• stevehobbes@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    If that were actually true, deaths would be several orders of magnitude higher. They have the munitions and capability to kill significantly more people.

    Bottom line is that anytime you conduct war in a dense urban area, or conduct a ground assault in a populated area, civilian casualties will be high.

    • dubyakay@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Bombing refugee camps, hospitals, schools and just plain carpet bombing districts does not seem like the IDF gives a shit about trying to minimize civilian casualties.

      We have tons of footage of Russians and Ukrainians engaging each other in battle. There’s no such footage from IDF, and whatever we got from Hamas looks like guerrilla fighters doing hit and run strikes on mostly armor. You know why? Because Israel is not engaged with “Palestine” in a war. Nor with Hamas. Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing in their own ethnostate.

      • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        You can say that - but seemingly also can’t explain why the death count isn’t stratospherically higher if that was their goal.

        Asymmetric warfare always sucks for civilians. The whole point is knowing who a civilian and who’s a combatant is intentionally difficult.

        Hamas doesn’t wear uniforms, because they’re terrorists and not a government or regular army.

        • Victor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          death count isn’t stratospherically higher

          You also can’t prove how much higher the death toll would actually be, because we’re all just speculating fools. You are using an argumentative fallacy, which is “you can’t explain why this hypothetical thing isn’t occurring” when it doesn’t really have to be occurring. Can’t remember which that is. Red herring? Straw man? Ah, I can’t remember.

          Anyway, we’re going by what we’re seeing, which is the bombing of innocent civilians. Terrible, terrible state of the world right now.

          • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            I can’t say exactly how many people they could kill if they were targeting civilians, but I can with certainty say it would be significantly more than have currently died.

            They could drop many more bombs and shell the entire strip for weeks. These aren’t hypotheticals - we know they have the armament to do that.

            There are around 20,000 people dead - out of almost 800,000 in Gaza. If their goal was a maximizing death, they could have killed significantly more. They certainly have the ammunition and means to do it - and that’s not a hypothetical.