The problem is that they should have kept the civilian casualties to minimum
If they’re not trying to keep civilian casualties at a minimum, then why are so few Gazans dead considering the amount of ordinance at play?
We know why so few Israelis are dead, considering comparable amounts of firepower, but Gaza does not have the Iron Dome.
I’d their bombing was indiscriminate, surely they’d have killed more people, yeah? Do you think they’re just really inept, or do you think perhaps they might actually be trying not to kill civilians, and that’s just hard given the geography of the theater?
I absolutely agree that they can (looking only at military capability) wipe the floor with Palestine with indiscriminate bombardment in a few days.
But saying that not using that ability means they do enough to avoid civilian casualties is a pretty big jump in logic.
Military ability isn’t everything, geopolitics and market dependance exist. if they actually did that immediately, the response from international community wouldn’t be as mild as it’s now. So they actually can’t.
What I am saying is that there’s a full gradient of effort when it comes to avoiding or encouraging civilian casualties (and not giving a damn about them is in the middle).
The voices of Israeli ruling politicians before and after the start of this year’s conflict doesn’t exactly inspire a confidence that enough is being done to prevent them. Some used strategies even increase them unnecessarily with doubtful military gains.
But saying that not using that ability means they do enough to avoid civilian casualties is a pretty big jump in logic
The word “enough” is not found anywhere in my posts, because I think they could, an should, do more.
“It isn’t genocide” and “civilian casualties are a tragic feature of every war” are not blanket support of the status quo.
I believe Israel believes they have done everything possible. They are undeniably going above and beyond to act with restraint. I still believe they could do more, especially by putting up a military hard point in the south for aid. I think this would be costly, and dangerous, but is both morally correct and something that would help pave the way for instilling peace after this war.
If they’re not trying to keep civilian casualties at a minimum, then why are so few Gazans dead considering the amount of ordinance at play?
We know why so few Israelis are dead, considering comparable amounts of firepower, but Gaza does not have the Iron Dome.
I’d their bombing was indiscriminate, surely they’d have killed more people, yeah? Do you think they’re just really inept, or do you think perhaps they might actually be trying not to kill civilians, and that’s just hard given the geography of the theater?
I absolutely agree that they can (looking only at military capability) wipe the floor with Palestine with indiscriminate bombardment in a few days.
But saying that not using that ability means they do enough to avoid civilian casualties is a pretty big jump in logic.
Military ability isn’t everything, geopolitics and market dependance exist. if they actually did that immediately, the response from international community wouldn’t be as mild as it’s now. So they actually can’t.
What I am saying is that there’s a full gradient of effort when it comes to avoiding or encouraging civilian casualties (and not giving a damn about them is in the middle).
The voices of Israeli ruling politicians before and after the start of this year’s conflict doesn’t exactly inspire a confidence that enough is being done to prevent them. Some used strategies even increase them unnecessarily with doubtful military gains.
The word “enough” is not found anywhere in my posts, because I think they could, an should, do more.
“It isn’t genocide” and “civilian casualties are a tragic feature of every war” are not blanket support of the status quo.
I believe Israel believes they have done everything possible. They are undeniably going above and beyond to act with restraint. I still believe they could do more, especially by putting up a military hard point in the south for aid. I think this would be costly, and dangerous, but is both morally correct and something that would help pave the way for instilling peace after this war.