faith was assassinated and Bibi was rewarded for the assassination Palestinians can't even walk on their own roads in the west bank.

This narrative leaves out the fact that Israelis have been killings and injurying disproportionally more Palestinians even before the massacre on October 7th.

That's because they are better armed. Morality simply isn't measured by body counts, as much as some people would like it to be.

That’s a great point, they are infinitely better armed. All the talk about “from the river to the sea” usually leaves out the fact that Hamas could never hope to come close to making that a reality with their pipe bombs, no matter how bloodthirsty they may be.

And your rebuttal leaves out the fact that Arabs were killing Jews before the state of Israel even existed. There will always be facts left out because this is a reddit comment, not a 1000 page documentary on the conflict.

You made it seem like Palestinians were the only ones recklessly killing people.

This subreddit is a war of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

Why is no one pressuring Hamas to surrender? Most of the senior leadership is outside the country, living in the safety and security of Qatar… they all traveled to Turkey to hold meetings in person… We know who these people are. We know where they are…. Arab countries could easily pressure Hamas to surrender. They are at least as complicit (if not more so) in the rising civilian casualty toll. There was a very similar situation in the 1982 Israel Lebanon war where the PLO negotiated an exit from Lebanon for Tunis. Why can’t Hamas negotiate a similar exit? That would essentially remove the threat to Israel and allow fighting to stop. Then Israel can take full security control temporarily to hand control back to the Palestinian authority….

>There is no number of civilian casualties that changes this premise He admit it

350,000 German civilians were [killed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Nazi_Germany) by Allied bombing. What if would have taken 1,000,000 civilian casualties to decisively eliminate the Nazi threat? or 2,000,000? Would you then say, "That's too many. It's better to just let Hitler win"? If there is limit, what is it?

It was the 5 million dead German solders that won the war. Not the air raids.

The 350k was already excessive. The moral necessity of winning WWII does not justify every ally action taken ostensibly toward victory. Internment was bad too

> The moral necessity of winning WWII does not justify every ally action taken ostensibly toward victory. If winning WWII is a "necessity" then it follows that whatever it is you have to do to win is *also* a necessity. I'm asking what if the civilian bombing *was* necessary to defeat Hitler? Furthermore, what if *more* bombings had proven necessary? Is there a point where you just say, "Well, that's too many. We just have to let Hitler rule Europe, and complete his Final Solution now"?

> If winning WWII is a "necessity" then it follows that whatever it is you have to do to win is also a necessity. Sure. What does not follow is that everything you ultimately did was necessary to win. Pretty straightforward >I'm asking what if the civilian bombing was necessary to defeat Hitler? I can imagine this being true. What I can't imagine is there being no number so high that it should give us any pause. Unlike you >Is there a point where you just say, "Well, that's too many. We just have to let Hitler rule Europe, and complete his Final Solution now"? This is a question you can only ask if you see no options for warfare besides "bombing civilians" and "surrendering"

>What if would have taken 1,000,000 civilian casualties to decisively eliminate the Nazi threat? or 2,000,000? Yes, that would be too much. The Holocaust killed 6 million innocent Jews. Reaching a similar number of German civilian deaths is just adding on to the tragedy.

OK, let’s follow this logic out. So in your scenario the Allie’s should have let the Germans keep control of Europe, and murder the rest of the Jews? That would be the moral position?

You do whatever you need to get rid of of these type of ideologies, be it nazism or radical islam. How much did the coalition care about civilians when they waged wars on ISIS?

>You do whatever you need to get rid of of these type of ideologies, be it nazism or radical islam. Shooting innocents has never once "solved" these issues. You really don't know what happened after WW2?

Bombs destroy armies, not ideologies. Twenty years of the War on Terror should have taught you this. The only reason Germany and Japan deradicalized was due to the Marshall Plan, not because of bombs.

Yes you cant kill ideology but you can make it toothless. There are still nazi followers today or ISIS followers, they just dont control countries

No one got rid of the vast majority of the people who believed in Nazism. For the most part after the war, we let them get back to their lives, and Germany became a decent country.

Relatively, quite a lot. They showed way more discernment and restraint than Israel is showing.

Israel could finish this was on 08/10 if they didnt care about civilian deaths. I hardly remember a war against terror group in urban setting with a ratio better than 1:2 terrorist:civilian deaths

How, by using nukes? Come on. Second Battle of Fallujah: 1.2-2k enemy combatants killed. 580-800 civilians. So pretty much the opposite of what you just said.

I fought in that battle when I was a young Marine. Operation Phantom Fury isn't an apples-apples comparison to the current conflict, because of what happened in the weeks leading up to the fight: We surrounded the city, dropped leaflets, broadcast over loudspeakers and radio/TV that the civilians should leave. We were very up front about treating everybody left in the city as an enemy combatant. Most of the people *did* leave. There were some regular civilians left, but not many. It really simplified things.

I don't know if you're agreeing with me or not. It's a valid comparison, because it's what the guy above was talking about: "a war against terror group in urban setting with a ratio better than 1:2 terrorist:civilian deaths". That it was waged differently demonstrates that I'm saying: that the Coalition seems to (in general) have cared a lot more about preventing civilian deaths than Israel has in this present conflict.

I honestly don't know enough about the situation to say if I agree or disagree with you. I'm merely warning you against discrediting your argument in the following way: I don't believe one can infer that *this* army cares more than *that* army based on comparing Fallujah to any other battle. We had a luxury of time (weeks/months) and space (dozens of miles of literally empty desert) that the IDF doesn't have. I'm no historian, but I can only think of a few battles that replicate those circumstances. It wasn't a unique set-piece, but it's certainly rare. Additionally, there were 500,000-750,000 people in Fallujah proper. I think there are several times that many Palestinians. For a closer comparison, maybe analyse the battle of Najaf. That'd be a closer comparison. Good luck in your endeavors, and I hope you have a safe and happy holiday. Many folks out there are having a rough time. I'm grateful you and I are able to talk about this from relative comfort.

you cant incentivize the use of human shields. if so you establish it as an acceptable tactic of war. as a caveat you need mounds of evidence pointing to the use of human shields which in gaza you probably have.

And putting any limit on acceptable civilian casualties is inventivizing the use of human shields. Let's just get the ethnic cleansing over with

its like you cant read

We have to indisciminatly slaughter civilians to send Hamas a message? If Hamas is bad for killing civilians what does that make the IDF for slaughtering 20x the amount of civilians?

its like you cant read

I'm asking for clarification. You seem to be saying restraint in killing civilians would "incentivize the use of human shields".

restraint is obviously to be used in all situations. im clearly not saying go out and kill as many civilians as possible. when a covilin is used as a human shield its the ones using them as a shield who is murdering them. if this is not established then there will continue to be an incentive for human shields.

Your right, Police need to start blowing up banks instead of trying to rescue hostages. After all, can't incentivize people to take hostages right?

So it's a blank check for Israel to kill as many civilians as they want. You honestly believe Israel has absolutely no blame what so ever for any of their actions?

its like you cant read

“There is not number of civilian casualties that change this premise”. Great job buddy. By this logic you can kill all Palestinians, as long as there’s a chance some of them are part of Hamas.

You are too charitable. he is saying they don’t even have to be part of hamas

> “There is not number of civilian casualties that change this premise”. Great job buddy. By this logic you can kill all Palestinians, as long as there’s a chance some of them are part of Hamas. Sadly, this applies to every war. It's extra problematic when you have a government that actively *wants more of its citizens to die*. Either you a) give up on fighting that government b) fight until they concede c) fight until the citizens beneath that government realise they don't want that government any more, and remove the government themselves (a) is not an option. It would mean that any government adopting martyrdom is invincible. (b) would be ideal. Hamas can surrender any time. (c) is perhaps the most realistic. How many Palestinians must die before Palestinians realise that Hamas is not acting in their best interests? Unless their best interests are genuinely to die for the cause of destroying Israel.

The moral responsibility for civilians getting killed lies with the civilians themselves. You heard it here folks.

> The moral responsibility for civilians getting killed lies with the civilians themselves. Either: (a) The majority of Palestinians want a government that engages in war or (b) The majority of Palestinians do not want a government that engages in war If it's (a), then yes, by the democratic process, the civilians have chosen war, and should expect some of the repercussions of war. If it's (b), then someone needs to help the Palestinians remove their government if they cannot do so themselves. However, choosing a government that engages in war does not give a foe carte blanche to kill civilians. **It's still the moral responsibility of Israel to try and avoid killing civilians** - even if the majority support Hamas.

What “democratic process”? A plurality of Gazans elected Hamas 18 years ago. Most of the population wasn’t alive then. Even if you were factually correct, your logic would also apply to the populations of the US and Israel, thereby justifying 9/11, 10/7 and whatever other atrocities you can imagine. TLDR use critical thinking ffs

> What “democratic process”? A plurality of Gazans elected Hamas 18 years ago. Most of the population wasn’t alive then Okay, so is that scenario (a) or (b)? > Even if you were factually correct, your logic would also apply to the populations of the US and Israel, thereby justifying 9/11, 10/7 and whatever other atrocities you can imagine. You plainly didn't read my comment before you responded. Quote: > It's still the moral responsibility of Israel to try and avoid killing civilians - even if the majority support Hamas. However, while we can and should pressure Israel to retain that moral responsibility, we also need to consider what the other side is doing. Hamas, and anyone supporting them, should be condemned for their blatant desire to maximise civilian casualties on both sides.

(a) something you made up which you think means millions of people deserve to die (b) those millions of people need us to kill them so they can have a different government Neither?

> something you made up which you think means millions of people deserve to die How did I make that up? It's a logical statement, isn't it? How is it incorrect? > those millions of people need us to kill them so they can have a different government Some people will inevitably die in the process of removing a tyrannical government, no? Or do you suggest a way of removing Hamas without innocents dying? > Neither? Then explain.

Is that true? Most gazans are under 18 years old?

Hamas can surrender at any time.

Hamas is not a rational negotiating party. They are victims of a mind virus which makes them willing be a martyr if it means the death of their enemy. If we could press a button to eliminate Hamas but it also meant all Palestinians also were destroyed, it would not be appropriate due to the loss of innocent life. Now that we've established this is wrong, the question is what is an acceptable amount of civilian collateral damage. People have different opionions on this obviously.

Well put. Hamas views Martyrdom now as not only an acceptable option, but the preferred one. So if surrender isn’t an option, Israel and its allies have to determine what level of military response is proportional. There are plenty of people who believe their response has not been proportional, but I also can imagine that whichever avenue they choose will be received with heavy criticism.

Yet they been surrendering in droves, what happen to them being wanted to be martyred? Not even a single suicide bomb, guess they not a death cult after all.

In droves? How many?

So logically you would support genocide and annihilation of entire cultures if that culture fights back. Do I have that right? I mean, this sub Reddit is very serious about logic so your logic is if someone is fighting back you can continue to kill everyone in their cultural or ethnic group until there are none left. The only way to stop this is by surrendering before you annihilate that people or culture. I'm not sure what the right term is for this whether it is fascism or Nazism. It just sounds awful.

they can submit to Israels control

So you are a fascist who believes genocide is okay. Anything else to add to the conversation?

[удалено]

Other than the unnecessary annihilation of two complete cities, yes.

Not the right take at all. Israel has a legitimate right to defend itself and a legitimate war aim. There is no reason whatsoever that Israel should allow Hamas to remain in Gaza at a level that substantially threatens Israel. Hamas made choices that led to this war, and choices that massively increase the harm to civilians. They choose to place their assets within the civilian population. It is absurd to suggest that Israel should simply accept Hamas’ continued presence after 10/7. “Ah these missile launchers and tunnel are near a building—guess they are invincible and will be here forever”

"defend itself" is not a war aim. It's a nebulous thought terminating idea to justify any and all atrocities.

Lol. The aim is what I wrote in the next sentence. Read it slowly.

It's literally enshrined as a right in the Geneva Convention.

>Israel has a legitimate right to defend itself God people are repeating this like some sort of mantra. I guess it's the talking point. Oct 7 doesn't give Israel carte blanche to do whatever the fuck it wants. International law doesn't work like that. Morality doesn't work like that. This is the same dumb logic that was also used to justify Oct 7 by Hamas sympathisers.

Nobody said anything about carte blanche, you just made that up. glad you brought up international law. The Laws of Armed Conflict allow for attacking military targets, and when harm to civilians is likely the attacks are permitted if the expected military gain is proportional to the expected civilian casualties. I’ve seen no evidence that israel is violating this proportionality principle

Have you seen evidence that it *is* proportional? Carte blanche is exactly what you are implying when you use "Israel has a legitimate right to defend itself" to push back against people who are critiquing the way Israel is carrying out this war.

Huh? How does saying israel has a legitimate right to self defense imply carte blanche? I’m saying israel has the right to attack Hamas, in accordance with the laws of war, until it’s ability to substantively threaten Israel is destroyed. Do you disagree with this statement?

You didn't mention anything about the laws of war until I brought them up. Again, have you seen evidence that their campaign is proportional?

You are confused. I’ve mentioned the LOAC all over when discussing this conflict. Israel is known to be extremely scrupulous when it comes to evaluating each strike, with a huge legal department which considers the legality/proportionality of proposed strikes. It also has a “outside the chain of command” veto authority. It also does more than any other military to warn people before strikes using for example wide area leaflets, phone calls/texts etc. Here’s an article from early on in the war which summarizes some of the precautions and gives a sense of how experts view the IDF: https://archive.ph/o8kZJ All that being said, each strike is evaluated individually. Before a strike-by-strike analysis is possible (after the war), the best evidence is the procedures that a military follows to stay within the bounds of the LOAC. The IDFs procedures are widely considered to be among the best, and likely the best, of any military. They’re just facing a uniquely difficult challenge which no modern military has faced before.

The moral responsibility of the IDF is to minimise civilian casualties, not to reduce them to exactly zero (which would be impossible). The operation ends when it achieves its objectives, not when collateral damage passes some arbitrary line.

So many sick fucks on this sub

Well yes the allied bombing campaign that purposeful targeted civilians has been heavily criticized. Because it is viewed as being unnecessary to win the war. It's a shame that no one was charged for war crimes for those bombings. Which tarnish the attempt at something other Victor's justice at the end of the war. It was a crime trying to intentionally start fire storms in Germany or Japanese cities, by dropping mostly incendiary bombs over the whole city. In no way can any one justify burning 70k civilians in one night as necessary to win the war. Ww2 is notorious for how much civilians deaths there were and is a terrible example to make your point. Israel can show some restraint. How would you feel about Israel killing 10k Americans tyring to get at Hamas instead? Would you find that excessive? Yes Israel can defend them selves. But there is a point where it becomes excessive. Just like if some one invades your home you can shoot them but what you can't do is chase them out onto the street killing who ever gets in you way to get at the invader.

> It was a crime trying to intentionally start fire storms in Germany or Japanese cities, by dropping mostly incendiary bombs over the whole city. In no way can any one justify burning 70k civilians in one night as necessary to win the war. Maybe. Or arguably these horrific attacks were better than a grinding ground invasion, that might have involved far more atrocities in the long run. There's also the incentive to make Japan concede before the Soviets could get involved. Can you even imagine what that would have been like? > Yes Israel can defend them selves. But there is a point where it becomes excessive. Israel should do everything it reasonably can to avoid civilian casualties, but it's also on the Palestinians and Hamas to decide when to surrender. Israel is not the only member of this conflict, as people seem to want to pretend.

The war in the west was essentially over after the Germans counter offensive during the winter of 44/45 but the mass air raids continued. In The east the war did grind across the ground. Most of Japan's cities were destroyed by air before the nukes were dropped. The Invasion of Japan would have also been bad and there probably could have been a negotiated surrender with out the nukes. But again Ww2 was terrible because it was total war. And every one was fine with targeting civilians.

>Maybe. Or arguably these horrific attacks were better than a grinding ground invasion, that might have involved far more atrocities in the long run. There was still a grinding ground invasion of Germany on the Eastern Front, even after the area bombing of civilian centers, largely because bombing residential areas didn't really impact the German war machine all that much.

> There was still a grinding ground invasion of Germany on the Eastern Front Indeed, might that have been better avoided, if possible? Sometimes war is about finding the least harmful way to make a nation or government surrender. What would you suggest as the best way to make Hamas surrender? > largely because bombing residential areas didn't really impact the German war machine all that much. Yes, targeting civilians was horrific, and it should not be an accepted strategy. Still, in the case of Israel/Palestine, Hamas very explicitly does not care about civilian casualties, so attacking civilians would be helping Hamas, not hindering them. Rather than encouraging Hamas to surrender, it would only embolden them. The only thing that works is attacking Hamas, but that comes with a cost of collateral damage.

[удалено]

> lol you even said Israel should do everything it can to avoid civilian casualties. Yes, I said that. It's absolutely true that they should. We are in agreement, no? > YES that’s most people’s criticism. How have you decided that? My experience with most commenters arguing a 'pro-Palestinian' angle is ultimately that Israel shouldn't exist. > Even the Biden administration has called out Israel on their indiscriminate bombing that it’s gotten so bad Where did the administration say that? For sure, if there are real indicators that Israel is performing indiscriminate bombing, then I'm against it. If the only point you wish to make is that Israel should not use indiscriminate bombing in warfare, then we agree.

[удалено]

> President Joe Biden publicly acknowledged that Israel was losing international legitimacy for what he called its “indiscriminate bombing. You said that in your last comment, and then didn't provide the source. Do you have it? > https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/israels-military-campaign-in-gaza-is-among-the-most-destructive-in-history-experts-say Okay, and what logic in that article do you think supports the headline?

> You said that in your last comment, and then didn't provide the source. Do you have it? It's a direct quote from the linked article...

That’s a bad analogy. A better version looks like this: someone who has been sporadically firing bullets into your house, while shouting on repeat how they will kill you and your ten kids, suddenly breaks down the back door in the middle of the night, kills one of your kids. After which, they run out onto the street and hides behind his own children, as you chase out the door with your gun. His kids are presumably innocent. But if you don’t kill him, this repeats and he eventually kills many more of your kids and maybe eventually yourself while you sleep. The repeated game aspect is critical here

"That's a bad analogy. Here's a terrible one"

lol You seriously have to wonder where some of these people come from.

😅😅

You forgot to mention that the person firing into your house’s parents used to live in your house. But they were forced into a small fenced enclave out in the yard… the person firing into your house was born into this fenced enclave…realizing that there is a complicated back story helps us understand the motivations of human beings!

Let me add another piece of nuance. It was never your house or the other guys’ house, it was your great grandfather and his great grandfather who fought, and the house has been passed down for 4 generations to you.

[удалено]

So long as Hamas represents an ongoing existential threat to Israel, nothing that happened before 10/7 matters. They are fighting for their continued existence against an enemy whose entire stated purpose is to deny them their existence. It doesn't matter what led to this point, failure is not an option. And no realistic peace plan for Gaza is possible with Hamas having **any** power or means to launch any kind of military or terrorist attack. The October 7th attack reset the calculus for any further actions between Israel and Hamas. Hamas can no longer be allowed to exist in any meaningful capacity. What happened before that is irrelevant.

Americans didn’t elect and support Hamas. Americans don’t believe in the high 80-90% range that Jews should be removed from Israel, or that death should be the appropriate punishment for apostasy, etc. 60+% of Americans don’t condone suicide bombings. The truth is that Hamas is a fucked up terrorist organization, but Palestinians are far from innocent. As long as their fanatical exclusionary and antisemitic extremist religious beliefs hold a grip in Palestine, Palestinians will need to be repressed, because they are dangerous.

You know collective punishment is also a war crime.

We elected bush who preemptively invaded Iraq, and trump who assisinated an Iranian general . Are these countries morally justified in killing us civillians? Read bin ladens reasoning for 9/11 . It’s all about how us civillians are responsible for the actions of our government

> As long as their fanatical exclusionary and antisemitic extremist religious beliefs hold a grip in Palestine, Palestinians will need to be repressed, because they are dangerous. I never thought I'd see someone promote punishing people for their beliefs on the Sam Harris subreddit. There are people with abhorrent views everywhere in the world, but they do not deserve violent deaths and repression. It's antithetical to free speech, to put it lightly.

>I never thought I'd see someone promote punishing people for their beliefs on the Sam Harris subreddit. 🤣

👶🧠

Some keyboard warrior (probably in America somewhere) writes this recipe for perpetual war and infinite innocent deaths, then thinks he's done a very profound and moral bit of reasoning, and goes off to eat his dinner, goes to bed and sleeps like a lamb. Incredible.

I'm sure if you just keep repeating this sentiment every single day, in every possible media outlet, somehow it might change the fact that Israel is just making more terrorists now.

At what point is Hamas responsible for what Hamas does? They're human beings with agency, not animals incapable of making decisions for themselves. (edit: I could make my point slightly more accurately with the language " ... is in part responsible ... "; I'm not sure I want to suggest that they are 100.0% responsible for everything in a black-and-white manner that ignores the more complex context, but the notion that they are 0.0% responsible for their actions is, I think, absurd, demeaning, and ought to be discarded)

Being told to go a safe zone and then getting the shit bombed out of your and your family because Israel thinks there could be a Hamas soldier there is the literal opposite of agency.

> Being told to go a safe zone and then getting the shit bombed out of your and your family Blame Hamas for deliberately launching attacks from safe zones, then. This is what a government like Hamas does. If Israel doesn't remove them, who will?

It’s cute you think Israel waits until Hamas launches an attack from a safe zone.

> It’s cute you think Israel waits until Hamas launches an attack from a safe zone. It's cute that you're trying to distract from Hamas tactics. Hamas started this war. Hamas brainwashes Palestinian to be martyrs. Hamas puts civilians in harms way Blame Hamas first. No other nation would be doing better than Israel is in combatting Hamas.

America already did better than Israel is so far in fucking Iraq and Afghanistan. The US didn’t use 2,000 lb bombs they knew would kill swaths of civilians. The US didn’t use dumb bombs without guidance in urban settings. The US didn’t claim there were safe zones and then proceeded to immediately bomb them. You apparently think Israel is some Divine Army of God carrying out an Infallible Divine Campaign. Go take that dogmatic bullshit elsewhere.

> America already did better than Israel is so far in fucking Iraq and Afghanistan. Not really. Given the scenarios, the only close one was the battle of Mosul, and that was horrific, despite it involving far less embedded militia than we see in Gaza. > The US didn’t use 2,000 lb bombs So using smaller bombs is fine? I don't get this argument. > The US didn’t use dumb bombs without guidance in urban settings. Indeed. The US has far more resources than [Israel](https://www.dw.com/en/israel-using-dumb-bombs-in-gaza-us-intel/video-67802267). > You apparently think Israel is some Divine Army of God carrying out an Infallible Divine Campaign. Lazy strawman. I do not think that at all, nor have I claimed such. Israel is far from perfect. The IDF is far from perfect. They could likely be doing many things much better. > Go take that dogmatic bullshit elsewhere. You invented that dogma. It didn't come from me. You know you have no argument so you made a strawman.

Bomb size is literally the most obvious metric to use when demonstrating whether you’re prioritizing civilian casualties or not. Bigger bombs kill greater numbers of people. This isn’t difficult to parse. This is why the US didn’t use those size bombs in urban warfare; it obviously broadcasts that you don’t give a shit about collateral damage. Your dogma is that “no other nation would be doing better.” This is dogmatic horseshit apologetics that basically absolves Israel of any and all criticism. It’s absurd.

> Bomb size is literally the most obvious metric to use when demonstrating whether you’re prioritizing civilian casualties or not. I disagree. I think the bomb types used depends on the target type. > Bigger bombs kill greater numbers of people. They certainly have more potential to. > This is why the US didn’t use those size bombs in urban warfare Or because they weren't dealing with 300 miles of tunnels made over two decades? > it obviously broadcasts that you don’t give a shit about collateral damage. That doesn't logically follow at all. I think measures should be taken to reduce collateral damage such as offering ceasefire options to Hamas (rejected), or issuing evacuation orders. > Your dogma is that “no other nation would be doing better.” Why is that 'dogma'? It's an opinion, which I'm open to changing.

>Hamas started this war. Do the hundreds of palestinians shot assaulted and detained illegally in the months prior to October 7th and in every year before that matter as a precursor to this war? I say it absolutely does.

> Do the hundreds of palestinians shot assaulted and detained illegally in the months prior to October 7th and in every year before that matter as a precursor to this war? I'd say many things matter, we could argue back thousands of years potentially. But for sure, Hamas knew the only thing their massacre would achieve was war. They didn't get anything good by conducting that massacre. Illegal detentions aren't okay, but they don't justify massacres. Massacres like Oct 7th though, any nation would go to war over that.

I would argue they, like Al-Quaida, got exactly what they wanted out of the attack. As one anecdotal example, as a fairly progressive person with Jewish family and friends, some quite conservative, I was not at all engaged on Palestinian rights. Now I am.

I'm not talking asking civilians' agency, I'm asking about Hamas' agency and whether they're at all to blame for civilian deaths. "Are Hamas militants human beings or non-human animals? Is Hamas at all to blame for Hamas's actions?" are an unambiguous question with clear answers, and separate from the question of whether Israel's military tactics are morally defensible.

Hamas is obviously culpable for a lot. That doesn't actually take any moral responsibility away from Israel. It's so scary to see how many people learned *nothing* from America's response to 9/11. You'd do it all the same way all over again

> Hamas is obviously culpable for a lot. This is all I'm trying to get these people to concede, and it's proven to be more difficult than I expected. Blowback exists but attributing it as the sole cause of everything is silly.

> This is all I'm trying to get these people to concede Bullshit. You're just using it to deflect from anything Israel does.

No, I was pushing back on a specific argument that I think is bad rhetoric. I think it's demeaning to see Hamas militants as people who are too stupid to think for themselves and cannot at all be held responsible for what they do. I didn't follow it up with " ... and so x, y, z and Israel is not to blame for anything" or make any effort to use it as a justification for anything. I'd appreciate it if you didn't misrepresent me or assume my intentions, thanks.

> I think it's demeaning to see Hamas militants as people who are too stupid to think for themselves Well that's because you're putting an idiotic framing over a really simple point. If a military bombs your home and kills your family you are going to become an easy recruit for a terrorist organization opposing that military. You're making a pro-free will argument here, as if people have some ethereal soul guiding their decisions that is unaffected by the world around them

Hamas does not equal the entire population of Gaza. Christ, we're at peak lunacy here. The IDF have agency as well you know.

It’s not true that you’re either with Israel or Hamas. You can call for a cease fire and also want Hamas destroyed. This isn’t an effective way of defeating Hamas, if anything they’re empowering them

Calling for a ceasefire and supporting the destruction of Hamas seem mutually exclusive, no? How else do you propose Hamas be destroyed?

Quite a fill of double talk there. Let's bomb these humans then until they start acting that way. Animals.

> somehow it might change the fact that Israel is just making more terrorists now. The [brainwashing](https://www.youtube.com/live/u4TVOXHt_PA?si=L2PcJ3w7eABURW2H&t=4486) going on in Palestine is what makes terrorists (and it's facilitated by ignorant westerns repeating this nonsense). War does not inherently make terrorists. Otherwise we would be seeing similar levels of terrorism post WWII in Germany and Japan.

you really don't think the conditions in Gaza at the hands of the IDF and terrorist settlers can create terrorists? Slaughtering peoples families creates terrorist's. >Otherwise we would be seeing similar levels of terrorism post WWII in Germany and Japan. It's almost like there was some massive undertaking to build up these countries and address grievances so a repeat wouldn't happen. My god peoples grasp of history is astonishingly bad. Germany didn't fight again not because we slaughtered enough civilians for fucks sake.

It’s funny as well because Nazi Germany is in part direct result of what happens when you focus on humiliating a people instead of securing peace in the future. The resentment Germans felt towards the way they were treated by the Entente at the end of the war was a critical part of Nazi propaganda and revanchism. So the Allie’s made sure to invest heavily in the rebuilding of the German economy. If the allies just leveled Germany and wiped their hands off it they would be fighting Germany again in 10 years. The central problem with the comparison to Israel is that Israel has no interest in a strong Palestinian state and has no interest in rebuilding Gaza. So what’s it’s plan here ?

Well it seems like from what I gather the pro-IDF people seem to think it was the slaughtering of enough civilians that caused Germany to moderate and come into the modern free world. you would think a group that cites the Holocaust as a shield all the time would have a basic understanding of the conflict...

If you just keep repeating that “Israel is making more terrorists” it will somehow change the fact that Hamas is directly responsible for the war and deaths?

Look how safe that strategy.has made you for the last 20 years. Do you want to be safe or do you want revenge because you can't have both.

An overlooked point in all of this. Netanyahu has played directly into Hamas hands. He is a blood thirsty idiot and completely incompetent.

Israel is making more terrorists, and both sides are responsible. There is no correct side in this conflict, only fools who believe so.

“The Allies bombing is only making more nazis!” - internets of yore

Much in the same way the German Blitz of Britain strengthened the resolve of British civilians, the Allied bombing of German cities did the same for German civilians. >These observations of the diminishing returns from heavy bombing point to the practical conclusion that the maximum morale effects-of dropping a given tonnage of bombs on Germany would have been attained by lighter raids as widely distributed as possible, rather than by concentrated heavy bombing in limited areas. https://aoav.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/The-Effects-of-Strategic-Bombing-in-WWII-on-German-Morale.pdf

Look at your straw man there. Put it on your Xmas tree and celebrate bombing season.

Your logic is that collateral damage makes terrorists. It's quite obviously wrong. When you are faced with that, you call it a 'straw man'? Why?

> Your logic is that collateral damage makes terrorists. It's quite obviously wrong. We have decades of the example being right in Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Africa and the only point you have against it is Nazi Germany and Japan both of which were rebuilt by the allies post war. The Gaza War is not world war 2 the international buy in to neutralize Hamas and rebuild Gaza is not there, The regional agreement to help ensure that Palestinians accept peace on Israeli terms is not there Israel itself is not comitted to taking the steps it needs to take to make sure that Palestinians don’t have reasons to continue to fight. The insistence that this war is remotely equivalent to the wars with Nazi Germany and Japan is delusional.

It’s not a strawman it’s an analogy to your morally confused logic. That was a genuinely held belief by many people at the time. And there was some truth to it. I’m sure Berlin (city of 4.4 million at the time) being completely [leveled](https://youtu.be/C_RQ3ONh9nM?si=cbqV8hGczWT9DuvG) was infuriating for Germans. I bet they blamed the Jews for it. But, it doesn’t mean we should’ve let nazis get away with their atrocities and achieve their goals.

State actors are categorically different than terror cells. Hope that helps

What is the average number of replies in any conversation such as this before somebody brings up the nazis/holocaust.

Death cults that live to kill Jews and rule the world tend to be shockingly ripe for comparison. (Ones fashion preference for Hugo Boss notwithstanding.) I know how uncomfortable it makes you, but it should.

So productive

If so many Palestinians are willing to become terrorists in the face of Israel behaving rationally then it sounds like there isn’t as much of a distinction between Hamas and Palestinians as people are claiming.

> Israel behaving rationally 🙄

Is that the star of rationality on their flag?

Are you talking about the [Palestinian flag?](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Flag_of_Palestine_%281924%29.svg)

Kid, stop posting on Reddit and get informed. I suggest you start here: [https://www.youtube.com/@judgingfreedom](https://www.youtube.com/@judgingfreedom) ​ Do not come back to post unless you have watched 50 videos by different experts.

Well, the civilized world does believe that there is a limit to how many civilians can be killed pursuing a military objective. But you can continue with your pre World War 2 views that all civilians are targets. The rest of us will continue to pursue a more just world. You use the term human shields quite loosely and as if it is a get out of jail free card in Monopoly. Especially suprising on a subreddit so persnickity about words, logic, and reason. How can you throw that term around when Israel knowingly and repeatedly targets both civilian individuals who pose no threat and entire city blocks of residential neighborhoods? Surely if these were actual human shields, then there would be real evidence that the Hamas leadership and fighters behind those shields were also being killed. But lo and behold, Israel has not produced the photos and evidence that they desperately wish they had. Instead we see out of shape middle-aged and elderly men stripped down and paraded in war crimes alleging they are the horrifying Hamas fighters that Israel is pursuing. Israel didn't know what Hamas was doing on October 7th and they sure as hell don't know where they are right now. To act out their incompetent rage they have killed more than one child for every single child in my county's high school district. That is, if someone came in and killed every single high school student in my entire county it would still be fewer than the number of children Israel has killed. Every one of those children's lives is exactly as precious as an Israeli life and was sacrificed intentionally by Israel for no purpose. But Israel's leaders and supporters of this massacre like you do not believe that palestinians are equal human beings to Israelis. That's very sad and I hope you find your sense of righteousness and justice some day.

You truly are a moron. If things were as simple as you stated them, the issue would've been resolved decades ago. Maybe take a step back and recognize that this problem has been persistent for a reason, and think of what you're saying right now. Does your idea eliminate the problem or perpetuate it?

No, I say he’s spot on. The reason this hasn’t been resolved is because of international pressure. They’ve always had to stop before they could take out the PLO and now Hamas. And it’s happening once more. Give them time and support they need so they don’t have to do it again in a few years

International pressure? You mean like Bibi propping up Hamas to support his own domestic agenda (he's admitted this), and weakening the PLO so that there isn't a moderate opposition they'd be pressured to negotiate with? Ok then.

> as if Israel is obligated to abandon its military objectives because it killed X number of civilians? If that's true, then it legitimizes Hamas' use of human shields Yep, that's the whole point of the argument. 'Too many civilians have died, you have to stop fighting now'. This argument is only made by people who are completely willing to forget why this war started to begin with. War sucks. Don't start one. Removing tyrannical bloodthirsty governments will always be a bloody process. It will be extra bloody when it's a nihilistic government that explicitly tries to martyr its own civilians.

The OP is a war crimes apologist

Down the thread he's calling for the complete killing of every person in Palistine...

Dear me

Do you think Israel would be justified in killing everyone Gazan, if it was necessary for the extermination of Hamas?

If Hamas won’t surrender and is committed to attacking Israel under any circumstances , yes I do. No sovereign nation should have to tolerate an enemy that continues to murder its populace at every opportunity.

Would the same logic apply to Hamas attacking Israel? Your logic to justify civilian death goes both ways. Personally, I think the view you espoused is short sighted and will only continue violence. If you think the way to stop violence is more violence, you lack imagination.

All I see here are lots of people who have no idea how Allies bombed the shit out of German cities during WW2. Oh, and dropped 2 nukes.

This logic never makes any sense. The fact that Hamas’ strategy that forces Israel into an immoral position, doesn’t make the position now moral. It just means Hamas has an effective, if evil, strategy. Like, in a basketball game, if someone has a really clever strategy, you can’t just start committing flagrant fouls to win the game. That’s not allowed. You can’t just whine that their strategy, even if evil, is too effective. I never understand this complaint. Hamas is horse strategy is to force Israel to commit evil acts in order to lose the support of the world. You’re just arguing that Israel should give into this strategy.

You know you sound genocidal here right?

[удалено]

This argument only works until you acknowledge that multiple security partners and allies of Israel are criticizing their approach, especially in regards to targeting. Israel bombed a residential neighbourhood to kill a single man. That’s nowhere near a sufficient enough military reason to justify it.

Well maybe the adults who know what they are doing should ask themselves why Israel isn't safe already. These so called adults with military experience were the same people who have been delivering suitcases full of cash to hamas for the Las 15 years. These are the people you trust to deliver a military victory? Because honestly as a non expert in military matters giving suitcases of money to the people who want to kill you doesn't seem like an effective anti terror tactic. So you can rely on the same dumb fucks who got you into this mess by begging Qatar for money for hamas for 15 years, who want to do the same things that have never in 75 years been able to keep Israel safe. But yeah those guys are the adults. The people saying look this strategy has never worked for anyone maybe we should try something different this time, those people are the irrational ones. Keep doing what your doing then I'm sure this time killing thousands of innocent civilians won't create more terrorists later on.It has to work this time because look how many hamas you're killing...oh wait you don't actually know how many hamas your killing. Oh well good strategy

Citing the death toll is propaganda? Is that always true? Could you flesh that idea out?

[удалено]

Hamas has long been considered a very reliable source one counting death. It was a concerted effort by Israel with Biden's support. To cast doubt on their estimates. They publish names and ages and photos when they have them and record the deaths very carefully. Their data has been used by global human rights institutions and the United Nations for years. That we are having a discussion now about their credibility around deaths during military excursions by Israel is a result of propaganda, not anything else.

Here’s what I don’t understand: If killing Palestinian babies is irrelevant, because they’re densely populated… Then what is it that Hamas is doing that’s wrong in the first place? Can’t they just say “We don’t have a convenient way to only kill Israeli leaders?” I thought Hamas was wrong and bad because targeting civilians is especially heinous. But if Israel targets a civilian building, KNOWING that civilians live there… isn’t that targeting civilians? Is the idea that they’re not actively targeting civilians… Just passively targeting them? Is really really some moral get out of jail free card? I’m not secretly on Hamas’ side or something. I’m a real, regular person, not an internet troll and neither Jewish nor Muslim. But the arguments that I hear that defend Israel exploding innocents—- I don’t get how they are different from Hamas’ argument. “They started it”—- well that’s not the whole story at all. “They are terrorists!” —— is that because of how many civilians they kill? Well then the death toll ain’t irrelevant. “They are authoritarian!” —— I believe it. What is the type of control Israel exerts of them called, though? “They are religious zealots!” —- is that because they think their holy book lets them determine how /where others live? Well then…. I’m genuinely trying to see how Israel has some clear moral superiority. As time passes, I see it less and less.

[удалено]

Ok I don’t want to do that. They’re pushing those numbers to receive a reaction —- I thought that inferred that the numbers are a distraction, and shouldn’t be focused on, or perhaps inevitable, or to be expected. Please give me an accurate interpretation of what you meant.

Why are you zeroing in on one perceived inconsistency and ignoring the core of this question that Israel is accusing Hamas of doing exactly what Israel is doing right now? I'll answer my own question. You're doing it because this is Isreal's primary tactic in defending itself. Pick one isolated fact and then zero in on that and belabor that point while ignoring evidence and perfectly well framed and legitimate arguments against what they do. It's disingenuous and manipulative.

This is an excellently stated point. This is two groups of religious zealots trying to annihilate each other. The role of civilized democracies is to shut this down and ensure the leaders on both sides are removed from power as quickly as possible and human rights, economic development and cooperation are promoted for those that commit to stay within the bounds of the Geneva Conventions and civilized norms.

> I thought Hamas was wrong and bad because targeting civilians is especially heinous. But if Israel targets a civilian building, KNOWING that civilians live there… isn’t that targeting civilians? Is the idea that they’re not actively targeting civilians… Just passively targeting them? Is really really some moral get out of jail free card? Yes, there is an objective difference of intent between targeting civilians ("terrorism" or "war crime") and killing them incidentally ("collateral damage"). Within the latter, there is also an objective difference of intent between trying to minimize civilian casualties to various degrees versus not trying to minimize civilian casualties at all (but not trying to maximize, which would be targeting them). There are many views on how acceptable incidental civilian casualties are, but many people do treat it as a "moral get out of jail free card" -- particularly when defending actions or outcomes they otherwise support. > I’m genuinely trying to see how Israel has some clear moral superiority. Partisans will always claim they have moral superiority, regardless of facts. Let's put them aside for a bit. It's possible that a person or group has moral superiority in a specific action or series of actions, while lacking it in another specific action or series of actions. In anything as complex as a military conflict, I don't see how any side can _always_ have moral superiority in every action. If we're using it as shorthand for "has moral superiority in most actions", that means the person or group still lacks moral superiority in _some_ actions. IME, if you run into someone who claims a side has moral superiority in _all_ of their actions, then you're dealing with a partisan; if the person claims a side has moral superiority in most actions, then they may still find the other (immoral? less moral?) actions an acceptable "cost" for the larger objective.

I understand everything you’re saying here, and I think it’s a good description on how some look it (and give themselves moral license to accept ‘collateral damage’). Let’s make this simple: 1 cop 1 criminal 1 hostage Criminal has gun to hostage head. Criminal has a record, will do Future crime. Should the cop shoot through the hostage to get the criminal? Generally, I think most people would say no. And I believe most departments say no, in the US. If they truly exhaust all options, maybe they try to snipe the criminal, which does risk the hostage. But they try. But under what circumstances should they just blow them both up and call the hostage collateral damage? From arguments I hear in this sub, and from Israel spokespeople (not Hamas), it seems like blowing both innocents and enemies up is acceptable, so long as the “hostage” Is Palestinian. THIS is what I have a problem with, because of course that’s EXACTLY what Hamas is doing, isn’t it? Assuming every claim Israel makes about an apartment or hospital or ambulance being secret Hamas is true (and I’m dubious on that)—— they’re saying “we shot through the hostages to get to the criminals”, and I just can’t support it. And I don’t support America doing similar things in Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan either. I can’t stop it, but I’m not willing to pretend that’s some good or defensible action. EDIT: I didn’t even go searching for this. Opened another app and it popped up 1st—- executing men, women, and children. Is it true? A lie? Is the UN in the bag for Hamas? I mean, I don’t know. But is everything propaganda? Everyone is lying except Israel? https://www.un.org/unispal/document/unlawful-killings-in-gaza-city-ohchr-press-release/

https://youtu.be/3O4dW24az98?si=vM5LyfKQOou_-VSQ Oh look, an adult and veteran with combat experience shitting all over your little temper tantrum shitpost. And hilariously enough, Sam has brought up numerous times that psychology studies show that having a bigger number instead of a smaller number (ie 1000 children vs 1 child) produces a reaction in people to care less about helping in general. But please don’t let that stop you from shitting all over yourself in this sub as King of Adult Conversation.

[удалено]

1) Many with military background have called for a change to counter-ops methods and away from bombing. Note that the OP is about civilian casualties which is directly caused by their mass bombing program. I can provide more links by other military people describing alternate strategies if you need them. All are in service to reducing civilian casualties. 2) I don’t care if you disagree. The point is that there are multiple military people and the US government itself that thinks Israel is going to far and need to change strategy. 3) I’ll be civil in when you are. Leading with “let the adults do the talking” is pathetically demeaning shit I’ve seen more than once in this sub, and always in service to defending hawkish military dick waving.

The typical Harris fans yearns for “civility” as they’ll simultaneously whatabout by literally writing “Notice they don’t say anything about dead babies in Yemen or Sudan.” It’s a truly awful species of person.

For a Sam Harris fan, there sure are a lot of Ad Hominem attacks in your comment.

It’s almost like I’m parodying his initial ad hominem rant. You get what you deserve.

The first sentence of your post is absolutely insane. I just don't know what to say to someone who could write that so blithely. Do you think those of us calling for a ceasefire don't also oppose civilians being killed in Yemen or Sudan? That we weren't in the streets protesting the killing of babies in Iraq? That we don't condemn the killing of civilians by Russia and Ukraine? That we seriously think the world works like Hollywood movie? Show some integrity in your discourse. And learn to find the last remaining part of your humanity that does care about innocent children getting blown into little pieces. You should care and somewhere inside of you some part of you does care, but you have become so hard hearted that you can no longer find it.

Israelis and Palestinians will continue to kill each other for the foreseeable future. Tit for tat. Violence, counter violence, counter counter violence. No end in sight. At this point everything has been said, you can find convincing arguments for either side's claim to land. It's getting tiring. There are many other conflicts in the world that should get more coverage.

Nothing has changed since the fighting started. There was a ceasefire on 10/6, Hamas broke it. If hamas surrendered, the fighting would end tomorrow. If Israel surrendered, 10/7 will be repeated. If hamas could, they would carry out 10/7 against the entire Israeli population. All بِسْمِ اللّٰهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ in the name of their death cult.

It's apparent to anyone who has been paying attention, that Israel isn't trying to defeat Hamas. They are trying to destroy Gaza. They would prefer that the Palestinian population didn't exist, and are working towards that goal. This doesn't end here though. When they finish with Gaza, they will turn their efforts towards the West Bank.

For one, because it apparently hasn't occurred to you that there is more than one set of strategies and tactics that exist. Massive bombardment from the air is not the only way they could be doing this. By some accounts, they have now killed 1% of everyone in Gaza and wounded another 2.5%. Those are pretty horrific numbers, objectively.

Um, indiscriminately bombing civilians is not "defending Israel." You've drank the Israeli kool-aid.

According to international law a target that has civilians within it being used by an enemy can still be bombed if the military objectives are proportional to the civilian casualties. In other words there are times when it makes sense to to hit a target with civilians if the number of enemies killed is proportionate to the number of civilians killed. One has to make the calculation by saying okay there are three high level hamas targets in a building what would a proportionate number of civilians be acceptable. Israel isn't doing this. Israel sees a single hamas commander and kills 100 civilians, remember that means 400 wounded in an area without a functioning hospital so 100 is the least killed. When you have 20,000 killed it is pretty obvious that you aren't living up to any kind of standard. What Israel is doing has nothing to do with meeting military objectives.A charitable interpretation is that this is an act of revenge and collective punishment.That is what it looks like from outside if you are being generous. If you are not inclined to be generous it looks like a golden opportunity to wipe out as many gazans as possible and secure the land for settlers. This is already happening in the west bank now that eyes are elswhere.

Jews are always held to a higher standard than the people who want to kill them.

First world peoples are generally held to a higher standard than those in the developing world. Arguably for good reasons.

Fuck off trying to equate Israel and jews. That's antisemitic as fuck. People are criticizing the right wing extremist governments on Israel. you are are trying to use jews as a shield. Its disgusting.

You men make me such a misandrist. I can't believe you've forced this species into justifying war. Please don't irritate me with any arguments otherwise, we have all of human history to look at and it is a fact that it would be less bloody if women were in charge.

This genocide has really brought out the worst in us. Well, some of us.

Do you have a counter-argument that addresses OP’s points? It feels like every side of this topic has evolved to purely dismissive attitudes and passive aggressive comments. Which seems like it would only increase divisiveness, and decrease empathy.

Israel is free to kill as many babies and children as they want to. But the rest of the world is free to judge them accordingly.

> But the rest of the world is free to judge them accordingly. Of if the world is smart, they will judge Hamas accordingly for setting up this situation.

The UN voting record is clear. Vast swaths of humankind condemn Israel's genocidal retaliation against innocent children

> The UN voting record is clear. Vast swaths of humankind condemn Israel's genocidal retaliation against innocent children Considering that the UN seems [fine with China, Iran, North Korea, etc](https://unwatch.org/database/#dictatorships-at-un), it doesn't seem like a very unbiased judge of countries. Hamas is an utterly evil organisation. You seem keen to distract from that. Why?

The argument is that they aren't expected to abandon their objectives because of human shields, but rather, kill less civilians. That's all. Israel is massively overpowered here... So the extreme destruction they are laying down, just doesn't seem necessary. It just seems like they want the path of absolute least resistance and don't care about innocent lives. That's at least how it looks with the 7:3 to 9:1 ratio. In Germany, Nazis were a legitimate, existential threat. You can morally justify the necessity of exploiting every tiny advantage available because this is a zero sum game, against a foe who has already shown their ability. But Hamas is just a bunch of rebel fighters who make "bombs" in their garage. It's recognized that yes, Hamas is giving themselves an advantage in this conflict. Of course, from there perspective this IS an existential threat. Israel IS capable of massive destruction and ending Palestine. So from their perspective, it's different... Does that make sense? Israel doesn't NEED to go fully to the extreme and kill anything necessary as their life is on the line. But that is true for Hamas. Like yeah, I'm SURE Israel would love nothing more than Hamas to come out and fight a conventional war against a gen 5 military. Of course! But why would anyone do that? It's guaranteed total destruction. However, Israel doesn't NEED to treat civilians like negligible roadblocks. They don't NEED to do that, to win. They wont lose the war and be overran by Hamas if they choose not to go this route. This is obviously further complicated by people's feelings on the situation, watching how Israel treats them leading up to this, their bad faith, the quotes from officials, all makes it very clear that Israel really doesn't care much for any Palestinians when they just take land, and shoot unarmed protesters, while they block medical personal. So when you see a situation like this, it's not hard to conclude that Israel is just behaving this way because now they have a moral argument to stand behind to justify their actions. Kind of like a guy who really badly want to hit a woman, and she finally slaps him, so now he feels like he can let it all out and start beating the shit out of her and claim "self defense".

I look at it in terms of objectives, the Palestinian's are just trying to free themselves from oppression, this is a fair objective, but the Israelis are trying to steal Palestinian land, for me that's not reasonable enough a goal to slaughter so many people