Israeli troops have entered Nasser Medical Complex, the hospital in southern Gaza where thousands of displaced Palestinians had been sheltering in recent days, Gaza’s health ministry and the Israeli military said on Thursday.
Ashraf al-Qudra, the health ministry’s spokesman, said in a statement that the Israeli military had demolished the complex’s southern wall and begun storming it. In a second statement, he said Israeli forces were targeting the hospital’s orthopedic department, killing one patient and injuring several others.
The Israeli military said in its own statement on Thursday morning that it was “conducting a precise and limited operation inside Nasser” against Hamas, which it accused of hiding in the hospital among wounded civilians. It said it had intelligence, including from released hostages, that Hamas had held hostages at the hospital and that bodies of hostages could be at the hospital.
They’re going after Hamas fighters and hostages
…and don’t show too much concern for the civilians in the midst who die as a result of IDF actions
“Hamas uses them like human shields, we warned them to leave the hospital/the house/the street/Gaza City/Khan Younis/Gaza entirely”
If someone takes a hostage/uses human shields, you don’t stoop to the same level and disregard that human life, bombing/shooting anyway bc ‘muh military necessity’
That last part isn’t always as black and white as we’d like it to be, though. When (the conventional forces of) ISIS had been surrounded in Raqqa they just bombed and shot the shit out of them, civilians be damned. Horrible, but those that decry it don’t usually offer any realistic alternative.
Here’s an alternative then:
Israel makes an effort to provide a space away from the fighting, where civilians can live until “Hamas is destroyed”. It doesn’t even have to be outside of Gaza, but it’s arguably a better security idea to make a new camp inside Israel proper
The IDF made a big noise about ‘defeating’ Al-Qassam in northern Gaza around Gaza City, that was an opportunity to provide a safe area.
It won’t be perfect at keeping militants OUT of the camp, but it would help keep civilians AWAY from the fighting
Moving the civilians from Rafah to tent cities is exactly what Israel has proposed. But what do you do with the civilians that choose to remain?
I’m not falling into the Nirvana fallacy. There will always be holdouts (people were living in Bahkmut during the siege, refusing to evacuate) but that doesn’t then give the IDF permission to throw up their hands and say “welp, we tried - bombs away” Shooting through a human shield is not a moral strategy, nor a long term strategy, and eventually you’ll apply that tactic against the people you’re trying to save, not just ‘enemy’ civilians
It’s unclear what you’re advocating for then. Why move some civilians to tent cities if you’re not going to attack Hamas anyway?
It’s not a binary choice of “Attac Hamas” or “No attac Hamas” dude. I want Israel to use ✨proportional force ✨whilst respecting that Palestinian civilians have a right to exist, and actually restraining themselves beyond fig leaf efforts.
The core objection is the how. Why the massively disproportionate force is encouraged by the IDF as its own ‘tool of terror’ to dissuade the population of those it fights against
What would you consider proportional force (many stars around it) when people are firing at you from inside a hospital?
Unfortunately, its not that simple. Hamas is a terrorist organization that activly targets civilians, often over military targets. Killing them sooner, as well as helping end the war, protects civilian lives. Its a terrible calculus, but when you’re fighting an organization that has no respect for law, nor human rights then thats what happens. You kill them, or you let them continue to kill civilians and millitary personal alike.
That said, saying that Israel is just doing this because Hamas is using civilians as a sheild is giving Israel way too much credit. They have repeatedly been caught shooting unarmed and fleeing civilians, targeting refugees, and they have a long history of this treatment towards Palistinians. Israel is almost as willing to kill civilians as Hamas, and actually have the weapons to do so.
That is literally the opposite of decades of think tank, academic, and military research into Counter Insurgency strategies. You need to show the civilians living in the area that there’s another way via political process, and that rejecting violence is the way forward. Al-Qassam exists and is given permissive operations inside of Gaza because the people view them as the best route to a future. Throwing stones at a brick wall isn’t effective, but to Palestinians in a hopeless scenario it’s understandable to take up violence when the alternative is ethnic destruction in slow-motion.
Israel isn’t offering any solution but continued suffering, displacement as refugees, or ethnic cleansing. I disagree with the Palestinian resistance, but we are here because of years of failed peace processes where Israel rejects the option of dignity for Palestine.
I agree overall, and that was exactly my point with, “history of this behavior towards Palistine”. Its also why I felt the need to specify that Israel is killing civilians outside of when Hamas hides behind them. Israel is not a “good guy” here, and their misdeeds are what spurred this on.
My point was on negotiating with terrorists, once they’ve already turned to violence. If it gets to the point of terrorism, its a lot harder to just let individuals involved walk free. Hamas will just keep trying to kill people, and keep hiding behind civilians, continuing to cost lives.
Again, I agree overall, but even if Israel withdraws from Palistine, walks back all their oppresive policies and agrees to start cracking down on mistreatment from individual Israelis, Hamas won’t just disolve overnight nor will radicalized individuals immediately put down their arms. Its a process that takes decades (likely longer given how long and how intensely Israel has been oppressing Palistine), which doesn’t help when you’re deciding whether or not to shoot the terrorist with a hostage.
It’s a long road for Northern Ireland, but it’s working right now, despite Brexit issues. The key difference is that the state recognized its role in perpetuating the cycle of violence, and chose to offer another route.
There are a lot of parallels in that resistance struggle with Palestine, but while a good compromise leaves everyone upset today, your children get to grow up hearing bombs on TV, instead of their nightmares.
Plenty of insurgencies have been ‘solved’ effectively by violence. A lot more actually. And in this case, a peaceful solution is almost impossible because at its roots it’s a religious conflict.
If by ‘solved effectively by violence’ you mean ‘genocided’ or ‘ethnically cleansed’ then yes. Is that what you’re suggesting is proper and good?
Proper and good?? No, it’s horrible.
In the case of Western-Sahara though, the threat of extreme violence was enough to pacify the resistance without any political concessions.
But my main point here is that because of religious differences, both zionist and muslim fundamentalists will never be able to peacefully coexist, as they believe god doesn’t want them to. And there are plenty of them on both sides
Unfortunately true, and we’re arming one side currently. I want no holy wars, but I definitely don’t want to be allied to a belligerent to one.
Hadn’t heard of the Western Sahara case before, thanks for the reading 👍
Reported
I’m not sure what is reportable there. Im literally saying civilian deaths should be minimized. Is it because I’m acknowledging Israel has repeatedly targeted civilians?
I think you’ve replied to the wrong comment
Anyway that user has a history of, how should I put it… Not really valuing opposing viewpoints
Not appreciating genocide is a better description. Get outta here.
They are going for ethnic cleansing, and its pretty obvious by now.
You’re getting down voted for a factual statement. That makes a lot of sense. /s
Removed by mod
Pretend scenar?
10 people are brought in on a line up and a witness is asked who was guilty of the murder. The witness identifies 1 of the people as the murderer never having seen the other 9. They gun down all 10 to be sure the murder doesn’t get away.
Do you think that scenario would be the right thing to do?
Before I answer, could you give me a hint on how your scenario relates to the raid into this hospital?