Israel declares war on Hamas

[Bagor]

Hospitals, schools , universities, places of worship, residential buildings. You'd think they've destroyed everything that they possibly can?

Add cemeteries to the list.

At least 16 cemeteries in Gaza have been desecrated by Israeli forces, satellite imagery and videos reveal.

The Israeli military has desecrated at least 16 cemeteries in its ground offensive in Gaza, a CNN investigation has found, leaving gravestones ruined, soil upturned, and, in some cases, bodies unearthed.

In Khan Younis, in southern Gaza, where fighting escalated earlier this week, Israeli forces destroyed a cemetery, removing bodies in what the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) told CNN was part of a search for the remains of hostages seized by Hamas during the October 7 terror attacks.

CNN has reviewed satellite imagery and social media footage showing the destruction of cemeteries and witnessed it firsthand while traveling with the IDF in a convoy. Together the evidence reveals a systemic practice where Israeli ground forces have advanced across the Gaza Strip.

The intentional destruction of religious sites, such as cemeteries, violates international law, except under narrow circumstances relating to that site becoming a military objective, and legal experts told CNN that Israel’s acts could amount to war crimes.

A spokesman for the IDF could not account for the destruction of the 16 cemeteries CNN provided coordinates for, but said the military sometimes has “no other choice” but to target cemeteries it claimed Hamas uses for military purposes.

The IDF said rescuing the hostages and finding and returning their bodies is one of its key missions in Gaza, which is why bodies were removed from some gravesites.

“The hostage identification process, conducted at a secure and alternative location, ensures optimal professional conditions and respect for the deceased,” an IDF spokesperson told CNN, adding that bodies determined not be those of hostages are “returned with dignity and respect.”

But in other cases, the Israeli military appears to have used cemeteries as military outposts. CNN’s analysis of satellite imagery and videos showed that Israeli bulldozers turned multiple cemeteries into staging grounds, leveling large swaths and erecting berms to fortify their positions.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/20/middl...cmd/index.html

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think the question that doesn’t seem to get answered is Does one support the current amount of civilian death and displacement in order to eradicate Hamas.

No one likes to say they support killing civilians and so leave it as a generic statement of supporting the war.

The same way someone might reluctant to say that if Jewish life’s are lost in future terrorist attacks by Hamas because of failed elimination that is an acceptable loss because it saved far more Palestinian civilians then people lost in future attacks. Or at least at a minimum support more IDF deaths to eliminate Hamas in order to save civilians.

But I think there should be far more honest discussions around people’s willingness to sacrifice others who aren’t them.

Nailed it.

For me, and I don’t know the answer, I think the path that preserves as many civilian lives as possible (with life itself the first priority and quality of life the second) is the moral one. Sacrificing Hamas lives to achieve that is a no-brainer, but I absolutely believe that protecting Palestinian and Israeli civilian lives is more important than protecting IDF lives. That’s the job, that’s what they signed up for, and if an approach exists that preserves more Palestinian and Israeli civilian lives at the greater risk of IDF lives, then that’s the approach that should be taken. And if Hamas is going to exist regardless of the extent of this offensive, we should be willing to look at the real (not perceived) danger and measure the response that way. It’s one thing for them to want to eliminate Israel, it’s another if they have the means, and they don’t.

[LanceUppercut]

No soldier is going to assault a building knowing that they, and one or more of their squad might die when an airstrike will level it and you can move on to the next hot spot.



It sucks for the civilians, but it's the honest truth.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by LanceUppercut

No soldier is going to assault a building knowing that they, and one or more of their squad might die when an airstrike will level it and you can move on to the next hot spot.



It sucks for the civilians, but it's the honest truth.

Sucks for soldiers, because that’s the job.

It’s a pretty short leap to justifying nukes from there.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by LanceUppercut

No soldier is going to assault a building knowing that they, and one or more of their squad might die when an airstrike will level it and you can move on to the next hot spot.

It sucks for the civilians, but it's the honest truth.

That's why we shouldn't let soldiers make those decisions.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sucks for soldiers, because that’s the job.

It’s a pretty short leap to justifying nukes from there.

It does justify them legally, hence Hiroshima, we nuked Japan twice so that GI's didnt have to die

[LanceUppercut]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That's why we shouldn't let soldiers make those decisions.

No soldier's commander is going to order them to assault a building with potential 50% losses when an airstrike will solve the issue.



Unless that commander is Russian.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by LanceUppercut

No soldier's commander is going to order them to assault a building with potential 50% losses when an airstrike will solve the issue.



Unless that commander is Russian.

In fairness the Russian commander will call in an air strike only to be told the aircrew is drunk on the planes anti freeze, 3 hours later they will then bomb the commanders position by mistake, if he survives that he will order his troops in, starting with the Muslim and Asian looking ones

[activeStick]

So, apparently, Israel's foreign minister suggested to a bunch of EU foreign ministers in Brussels that they relocate Palestinians to an artificial island in the Mediterranean... This stuff is so crazy. The dude literally presented a video to them on this proposal in this meeting.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by activeStick

So, apparently, Israel's foreign minister suggested to a bunch of EU foreign ministers in Brussels that they relocate Palestinians to an artificial island in the Mediterranean... This stuff is so crazy. The dude literally presented a video to them on this proposal in this meeting.

Source?

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by activeStick

So, apparently, Israel's foreign minister suggested to a bunch of EU foreign ministers in Brussels that they relocate Palestinians to an artificial island in the Mediterranean... This stuff is so crazy. The dude literally presented a video to them on this proposal in this meeting.

There have been enough visits by the US Secretary of State to EU countries like Cyprus and Greece to discuss potentially sending people there. They are very close to Isreal and Gaza and there was discussion about a humanitarian safe passage.

I do think Isreal and the US perhaps thought a more welcoming or urgent stance from the EU would have allowed this to go through. I can almost assure everybody that the pushback from a plan like this would have been significant. Perhaps Isreal was banking on more people from Gaza actually leaving to go elsewhere when they started the campaign. Short of stopping, slowing down significantly or killing almost everybody, they don't have much of a plan for how to deal with the injured, killed or starving.

The EU has taken so many refugee's from war torn countries, Syria, Ukraine and more, the general population has pretty much had it with that.

[activeStick]

Forgot to add a few links to the insane suggestion. I think the Germans had also suggested moving Jews to an island too in WW2, but I can't be certain.

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2...levant-borrell

https://www.irishtimes.com/world/mid...ush-for-peace/

[Fuzz]

Well Israel has to figure out something, they've got over 2 million people to get rid of. They aren't going to just let them stay there.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Source?

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2...levant-borrell

Katz, who was recently appointed Israel's foreign minister, showed his European counterparts two videos during the meeting, Borrell said.

The first promoted a rail infrastructure project connecting Gaza with the occupied Palestinian territory of the West Bank. The second showed a proposal to build an artificial island in the Mediterranean Sea off the Gazan coast that would serve as a commercial hub linking the Gaza Strip with the rest of the world.

The infrastructure project dates back to Katz's time as Israel's transport minister and was first pitched in a 2017 video as "an answer to a reality that is bad for the Palestinians and not good for Israel," according to Reuters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Katz

Peace and security
On peace and security matters, Katz is considered to be a hardliner in the Israeli government.[27][28] He takes an annexationist view of the West Bank: he supports continued settlement construction,[citation needed] extending full Israeli sovereignty to the West Bank, and severing all relations with the Palestinian Authority.[29][30] He opposes the two-state solution and the creation of a Palestinian state in any form, which he regards as unacceptable considering "our rights to this land". Instead, Katz favors the creation of an autonomous Palestinian entity "with Jordanian civil and political affiliation", and connecting the Gaza Strip to Egypt.[31] He opposes any territorial retreat from the Golan Heights, captured from Syria during the Six-Day War, deeming it "an integral part of Israel and vital for its security and protection."[32]

I really hope people don't have false illusions and understand how extreme Israel's current government is (even if you support Israel in general). This guy is the foreign minister and wants Palestinians removed.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Forgot to add a few links to the insane suggestion. I think the Germans had also suggested moving Jews to an island too in WW2, but I can't be certain.

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2...levant-borrell

https://www.irishtimes.com/world/mid...ush-for-peace/

From you article.

Katz did not suggest the island could be used to house Gazans, nor did he link the initiative to the so-called two-state solution, the diplomatic source added.

Not sure where you got the idea that they want to move Palestinians there.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Well Israel has to figure out something, they've got over 2 million people to get rid of. They aren't going to just let them stay there.

Maybe they could pull a card out of Canada and Austrilia's book at kidnap children, forcing them into boarding schools where they have to learn Judaism. It would only take a century.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That's why we shouldn't let soldiers make those decisions.

who should be making those decisions?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

who should be making those decisions?

If you are talking about the tradeoff between lives of soldiers and civilians, where an airstrike saves all the soldiers but kills all the civilians, that sounds like military command should make those while being accountable to the legality of them.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If you are talking about the tradeoff between lives of soldiers and civilians, where an airstrike saves all the soldiers but kills all the civilians, that sounds like military command should make those while being accountable to the legality of them.

Agreed.

Military Command, aka soldiers, should make those decisions and should be held legally accountable for the decisions they make.

So we agree soldiers should make those decisions.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Agreed.

Military Command, aka soldiers, should make those decisions and should be held legally accountable for the decisions they make.

So we agree soldiers should make those decisions.

OK, sorry my lack of knowledge of military command structures doesn't go beyond what I see on TV(so, uh, probably totally correct!). I guess I meant more oversight than the guy in the field calling in an airstrike and 30 seconds later boom booms?