'Children were carrying other injured children': Witness describes aftermath of Israeli strike on Gaza refugee camp

[groundloop]

Source: CNN




Jerusalem
CNN
—
An Israeli strike targeting a Hamas commander in the densely populated Jabalya refugee camp in northern Gaza has left catastrophic damage and killed a large number of people, according to eyewitnesses and medics in the enclave.

“I was waiting in line to buy bread when suddenly and without any prior warning seven to eight missiles fell,” an eyewitness, Mohammad Ibrahim, told CNN.

“There were seven to eight huge holes in the ground, full of killed people, body parts all over the place,” he said. “It felt like the end of the world.”

[snip]

“Children were carrying other injured children and running, with grey dust filling the air. Bodies were hanging on the rubble, many of them unrecognized. Some were bleeding and others were burnt,” Al Aswad told CNN by telephone.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/31/middleeast/jabalya-blast-gaza-intl/index.html

[sybylla]

1. 3 words...

War Fucking Crime. WTAF?

[brooklynite]

4. War crimes by Hamas?

[ck4829]

9. Is this whataboutism?

[unconventional]

28. More like bury-head-in-sandism

[TexasDem69]

52. How was it a war crime?

[womanofthehills]

109. Let's see? Maybe 4000 dead innocent children

Maybe starving horrifically traumatized children, making them drink dirty water- if any water at all, bombing all the hospitals so when they lose a limb they just bleed to death, killing their siblings & parents bombing their house, having no electricity, having to sleep on the floor in a UN building - if you think this is not a war crime -I feel sad for you. Do you have children?

[TexasDem69]

111. Do you have any links suggesting that actually happened

Cause it sounds made up

[Butterflylady]

113. Do you live on this planet or our just visiting?

[womanofthehills]

117. Guess you haven't seen the thousands of horrific images on TicToc & Twitter

It's 2023 and EVERYONE has a cell phone!

[hueymahl]

2. Israel may be successful in the short term

But at what price? How many dead children are an acceptable number?

[slightlv]

3. It's not just the number of dead children

and others... it's ensuring the cycle of violence will continue far into the future. For each person impacted in Gaza and in Israel, the numbers of young who harden their hearts will grow. This should not have happened. Hamas should have moved the targeted individuals out of the area, but they didn't, and in not doing so show in plain language what they think of their own Palestinian people. But again, it's not the common people but governments both formal and informal who make war. Common people are just stuck in the middle with no place to escape. How many ordinary citizens did we kill while bombing "high value" targets in Afghanistan? I hate war, period. Look past the ideology and you'll find common reasons across all governments for making war. Look back further, and you can see those same arguments even through anthropological evidence through the ages. I don't know if we can do better, but I wish we could replace all male government officials with females and give it a try. And I'm not saying we're perfect; far from it. But I think governments would take on a different face and different priorities if women made the rules. Bearing children and then burying them makes one feel and think in a different way, I'd think. Or maybe I'm just sick and tired of all the testosterone fueled violence in the world, including all the mass shootings right here in our own country.

[hueymahl]

11. I'd be willing to give anything a try at this point

The bloodshed has to stop. More female leaders may be a good start.

All I know is the cycle of violence and reprisals is not working.

[James48]

5. This is a real problem.

Israel can’t legally kill people like that.

To be legal target in war, a target must have a military function. You can’t just lob missiles into an area when the area is filled with people. Civilians cannot be intentionally targeted.
I think a temporary cease fire, of, say, 96 hours, is needed to allow removal and return of bodies, and humanitarian relief in- and a way for people to get out of the way.

Cease fire. Please. Now.

[Beastly Boy]

10. The 4th Geneva Convention is clear about what constitutes a legitimate

military target and who is responsible for civilian casualties when a military target is hit.

And it ain't Israel. (Hint: it's Hamas)

[hueymahl]

13. I'm sorry.

If you are defending this, you need to seriously think about your inner morality. You may actually be right that the Geneva convention does not call this a war crime. Who cares. It is morally repugnant, and I denounce it.

And yes. I denounce hamas just as vehemently for their role.

[Beastly Boy]

14. I denounce all the violence too. The difference between us is

that your denouncement is based on perception alone, and my denouncement is proportional to the relative guilt of the parties involved.

If you think denouncing the violence you see portrayed in the media is more moral than denouncing the underlying causes of violence, you have no standing to judge other people's morality, and you should examine yours instead.

[hueymahl]

15. Struck a nerve?

You have no idea what my basis for objecting to this war is, or what my understanding of it is. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous at best.

[Beastly Boy]

18. I may have a better idea what your basis for judgement is than you would

care to admit to. But what you stated so far speaks for itself. You are claiming superior moral ground based on your reaction to what you saw on CNN. If this is not the case, you have yet to elaborate on your moral standing.

And "Struck a nerve?" falls nowhere close to making your case. It is a generic response kids routinely resort to when they run out of arguments.

[Beastly Boy]

36. It was your choice to keep a blind eye to the long history of the conflict.

Just as it is your choice (and that of Amnesty) to keep a blind eye to the literal sabotage of the English language when using terms like "apartheid", "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" ridiculously out of place and context. I can't help that, it's on you to reconcile how you use these terms with what they actually mean. Good luck with that, and please keep me out of deconstructing the English language in the coordinated pursuit of normalizing antisemitism.

But, if you can't bring yourself to taking off the blinders of your narrow vision of the overall history of the conflict, ask yourself this: who is the oppressor here? Hamas has been in charge of Gaza for a decade, their charter is full of references that justify oppression, and ethnic cleansing (literally consistent with the definition of the word), they dispose of their Palestinian rivals without remorse, they kept Gaza in poverty while spending billions on themselves and their military infrastructure, As we text, their leader denied any responsibility for the fate of the Gaza civilians (As we text, their leader denied any responsibility for the fate of the Gaza civilians).

So who is the oppressor of the Gaza Palestinians here?

[disablegamer]

37. why are you being so blood thirsty with revenge

I have no problem with Israel existing as a country, but this is wrong . If the USA did it we be up in arms calling out our leaders here. Its not about who is Jewish or what its just wrong to do just to expand a land grab into Gaza.

[Beastly Boy]

40. Bloodthirsty and pragmatic are far from being synonymous.

You might even say that I am shocking you into the brutality of the war, but that doesn't make me vengeful or bloodthirsty any more than your outlook makes you Pollyannaish.

I am just being honest, first and foremost with myself, and that requires me to reject the dumbed down "but Israel" narrative in this incredibly complex and nuanced conflict.

[Avalon Sparks]

55. It's not complicated

It’s actually it's simple:

- Israel is a Western settler-colonialist project founded on the mass ethnic cleansing of indigenous Palestinians.

- US imperialism uses Israel as a military outpost in resource-rich West Asia.

- Israel has illegally occupied Palestinian land for decades and will never allow Palestinians to create a state of their own.

- Palestinians living under Israeli control are subjected to a brutal apartheid regime, as even Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch now admit.

- Another 6 million Palestinians are registered as refugees with the UN, and Israel denies them their legal right to return to their homeland.

- Palestinians have a right under international law to armed resistance against Israeli colonialism, as stated clearly in UN General Assembly resolution 35/35, among others.

- Israel's government has become increasingly far-right, racist, and eliminationist, and current members of the ruling coalition include literal fascist parties who want to commit genocide against Palestinians. That's what they are trying to do now, while hoping to once again ethnically cleanse the Palestinians who survive, forcing them out of Gaza into Egypt.

- The majority of the world, including almost all of the Global South (with a few exceptions), supports the Palestinian national-liberation struggle. Israel is supported by the United States and its proxies. But Washington uses its veto in the UN Security Council to prevent any international action against Israel's constant crimes against humanity.

[Beastly Boy]

82. If you don't do complicated, you may as well try calling Palestine

Last edited Thu Nov 2, 2023, 08:07 AM - Edit history (1)

an Ottoman settler-colonialist project, or, alternatively, a Crusader colonialist project, or alternatively an Arab imperialist conquest.

You can argue with equal conviction that Egypt, with its Suez Canal, is the outpost of US in resource-rich West Asia. Or, equally ridiculous, you may argue that Gaza is an outpost for West Asian resources to reach wealth-rich Europe and the US. Or, you may argue that Israel is a military deterrent against Iran taking over resource-rich West Asia. Or, in a bout of especially astute lucidity, you may even argue that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and the US likes it to remain such, while the less stable repressive Islamic regimes in the rest of the resource-rich West Asia don't.

You may as well argue that Israel is the only legitimate and universally recognized sovereign state in the land of Palestine, and the Palestinian leaders repeatedly refused to claim their part of Palestinian land, as their Arab neighbors Egypt and Jordan annexed the Palestinian Arab share of it.

You might argue that you have no clue what apartheid means, but something tells me you won't. You may also argue that, like yourself, Amnesty and HRW representatives have never consulted either the ICC Rome Convention or the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, where the term is clearly defined, and it ain't what you think it is.

You may argue with equal conviction that 900,000 Jews brutally exiled from their centuries-old homes in various Muslim states between 1948 and 1980, along with their descendants, are equally entitled to return to their former homes and be compensated for confiscated property. You may also argue that there is no such thing as legal right to return, only a UN resolution conditional on "return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours" and that upon producing legal claim to a place of residence and an express wish to live at peace with their neighbors (which, I presume, would exclude the Jew-hating terrorists and demagogues), "should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date" by Israel.

You may argue, if you are so inclined, which you are not, that UNGA resolutions have the legal status of a lunch menu at your local diner, and that struggle for self-determination, as outlined in the UNGA resolution 35/35, does not include terrorism, attacks on civilians, or any other actions prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention, support of Global South notwithstanding.

And once again, you may argue that it is best to refer to the Rome Convention for the definition of "ethnic cleansing" before making references to what you have no clue about.

Other than that, yeah it's quite simple.

[Avalon Sparks]

91. I'll stick with the Human Rights organization

I’ll stick with whatever Amnesty and most other Human Rights groups are saying, thanks. Here are just a few:

“ceasefire now"
@UNICEF

"ceasefire now"
@WHO

"ceasefire now"
@WFP

"ceasefire now"
@Pontifex

"ceasefire now"
@Oxfam

"ceasefire now"
@save_children

"ceasefire now"
@NRC_Norway

"ceasefire now"
@WarChildUK

"ceasefire now"
@IRWorldwide

"ceasefire now"
@christianaid

"ceasefire now"
@careintuk

"ceasefire now"
@CAFOD

"ceasefire now"
@PlanUK

"ceasefire now"
@ActionAid

"ceasefire now"
@Saferworld

"ceasefire now"
@MedicalAidPal

"ceasefire now"
@UNDP

"ceasefire now"
@UNFPA

"ceasefire now"
@UNHumanRights

"ceasefire now"
@UNRWA

[Beastly Boy]

101. Wait, what happened to "apartheid" and "ethnic cleansing"?

Or the laughable claim of legal grounds for the unrestricted "right of return"?
or the "settler colonist" BS?
or the US military outpost gibberish?
or the "illegal occupation" of Israel by Israelis?
or the unabridged "right" for armed resistance?
Or Israel being the only universally recognized sovereign state in Palestine and the only pluralistic liberal democracy in the Middle East?

What, suddenly things became complicated and it's time to fall back on content-free memes and mantras?

Mmm-kay! Knock yourself out!

[Beastly Boy]

108. Truthfully? Cross your heart? Why then are you replying to the post you didn't bother to read?

That's a bit perplexing, isn't it?

The dogma you are pushing is as rigid as it is obvious. I was never under the illusion that you would permit your mind to change, no matter how many facts you are confronted with that would compel a reasonable mind to change. What i wanted to demonstrate, most of all to you, is that your dogma doesn't control the narrative. And it cannot control the narrative because it has too many holes in it, which are easily exposed. Denying, obfuscating and deflecting are but a few recognizable signs of a narrative spinning out of control.

Cease fire was never an issue until you brought it up just recently. And guess what: I am not biting... Did I mention deflecting?

Truthfully... Did I mention obfuscating?

You didn't bother to read what I posted... Did I mention denying?

To quote a certain poster, it's not complicated.

[EX500rider]

106. Quite the diatribe of buzz words

Makes me wonder if you carry around Mao's Little Red Book?

[Beastly Boy]

81. Don't kid yourself. You are not debating.

There is no debating when cause and effect are interchangeable at will, and words lose their intended meaning just because. There is no debating when history is reduced to disjointed episodes that are most convenient to push a narrative and when objections are raised to calling things by their proper names. There is no debating when pre-packaged memes take place of arguments and dogma rules over reason.

[sadasfyed]

112. Both are terrorist groups

We created Isis by indiscriminate bombing , now Israel is just as guilty. We cannot support Israel anymore. Hamas is their problem. History of the region is bloody , all religions are excuses for killing. No one can excuse either Hamas or Israel, they are both wrong

[Beastly Boy]

115. That's revisionist baloney.

You are assuming that terrorists, unlike the rest of us, don't have free will. You are assuming that they don't hide under schools and hospitals by choice. You are not concerned that they slaughter civilians with their bare hands by the thousands because they CHOOSE to, not because...Israel or because... US.

Israel is a democracy. Hamas, Hezbollah and ISIS are genocidal theocracies. Israel is wrong, Hamas is evil. I know who I am going to support.

[whathehell]

120. " All religions are excuses for killing"??

Nonsense. "Thou shalt not kill" is the principle mandate of all major religions.

[Autumn_Angler]

50. Blowing babies heads off with AR-15's

and kidnapping, raping, and killing women is "resistence" in your world.

Have you sought professional help?

[TexasDem69]

64. I haven't seen any stories

Where the IDF invaded a settlement in Gaza and shot or stabbed children in their cribs, or attacked a concert and slaughtered hundreds of civilians and took hundreds more hostage. I know Hamas did that, but point me to stories of the IDF doing that

[agingdem]

80. both sides?...bullshit!

Hama's mandate is to kill every Jewish man/woman/child...period!...Hamas laid an 8 1/2 siege, invading homes, beheading babies, raping women, torturing and killing families, setting the elderly on fire, slaughtering young people at a music festival, kidnapping hundred of innocent Israelis and rejoicing/cheering their "work"...Israel retaliated after warning the residents to leave...the plight of the Palestinian in Gaza is self inflicted...Hamas is their de facto government, stealing humanitarian aid to line their pockets and purchase weapons from sympathetic countries...they stockpile weapons in tunnels under homes, mosques, schools, hospitals and wherever Palestinians congregate...

not both sides...Hamas and only Hamas...

[marble falls]

119. Have you read the TOS???

[TexasDem69]

53. Hamas' slaughter of children

And women and non-Israelis, and taking hostages and parading them around the streets, made you realize that Israel is somehow at fault? That’s shocking.

[TexasDem69]

61. Are you comparing Hamas child-murderers

And Nelson Mandela? You really think that is a valid comparison? And are you suggesting that the terrorist group Hamas isn’t a terrorist group? Hamas’ stated goal is the elimination of Israel as a political entity.

I can’t believe that I’m reading this on DU.

[TexasDem69]

65. Whoa

Now you’re suggesting that the US shouldn’t have attacked Afghanistan?

[TexasDem69]

69. I call bullshit

There’s zero chance that 100% of folks on DU thought that the US was wrong to attack Afghanistan to bring Bin Laden to justice. And even in hindsight, 20+ years later, it was absolutely the right thing to do.

[duhneece]

93. Maybe not 100% but the vast majority DUer opposed bombing Afghanistan and Iraq

I can’t remember even one DUer supporting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We did support President Obama capturing/killing Osama bin Laden without bombing the neighborhood he lived in.

[duhneece]

98. It was the only reason I joined

My red county was so pro-war and I felt entirely alone. My bestie suggested I check DU out and OMG, I knew I was not alone.

[TexasDem69]

70. Quit deflecting

The issue is Hamas’ terrorism, which is the sole cause of the deaths in Gaza. There’s a reason that about 90% of DU supports Israel in this conflict, and it’s because Hamas is comprised of murderers and animals bent on annihilating Israel

[onecaliberal]

46. Of course they can, you have people on this site who say it's what they get.

This is genocide. Period.

[TexasDem69]

62. You keep saying that

In numerous posts, but you’ve never explained how it’s genocide. And thankfully the vast majority of DU disagrees with you.

[TexasDem69]

72. So now there are a million dead?

[Seeking Serenity]

86. (Pssst -- It's the party of the president in office at the time)

I mean, this has always been a hyper-partisan board and rightly so. It's in the name. That ackknowledged, when Chimp/Cheney bombed innocents on the other side of the planet? Mucho texto in innumerable threads on how horrible, America doing what America does, and the usual talking points.

Obama bombs innocents on the other side of the planet? (Please correct me if my hyperbolic point is based on my misremembering) Maybe one post in LBN, a smattering of discussion; maybe even some sheepish, embarrassed tut-tutting; but not much more. And to the extent it gets talked about, it's the fault of the "US", "the Pentagon" or some other actor that's not the president. Because we're not allowed to criticise or critique a Democratic president, his actions, or his policies.

So being anti-war apparently isn't a principle, it's simply a tool -- a sword to be used when Repub's are in charge and to be sheathed when Democrats are in power.

At least that's what I've gathered over my years poking my head in and out here. YMMV

[Goddessartist]

87. My 97 year old Jewish mother in law, and her five children call it genocide.

As do I. They have deep ties to Israel.

[Goddessartist]

97. Yes! Thank you as well.

We're on the same page.

Peace to you and yours as well.

[LeftInTX]

107. Geneva conventions show that the government of Gaza (Hamas affiliates) has a responsibility to prove

that no combatants are on the site. Unfortunately, the government of Gaza is considered the combatant in this case.
I'm sorry, it's a mess.

[appleannie1]

6. This is just plain sick. I swear they are trying to wipe the entire country and everyone in it off the map.

[NoRethugFriends]

26. Hamas? Yes, definitely they would like to. And not just the country. Jews everywhere.

Link to tweet

]

[IronLionZion]

7. Refugees there don't have anywhere to go

bombings have destroyed homes, hospitals, workplaces, etc. They can't leave Gaza. It's not so easy for them to just head south as if there's any space for them. There are bombings in the south too.

While Hamas is undoubtedly evil, maybe this is what they want? Maybe they wanted to provoke the worst retaliation. It's not like that area is known for excellent mental health care. Not a lot of promising career opportunities in a refugee camp.

[Seeking Serenity]

8. Sorry not sorry, but I no longer "stand with Israel"

Speaking to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, IDF spokesperson Lt. Col. Richard Hecht accused Hamas of “hiding, as they do, behind civilians.” Reminded that there are many innocent civilians in the camp, Hecht responded, “This is the tragedy of war” and urged civilians to move south.

This quote doesn't even begin to capture the callousness with which this IDF lieutenant colonel spoke to Wolf Blitzer. I watched the interview, Blitzer sounded like he was trying to appeal to this Hecht guy's humanity, but Hecht had the demeanour of, "Eh, this is just one of those things that happens. Sucks to be them."

I'm done. And to all the bloodthirsty Democrats who seem to want US personnel involvement in this s***storm, I turn my back to you. I will not support you on this.

[hueymahl]

12. I am with you

I have already had several posts removed protesting war and violence. Do your worst, warmongers. I will not be quiet. These are not Democratic values.

[onecaliberal]

47. Me too. I am devastated at the people I thought were Dems supporting this.

[EX500rider]

116. "I have already had several posts removed protesting war and violence."

Somehow I doubt that's why they were removed, those reasons break no rules.

[hueymahl]

118. I'd be happy to share them via dm

You can judge for yourself

[Novara]

16. So what if they are "hiding behind civilians."

Does it justify bombing those civilians? Do those civilians have a choice?

Israel DOES have a choice. They can decide to not bomb hospitals full of vulnerable people and they can choose not to bomb refugee centers that house people with nowhere to go.

Nothing justified killing refugees.

[Beastly Boy]

19. As a matter of fact, it does.

Look up Article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

[Seeking Serenity]

23. There's legalism, then there's morality

You can cite every convention, rule of war, what have you. That may make Israel's action legal, but it will NEVER make bombing a [expletive deleted] REFUGEE CAMP with [expletive deleted] children in it moral!

I DO NOT stand with Israel, and I DO NOT stand with ANYONE that hand-waves this barbaric act on the grounds that "it was legal to do." These are NOT (or didn't use to be anyway) Democratic Party values!!

[Beastly Boy]

27. It is both illegal and immoral for Hamas to conduct war out of a refugee camp.

It was Hamas intention to harm civilians, it was not Israel's intention. If it weren't for the inexcusable immorality of Hamas, no civilians would have been harmed.

Did you ever think of that, or does morality, in contrast to legality, only go one way?

[Novara]

30. Nobody said Israel HAD to bomb every place they think Hamas might be hiding

I really hope you aren't making excuses for Israel to bomb innocent children but it sure sounds like you are.

There are no good guys here.

Not every action requires a much harsher reaction.

Remember the 1993 bombing in the WTC garage? Those terrorists were trained by al Queda. We didn't go bomb a country in retaliation.

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

[BuddhaGirl]

33. +1000

Sad to see the excusing of this attack. Hamas is evil and Israel should be condemned for responding with such heinous attacks.

[Beastly Boy]

34. In the long history of terrorism, a brutally harsh reaction has proven to be

the only deterrent to terrorism. Anyone who denies this is willfully blind. Your 1993 example is an ample testimony to that: seven years later the terrorists came back and killed 3000 Americans. There is a reason why you don't see good guys, the way you imagine them to be, here: where terrorism is concerned, your idea of "good guys" is always a losing proposition, without exception.

And it was Hamas that said Israel has to bomb every place they are hiding, or else. It literally spells out the "else" part in its charter.

I hope you are not making excuses for Hamas to go unpunished, so they can come back and to make the comparison between the current war and what's to come the equivalent of 1993 vs 9/11.

[Novara]

35. Gee, if they have a "9/11," then Israel can go bomb Afghanistan

Really, our response to 9/11 didn't do the world any favors either.

No, not unpunished. But certainly more strategic.

[Beastly Boy]

38. Gee, where did THAT come from?

It is our lack of response to 1993 that I was talking about. The whole purpose of a deterrent is not to have another 9/11. How did that turn into the speculation of what Israel can do if they have a 9/11?

And, of course, given the expertise you possess, you can come up with at least a couple of brilliant strategic plans for Israel that will rid the world of Hamas. I am all ears!

[Beastly Boy]

83. Ah, you disappoint me!

I was so looking forward to yet another stream of vitriol thinly veiled with concerns for Gaza civilians who are shielding, I suspect against their best judgement and with a fair amount of hostility, the terrorists and their missiles.

I very much needed some help to fall asleep.

Maybe tomorrow.

[Beastly Boy]

100. Coudn't have said it better myself.

The same seems to hold true for the wheel in your wheelhouse.

[Beastly Boy]

103. The only sllepless night I had was when I heard Hamas leaders

tell Gazan children to go fuck themselves

&t=8s

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/hamas-hoarding-vast-amounts-fuel-gaza-hospitals-run-low-us-officials-s-rcna122977

But you lulled me back to sleep, thank you.

[Voltaire2]

42. The argument removes agency from the IDF.

It seems that Hamas controls how the IDF operates, and therefore no responsibility or blame for actions performed by the IDF can be placed on the IDF.

It is not an original strategy. One might recognize the abuser’s ‘you made me hurt you’ theme. Of course the apologists for Hamas use the same strategy. Israeli abuse forced them to commit atrocities.

I think the people and organizations performing atrocities get all the blame and responsibility for their actions. Seems sort of obvious to me.

[Jedi Guy]

110. "There's legalism, then there's morality."

This is true. And in both senses, IDF is sworn to the defense of Israel and the protection of Israeli civilians. That is their very reason for existence.

Let's suppose IDF is confronted with this scenario. Hamas has placed a rocket launch site on the roof of a civilian apartment building. This launcher is firing missiles into Israel. These are not guided missiles, by the way. They land where they land. Might be an IDF base, might be a daycare full of children. It's a crapshoot. Hamas, of course, doesn't care where it lands, as long as it kills Jews.

The IDF now have two choices. They can either strike the launcher to destroy it, thus preventing it from launching missiles that will kill the people they're sworn to protect. Doing so will, however, kill innocent Palestinians.

Or they can refrain from striking the launch site and allow it to continue to launch rockets into Israel with impunity, resulting in the deaths of some unknown and unknowable number of Israelis.

What you're arguing for here, in essence, is for the Israelis to simply take it on the chin and allow their people to die. They're not going to do that.

For the IDF, legally and morally speaking, the first choice is correct, awful though it is. Their first responsibility is to protect Israeli citizens. If they can avoid killing innocent Palestinians while doing so, that's terrific. If Hamas, as is their practice, forces the IDF into a situation that doesn't allow them to do so, however, then IDF will do what it must to protect the civilians who rely on them. Sometimes there are no good choices, only less bad choices.

[sarisataka]

39. Just to evaluate choices

Say Israel announced it will not bomb hospitals or refugee centers under any circumstances. Hamas of course immediately moves their munitions into those areas and launches rockets at Israeli civilians from the rooftops.

Now what is the choice? No one is going to hold Hamas to account. How does Israel protect its innocent civilians?

[Autumn_Angler]

41. Is the Democratic party somehow a party in this war?

Sounds like you're using this Middle East conflict to divide Democrats on a Democratic party site.

[Seeking Serenity]

45. I knew that was coming

"Oh, dearie me, oh, dearie me. This is a Democratic Party forum. The only disagreements allowed here are on the question of whether Republicans are simply evil or doubly-unplus super-duper evil. Anything else is simply a ploy to divide Democrats."

I have seen that type of sentiment brought up here repeatedly for the past 20 years (except for the 2008 "PUMA" kerfuffle when all bets were off). It is as if Democrats cannot (or should not be permitted to) have disagreements, especially as they relate to policies or actions of a Democratic administration or congressional leadership.

Yes, I know this is a Democratic Party Web forum. But if EarlG says that yes, everyone has to fall in line with the prevailing orthodoxy handed down from above with no questions asked, then maybe I've outgrown what has apparently morphed from Democratic Underground to Democratic Establishment.

Now, to your question, no, I don't think the Democratic Party is a party to this war. But plenty of Democrats in Washington and on this forum are 100% gung-ho standing with Israel and Israel only. I disagree with that position, and I'm not going to apologise to you or anyone else for having an intraparty disagreement and wanting our leaders to change direction.

Did I answer your question?

[Autumn_Angler]

49. No, you didn't

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2004-democratic-party-platform

The Middle East. The Democratic Party is fundamentally committed to the security of our ally Israel and the creation of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace between Israel and her neighbors. Our special relationship with Israel is based on the unshakable foundation of shared values and a mutual commitment to democracy, and we will ensure that under all circumstances, Israel retains the qualitative edge for its national security and its right to self-defense. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.

Under a Democratic Administration, the United States will demonstrate the kind of resolve to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that President Clinton showed. We will work to transform the Palestinian Authority by promoting new and responsible leadership, committed to fighting terror and promoting democracy. We support the creation of a democratic Palestinian state dedicated to living in peace and security side by side with the Jewish State of Israel. The creation of a Palestinian state should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel. Furthermore, all understand that it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. And we understand that all final status negotiations must be mutually agreed

.

[TexasDem69]

54. President Biden disagrees with you

Democracy and liberalism disagree with you. I stand with Israel and President Biden

[Goddessartist]

88. I watched it too!

He was so arrogant!

[Nanjeanne]

17. I wonder how much support the US would get from some posters if

the 9/11 terrorists each hid in the basement of a public school. I guess it would be ok to drop bombs on those children.

My heart breaks for all the innocent deaths. And it breaks for the heartlessness I see in many people.

[Beastly Boy]

20. Of course, you realize that the local authorities would evacuate the children

in your hypothetical schools before the US Army bombs them. And my guess is that the support for bombing the shit out of the terrorists would be overwhelming.

[Nanjeanne]

22. I see. I didn't realize that the IDF worked with local enforcement to evacuate the refugee camp

before bombing. Surprising that so many people didn’t go with those organizers that were providing evacuation services to them. But thanks for clearing that up.

[Beastly Boy]

24. Neither did I, because they don't.

Still, Hamas is THE local enforcement in Gaza, and it is on them to evacuate civilians in the refugee camp, especially considering they got sufficient warning to do so.

Did Hamas evacuate a single civilian from the war zone? Did you ever ask yourself why they didn't do their job?

[Seeking Serenity]

25. To complete your addition to the hypothetical, of course

The 9-11 terrorists would have gladly worked with local authorities to allow the school children to leave so that those men who had just murdered thousands could be in the school building alone as sitting ducks.

As reprehensible as it is for Hamas leaders to avoid capture or injury (or worse) by mingling with helpless refugees, many of whom are CHILDREN, that can never justify the slaughter of innocents (remember, Israel didn't like their innocents slaughtered) by claiming that "we're only trying to bomb the Hamas leaders; pity that there were hundreds of innocents killed instead".

[Beastly Boy]

29. You are arguing that it is moral to leave hamas inact so they could kill tens of thousands,

if not millions of civilians (which they pledged to do in writing). Furthermore, you are arguing that using innocent children as human shields is to be tolerated and encouraged.

Where is the morality in that?

On edit: you are aware that the terrorists and local authorities in Gaza are one and the same, aren't you?

[twodogsbarking]

21. Maybe religion is the problem.

Like other wars.

[Novara]

31. BINGO!

And too many idiotic leaders think they have to bomb the shit out of their perceived enemies, children included.

After 9/11 we didn't bomb Saudi Arabia, where the terrorists came from. No, we went into Afghanistan and then later, Iraq. Why? Because war is so much fun?

War only creates more terrorism. It creates more hate. You get punched so your reaction is to bulldoze the guy who punched you? All that does is create more people who are lining up to punch you.

Six days ago, more than 1,400 people in Israel and 7,000 Palestinians have been killed (I'm on my lunch hour and don't have time to get a more current number but the numbers tell a story). What good will this do?

[maxsolomon]

44. Ironically, it's the exact same imaginary God

just different interpretations.

[twodogsbarking]

48. Humans can be strange.

[whathehell]

122. More likely Greed,

Megalomania, or Ideology..Like other wars.

[maxsolomon]

43. What a horrible scene.

Was this an open space? The crater looks 30' deep.

I'm curious to know how the IDF targets the tunnel infrastructure. Do they use GPR?

[EX500rider]

75. I don't think they can use GPR from space

But they can watch Hamas foot traffic for patterns that lead to tunnel entrances and use info gleaned from spies networks.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

104. Yea, I dont think GPR works from space

Don't know a ton on that tech, but would imagine that the emitter and receiver needs to be fairly close to the ground to detect things. I read synthetic aperture radar could be used, as it can detect subtle differences on the ground to see if there are buried structures under the surface, but not sure how well that would work in an urban area where all types of things are buried.

[Orrex]

77. If they kill enough children, I'm sure that they'll win Palestinian hearts and minds

Hamas is an abomination, full stop. No one is justifying their actions or their methods or their goals.

Nevertheless, that doesn't give the region's dominant military power carte blanche to reduce children to "collateral damage."

[SunSeeker]

84. How do you propose that Israel eliminate Hamas, which uses kids as human shields? nt

[whathehell]

123. How about by covert action

as was used by Israel against Black September following the Munich Olympic Massacre of the 1970's?

[EX500rider]

125. The Hamas military wing is around 40,000 (or was)

'Operation Wrath of God', the covert operation by Mossad to assassinate individuals associated with Black Sept was a much smaller number.

[whathehell]

126. That is a large number,

but, in the interests of saving innocent life, wouldn't it be feasible to
capture Hamas leaders and work from there?

[Elizabeth463]

85. Stop war

This Brutal war should be stopped lots of innocent people are dying daily this is unacceptable. Killing someone is not a solution for anything found other solution to solve this issue.

[AntiFascist]

114. This is how Palestinian children are learning to hate Israel, sorry but true! n/t

[republianmushroom]

121. Well we have that in our schools.

And republicans just sit on their collective asses and spout, thoughts and prays.

[iemanja]

124. That's one way to minimize the killings of innocent civilians