I've had pleasant interactions with you, and I want to keep it that way, so agree to disagree and apologies if I got too snarky.

Absolutely - no ill will whatsoever. I really appreciate the exchanges, and that recognition of same :) Thank you.

Oh you should play. The Nazis in this story are the Israelis so Hamas should win. They have racist laws that treat Jews and non-Jews differently because Jews are their version of the ubermensch. They annex land, claiming it as their own just like the Nazis and thereby are effectively destroying the people and cultural of the Palestinians (name me one Arab sea port in Palestine!) if they aren't outright bombing them to smithereens while decrying "Amalek".

Hamas are like the Allies who occasionally commit a war crime but that's all good and excusable because they're fighting for the liberation of the Palestinian people and therefore are the good guys.

I like how you turned that one around. :lol:

I would not have supported the jihadist Hamas party over PA-affiliated, secular parties in Gaza and not have promoted the violent settler land-grabs in the West Bank, etc in order for both policies to sabotage all prospects of a "Two-State Solution" as Bibi's governments have done since 2004; thus, no October 7th atrocities and retaliatory mass murdering by the IDF today. — 180 Proof

More circumstantial evidence of the Netanyahu regime's complicity via strategic neglect...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67958260.amp

Hamas are like the Allies who occasionally commit a war crime but that's all good and excusable because they're fighting for the liberation of the Palestinian people and therefore are the good guys.

You don't even need to stretch it to "occasionally." The Soviets were part of the Allies and they committed war crimes on an industrial scale, and also responded to dissent within their own population with disappearances and torture, like Hamas.

The parallels work pretty well. The Soviets had a habit of refusing to let civilians evacuate urban areas because they thought keeping the people crowded into them would frustrate the German advance. Also similar is how the party elites sat on stacks of horded supplies while the population starved and leveraged this to extort them.

The analogy also works because, following their victory the Soviets carried a large scale genocide expelling about 12-14 million Germans from Eastern Europe, killing another 2-2.5 million (this is after the war), and I can't see a world where Hamas achieves total victory and Jews are allowed to remain in Israel.

The analogy falls apart though when you consider how Hamas got control of Gaza, fighting a war with the PA. Stalin had unified control, whereas I would have to assume that if the Jews left Israel tonight a Palestinian civil war would erupt by next week (same thing happened with the Iraqi Kurds).

It really goes to show how dismal the whole situation is (and was then for Eastern Europe).

I mean, that's one thing which would come under that banner, imo.

Unsure what you're intimating though, so will refrain from comment beyond that. — AmadeusD

Just trying to understand your position.

Israel could have killed 1200 hamas and stopped but hamas has promised to continuously repeat 10/7 so we'd just see more of the same. I get your position, but personally I have no qualms about going after the root of the problem -- the governing structure that is intent on the destruction of its neighbor because it's neighbor exists as an independent Jewish state and will happily murder civilians as a way of accomplishing this goal. All Jews in Israel are regarded as "Israel" and thus viable, fair targets for Hamas. What must be done to those who vow to murder innocent civilians? They must be killed.

I only wrote that because I got fed up with the recurring question "who would you have rather have won?" where in the questioners mind he firmly believes Hamas are like the Nazis and therefore Israel is allowed to commit war crimes because since we wanted the Allies to have won we therefore think their war crimes were acceptable and, indeed, necessary.

And while I appreciate your insights on the WWII history I think in the end my post should not be seriously engaged as it was mostly intended to ridicule the original question.

I can't see a world where Hamas achieves total victory and Jews are allowed to remain in Israel. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree. I also don't see an Israel that doesn't fully destroy Arab history and culture in greater Palestine nor a "Jewish State" that will ever be anything but a racist shithole without foreign intervention (a la South Africa). Any solution has to come from outside the warring parties, especially if Europe/anglo-saxon countries continue to unconditionally support Israel.

It's also interesting how when I ask Asians, Africans or South Americans about this conflict it all of a sudden really isn't that complicated. At least to them. It really is a "Western" problem that this conflict is not getting closer to getting resolved.

It's also interesting how when I ask Asians, Africans or South Americans about this conflict it all of a sudden really isn't that complicated. At least to them. It really is a "Western" problem that this conflict is not getting closer to getting resolved. — Benkei

Indeed.

It's not complicated. It's simply hard if not impossible to peacefully solve. Partly (and only partly) because of the West.

Namibia has criticised Germany’s “shocking decision” to support Israel in the genocide case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) brought by South Africa, as Israel’s war on Gaza entered its 100th day.

“Germany has chosen to defend in the ICJ the genocidal and gruesome acts of the Israeli government against innocent civilians in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian Territories,” the president of Namibia, Hage Geingob, said in a statement on X on Saturday.

- - -

The statement by the Namibian presidency added that Berlin was ignoring Israel’s killing of more than 23,000 Palestinians in Gaza and various United Nations reports disturbingly highlighting the internal displacement of 85 percent of the besieged enclave’s 2.3 million people amid acute shortages of food and essential services.

The Namibian president expressed “deep concern” over “the shocking decision” communicated by the government of Germany on Friday, in which “it rejected the morally upright indictment” brought forward by South Africa.

“No peace-loving human being can ignore the carnage waged against Palestinians in Gaza,” it said.

I also don't see an Israel that doesn't fully destroy Arab history and culture in greater Palestine — Benkei

wym by this? Arab culture or Islam? Do you see Israel banning falafel, tzatziki and hummus or Arab architecture? Or will zionist imperialists readily raze muslim holy sites (like the dome of the rock which Israel protected against Hamas's rockets) and build their Temple on its ruins? Like how dome of the rock lies on top of the ruins of the second temple.

There's no Israeli village not build on an Arab ruin.

No peace-loving human being can ignore the carnage waged against...

any number of communities around the world. Ukraine, China, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Turkey, Syria, Sudan, D. R. Congo, East Africa, Central America, and more!

Ill-treating fellow humans in one place doesn't justify not-quite-as-bad, similar, or worse treatment somewhere else. The ICJ would be too busy to break for lunch if charges were brought against every guilty government.

Yemen fires missiles at international shipping in the Red Sea. The US & UK strike missile sites in Houthi controlled areas. There are immediate protests that bombing the missile sites will make things worse. So, what to do, what to do?

Someone on the BBC suggested that it would have been better if India and the Netherlands had carried out the strikes. Maybe. But wouldn't that just "widen the war in the Middle East" which any number of actions are said to do?

I'm not sure that Israel declaring a cease-fire really would lower the risks in the region, though it would reduce the suffering in Gaza.

And those Arab towns are built on Jewish ruins.

the governing structure that is intent on the destruction of its neighbor — BitconnectCarlos

It simply isn't that simple, imo Particularly the prolonged nature of dealing with these things. I find it extremely hard to pretend to know what's really going on, or pretend to read the minds of governing collectives (which i find incoherent, anyway).

What must be done to those who vow to murder innocent civilians? They must be killed. — BitconnectCarlos

I also get your position, but it's entirely incompatible with how i see thing in general. This logic leads to killing every person who makes a semi-credible threat of death on anyone (you've deemed innocent). I can't take that seriously, i'm sorry. Again, I understand the position but it appears to me an attempt to signal an emotive position rather than a rational one. We must just disagree... And that's fine :)

You're not even wrong. And that's kind of the problem (though, I would have to remove all the hyperbolic WWII comparisons for this to be acceptable lol).

Hence, I am in no place to make a call.

Everyone has built on top of everyone else because buildings become dilapidated and lands change hands whether through sales or conquering. Israel preserves Muslim holy sites (the main ones, at least); fundamentalist Muslims have a very poor track record for preserving the holy sites of other groups. There are many mosques in Israel and virtually no synagogues in the Arab world.

I figured as much, but I think the analogy actually is quite good in some ways. For in the case of the Soviets, we see a state that was in every way justified in defending itself and taking all means necessary to defeat their adversary. At the same time, the Soviets also did a ton of cruel, unnecessary shit that actively hurt their effort to defeat the Nazis. To my mind, Hamas has often acted similarly. It would be one thing to carry out horrific attacks that actually could reasonably expected to help the long term position of the people of Gaza, but their means aren't even good for achieving their ends.

Most of the Strip is now occupied (and destroyed). If the IDF's figures are even remotely accurate, they've lost a very large share of their total strength wounded/killed/captured, and a significant proportion appears to have also deserted. Their leadership is encircled, and their last leverage point is the hostages, which Israel only appears to be willing to accept their exile for. Their plan seems to have managed to get a lot of their people killed, their land destroyed and occupied, and their organization decimated — which was not particularly hard to predict given their strategy.

Some sort of militant group will exist in Israel after this. It might even be an Islamist group. But it seems probable that it won't be Hamas, and even if it is, it will probably be (justifiably) new leadership, because this not a good outcome.

You could also say it's analogous to the last days of the Third Reich in that the war is already decisively lost, and there doesn't seem to be anything to be gained from making your people's city your funeral pyre, but the leadership obviously isn't concerned with that. Although, it's not quite as bad, since the Nazis had a window to surrender to the Western Allies in 1944 on, when the war was decisively lost, and spare their people the epidemic of rape and half century of Russian domination fighting on entailed, but they chose the "let's use Berlin as our funeral pyre," option even with that off-ramp (notably, millions of soldiers and civilians did not, and fled west).

Damn dude you are dumb as a brick it seems. — Vaskane

If you want to insult me, it would be more fair to notify me first, so I can readily insult you back.
Where are your manners, asshole?!

That's precisely why 51-7 is a war crime. — Vaskane

You are conflating things. Isreal would violate IHL by moving (deporting?) its civilians in ILLEGALLY occupied territories and it would show lack of concern for civilians by exposing them to possible retaliations by hostile powers but that wouldn’t yet amount to a case of “human shields” usage.
Indeed, IHL explicitly treats the case of “Transfer of Own Civilian Population into Occupied Territory” in a dedicated rule: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule130#Fn_9AD70858_00003
The status of illegal settler even if promoted by a state is not a case of human shield, as far as I’ve understood. Besides the massacres of October 7h do not concern illegally occupied territories!

Moving civilians into contested land, to block military operations is human shielding as stated by two Corpus of Laws, including the Geneva Convention. — Vaskane

In IHL 51-7, it’s written: “The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.” and it doesn’t mention “contested land”. And IHL 51-7 needs to be interpreted in light of 51-6 (which is what Hamas massacre is violating), the examples given or suggested by the underlined note (which echoes the principle of distinction).

Definition of human shields
The prohibition of using human shields in the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I and the Statute of the International Criminal Court are couched in terms of using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations.[18] Most examples given in military manuals, or which have been the object of condemnations, have been cases where persons were actually taken to military objectives in order to shield those objectives from attacks. The military manuals of New Zealand and the United Kingdom give as examples the placing of persons in or next to ammunition trains.[19] There were many condemnations of the threat by Iraq to round up and place prisoners of war and civilians in strategic sites and around military defence points.[20] Other condemnations on the basis of this prohibition related to rounding up civilians and putting them in front of military units in the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Liberia.[21]
In the Review of the Indictments in the Karadžić and Mladić case, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia qualified physically securing or otherwise holding peacekeeping forces against their will at potential NATO air targets, including ammunition bunkers, a radar site and a communications centre, as using “human shields”.[22]
It can be concluded that the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives[/u]
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule97

Again, you're not even using the law, you're just quoting articles about the law. — Vaskane

I explained to you why: quoting laws is not always enough for laymen like me and you. One needs also to rely on legal expertise to identify standard interpretation when others are possible. And that is all that matters to me. So even if there are other interpretations than the standard one, I still care exclusively about the standard one.

Means blocking military operations by moving civilians into an area is considered human shielding, and this is what Israel does. — Vaskane

And yet you couldn’t report any IHL experts accusing Israel of using its civilians as human shields yet. Instead you reported an IHL expert that expressly and repeatedly claimed Hamas is using Palestinians as human shields.

Tell us, what do you suppose the following means:

"MOVING CIVILIANS INTO AN AREA TO IMPEDE OPERATIONS." — Vaskane

Examples have been given:
“placing of persons in or next to ammunition trains”. (AREA = ammunition trains, OPERATION = strikes against the ammunition train)
“place prisoners of war and civilians in strategic sites and around military defence points” (AREA = military defence point, OPERATION = strikes against military defence point)
“rounding up civilians and putting them in front of military units in the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Liberia” (AREA = location of the military units, OPERATION = strikes against location of the military units)

The military operation still requires co-location of military objectives (https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/military-objectives/) and civilians as distinguishable military targets of a strike.

A particular difficulty appears where civilian objects, namely, infrastructure and buildings (roads, schools, factories, electrical fittings, radio and TV installations), are temporarily used for military purpose or are used for both civilian and military purpose. These are dual-use objects; when they fulfill the two cumulative conditions, they may be considered legitimate military targets if additional specific conditions are respected: it is mandatory to take necessary measures before the attack to ensure that civilians are evacuated. In addition, the attack must not create disproportionate harm to non-combatants.
The key issue here is to ensure that the destruction of the object is indeed due to its military use rather than to terrorize civilians or weaken their morale.

In other words the military operation that is impeded (by exploiting civilians as human shields) should make military sense without civilian involvement. But the operation of massacring and terrorazing non-combatant Israeli civilians as did Hamas in October the 7th doesn’t make sense without Israeli non-combatant civilians. While the Israeli strikes against Hamas combatants and Hamas infrastructures by IDF make sense even without Palestinian non-combatant civilians used as “human shields”.

Right, "human shields," generally refers to placing civilians around active military operations or forcing them to stay near such operations. Resettlement in occupied territory is a crime, just not equivalent with the concept of "human shields."

The Crimea example given earlier is not a good one. What Russia is doing in moving Russian civilians into eastern/southern Ukraine while deporting Ukrainians into Russia is illegal, but it isn't using human shields. When the UAF has advanced, Russians who were moved into Ukrainian territory have been allowed to flee, and they certainly haven't been forcibly transporting civilians to military objectives. There are all sorts of bad things you could say about Russia: the mass graves with signs of torture, the fact that their own soldiers were found castrated in the same mass graves, the absolute disregard for civilian casualties, such that if Gaza had a similar fatality rate to Mariupol it would mean 250,000-300,000 dead. However, using human shields has not been one of their infamies.

It's an odd fixation given that essentially the entire international community has recognized that Israel is engaging in illegal activities in the West Bank. They just aren't engaging in exactly the same crimes Hamas engages in.

And this isn't even an assessment that comes with any sort of moral overtones. Israel doesn't need to do what Hamas does because of their large military advantage (and because human shields would be useless against Hamas). Rather than being some form of restraint or virtue, you could chalk this up to Israel simply not standing to benefit from such actions.

That said, there are few militant groups I can think of who have been so completely and callously indifferent to "their people's" deaths than Hamas. I don't think it's wrong to say that, in Hamas' calculus, Palestinian civilian death and suffering has often been taken as a good thing, a goal to achieve for the good of the wider project (hell, their own public statements say as much). But even if you thought the ends might justify these means, the fact that no "mass Arab attack on Israel," was going to happen was very easy to predict, such that Hamas' actions aren't just callous, but callous with no discernable chance of success, sheer nihilism.

one is a world where the Axis won, and one is a world where the Allies won. Which world would you prefer to be in? — RogueAI

According to Alt-history youtube channels, a world where the Axis won would not be geopolitically so different from today. Germany would pick up Soviet Union's role but more shifted West. It would eventually disintegrate into multiple countries, forming a European Union à la CEI.
Not like alt-history is a real field, but I thought you'd like to know as a little curious tidbit.

You could also say it's analogous to the last days of the Third Reich in that the war is already decisively lost,

I would say that this part of the analogy fails. The war from the viewpoint of the Arab world is not lost, or over.
Israel is bolstering support for Hamas and other anti-Israeli groups who will revisit this issue in the future.
In terms of living alongside their neighbours in peace, Israel has lost. They have become a pariah state which is insulting their neighbours in every way and on every level. They are overtly hostile, while conducting collective punishment and unspeakable horrors on a captive Arabic population. Their status and position in the Middle East is now under threat and possibly unsustainable

If Israel is going to remain in its current form it will become an isolated fortress, bristling with weapons. The only alternative to this outcome is for Israel to remove the extremists from Government and extend the hand of friendship and compromise to the Palestinians. Even then it will be a long and difficult road. The first (an isolated fortress) would be vulnerable, unstable and reliant on being propped up by the US.
The second is almost inconceivable at this point and could fail and descend into further wars at every turn.
As I see it, Israel has already lost and Netanyahu, who represents the Jewish people, in this, has blood on his hands.

As I see it, Israel has already lost and Netanyahu, who represents the Jewish people, in this, has blood on his hands. — Punshhh

Netanyahu does not represent the Jewish people. He is the prime minister of a state, not a religious authority.

Not trying to stir anything up, but surely this kind of thinking also exculpates all Palestinians who would not be represented by Hamas? I'm not pretending you don't see the distinction, but in the Israel case, Netanyahu is the actual head-of-state, not an interloper, which Hamas can be seen as.

Surely, the proportionality question, comes, in some sense, down to who is actually liable to attack?

Not trying to stir anything up, but surely this kind of thinking also exculpates all Palestinians who would not be represented by Hamas? — AmadeusD

There are innocent Palestinians and there are guilty Palestinians. Some legitimate targets of war, others not. Israel does not indiscriminately target all Palestinians; Hamas will consider all Israelis legitimate targets for violence/death/kidnapping/rape.

I'm not pretending you don't see the distinction, but in the Israel case, Netanyahu is the actual head-of-state, not an interloper, which Hamas can be seen as. — AmadeusD

Netanyahu is the head of state, Hamas is the governing organization of Gaza. Ismail Haniyeh is the leader.

Surely, the proportionality question, comes, in some sense, down to who is actually liable to attack?

This is an armed conflict. Both sides attack. Hamas has launched thousands of rockets into Israel since 10/7.

Hey mate - I'll go in reverse, as that seems to make sense..

This is an armed conflict. Both sides attack. Hamas has launched thousands of rockets into Israel since 10/7. — BitconnectCarlos

This doesn't have anything to do with which individuals are liable to be attacked. But i understand the emotional behind that fact. It just isn't what i've asked about.

Netanyahu is the head of state, Hamas is the governing organization of Gaza. Ismail Haniyeh is the leader. — BitconnectCarlos

You've glossed over what i've said. Hamas is an interloper, not an actual Government and Ismail is not an actual head-of-state. I did point this out...

There are innocent Palestinians and there are guilty Palestinians. Some legitimate targets of war, others not. Israel does not indiscriminately target all Palestinians — BitconnectCarlos

I find this wanting of fact. I do not see any clear-cut policy whereby this is actually happening. Particularly given the Israeli propensity to literally refer to Palestinians as animals and worthy of eradication..

You've glossed over what i've said. Hamas is an interloper, not an actual Government and Ismail is not an actual head-of-state. I did point this out... — AmadeusD

I very much consider Hamas as the actual government of Gaza. If it's not Hamas, who is it? Haniyeh may not be head of a state, but he is head of a government. Hamas rules Gaza, not Israel. There were no Jews in Gaza prior to 10/7.

I find this wanting of fact. I do not see any clear-cut policy whereby this is actually happening. Particularly given the Israeli propensity to literally refer to Palestinians as animals and worthy of eradication.. — AmadeusD

They do not. Netanyahu has drawn a clear distinction between the wicked Hamas and innocent Palestinians (who are not to be intentionally targeted). The IDF has called off attacks due to civilians being in the area and there is footage of this. Yes Israel will target houses and hospitals because Hamas will militarize houses and hospitals, but Israel will provide aid to innocent Palestinians.

This doesn't have anything to do with which individuals are liable to be attacked. But i understand the emotional behind that fact. It just isn't what i've asked about. — AmadeusD

palestinian civilians are in danger because hamas wears no uniforms and blends in with the civilian population. Any IDF soldier who intentionally targets civilians is guilty of war crimes, but targeting houses which contain weapons and hamas operatives is not a war crime.

I very much consider Hamas as the actual government of Gaza — BitconnectCarlos

Ah, see.. that's fair enough. I do not. That seems like a massaging of reality to support an emotional state, to me. But i'm sure my rejection of that appears a weak 'no true scotsman' appeal in the sense that "they're not a 'proper'" government being my at-base reasoning.

a governmen — BitconnectCarlos

Unrecognized by any relevant body? Interesting. Goes to the above, i suppose, but given that only the PNA, and unequivocal rejection of Hamas, seems to be taken on by any relevant body or authority i find it an odd thing to rest on.

Yes Israel will target houses and hospitals because Hamas will militarize houses and hospitals, but Israel will provide aid to innocent Palestinians. — BitconnectCarlos

This seems counter to them not doing this. But that's a digression - the sources of information are questionable at best given the interests on each side. I'm not committed to anything here. What I would say, is that I can do this:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attacks-wipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_war_crimes (the relevant section, obviously)

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/11/9/israels-war-crimes-in-gaza-are-by-design-not-default

https://www.voanews.com/a/human-rights-watch-accuses-israel-of-war-crimes-criticizes-selective-outrage-of-allies/7436111.html

https://www.globalr2p.org/publications/atrocities-present-past-and-future-escalating-crimes-and-consequences-in-israel-and-occupied-palestine/

https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/18/israel-starvation-used-weapon-war-gaza

https://amnesty.org.nz/evidence-war-crimes-gaza

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/enough-evidence-of-war-crimes-in-gaza-says-israeli-american-holocaust-professor/3061948

I'm not expecting you to even click any of these links. My point is not that anything in them is conclusive, or even reliable. My point is that I could do the same in reverse (as i'm sure you would do). Fact is, there is no obvious response to what's going on. It is equivocal in a general sense.

Also, I'm sorry, but again, looking at the two death tolls

"As of December 30, 2023 Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor estimated Gaza Strip deaths as 30,034 total and civilian deaths at 27,681 which would mean about 2,353 militant deaths."

i just cannot make sense of your position at-base, so I have to go on to this more abstract discussion to come to interesting points, which i think are here. I cannot understand how it is possible to look at a 2:1 or worse ratio of civilian to combatant deaths and think that's anything less that a severe war crime.

but targeting houses which contain weapons and hamas operatives is not a war crime. — BitconnectCarlos

Targeting civilians is a war crime. Being wrong is not.

Netanyahu does not represent the Jewish people. He is the prime minister of a state, not a religious authority.

Then who does represent the Jewish people here? Ask someone in a neighbouring state who represents the Jewish people here?

Or do we have a vacuum of leadership/representation of the Jewish people?

Israel does not indiscriminately target all Palestinians; — BitconnectCarlos

Yes they do. That's the whole issue with collective punishment, evicting Arab Israelis from their homes in Jerusalem, confiscation of property just because you're related to a criminal if you're a non-Jew and stealing and selling land that isn't theirs is all done indiscriminately. Or actually it's all done discriminately because it always targets non-Jewish Israelis or Palestinians in the occupied territories.

Israel does not indiscriminately target all Palestinians; Hamas will consider all Israelis legitimate targets for violence/death/kidnapping/rape. — BitconnectCarlos

Indeed, they don't bomb the West Bank as much as Gaza.

But if we just look at Gaza, it's another thing. Have you looked at the amounts of bombs used and the amount of buildings destroyed? Quite comparable to WW2 terror bombings.

(AP) Jan 11th 2024, The Israeli military campaign in Gaza, experts say, now sits among the deadliest and most destructive in recent history.

In just over two months, researchers say the offensive has wreaked more destruction than the razing of Syria’s Aleppo between 2012 and 2016, Ukraine’s Mariupol or, proportionally, the Allied bombing of Germany in World War II. It has killed more civilians than the U.S.-led coalition did in its three-year campaign against the Islamic State group.

You simply cannot talk of an attempt to avoid civilian casualties. And after all, when the Gazan's elected Hamas years ago, aren't they as one Israeli politician put it, all are culpable? Or as another put it, It's the evil city.

And let's remember what the Israeli Defense minister said:

“We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly,” Gallant said.

While it appears that Gallant was specifically referring to Hamas fighters in that comment, the rest of the minister’s remarks called for further oppression of all people in Gaza by denying them basic human needs.

“We are imposing a complete siege on Gaza,” Gallant said. “There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything will be closed.”

Seems indeed that the Israelis are true to their word.