Quote:
Originally Posted by Savvy27
No, it really isn't relevant. It's not relevant because the lack of a targeting system doesn't change the intent to hit non-combatants. I'm not sure what argument you think we are having, but my initial comment was responding to the suggestion that Hamas is primarily targeting IDF combatants and not civilians. I reject that suggestion because hundreds of rockets are being fired at urban centers. Are you claiming that if the Iron Dome was unable to intercept rockets, then Hamas would not be firing so many?
As for your question of whether Israel cares, I don't know (though I am convinced that many individual Israelis care a lot). It seems like the leadership of Israel is alarmingly comfortable with the fact that Palestinian civilians are being killed at a far, far greater rate than the people they are supposed to be aiming at (then again, they are employing measures to warn some civilians of impending attacks, so I suppose they care somewhat). From what I can tell, the leadership of Israel seems to believe that any improvement in the lives of Palestinians will amount to a greater threat to Israelis and they are willing to continue to take measures that cruelly oppress the Palestinian people. Currently, it seems that Israel will kill whoever they need to in order to weaken Hamas and to dismantle any sort of supply system that they are not in control of. I also believe that there is an element of collective punishment aimed at the Palestinian people for complicity in the actions of Hamas (which I feel is morally reprehensible).
You describe the targeting of civilian areas to kill the people launching rockets as 'madness' but is it? What should they do instead?
Tangent --> I am confused as to why some 'pro-Israel' posters ignored Flames Fan phd's challenge to outline legitimate grievances of Palestinians (and I think it suggests some blind spots).
|
If some people are going to say that yeah Palestinian civilian casualties are bad, but hey that's what happens when you bomb a densely populated area, then why can't there be an argument that Israeli civilian casualties are bad, but hey that's what happens when there's an occupation? Both sides are using what they have, Israel is using its massive firepower knowing there'll be civilian casualties, and hamas is using what they have. If israel can say well the civilian casualties are a necessity, why can't Hamas say this is all we have and we have no other means to end the occupation? Why is one group of civilian casualties ok, but the other isn't?