The Israeli army has marked tens of thousands of Gazans as suspects for assassination, using an AI targeting system with little human oversight and a permissive policy for casualties, +972 and Local Call reveal.
a notable point in here, particularly given the recent WCK murders:
In an unprecedented move, according to two of the sources, the army also decided during the first weeks of the war that, for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians; in the past, the military did not authorize any “collateral damage” during assassinations of low-ranking militants. The sources added that, in the event that the target was a senior Hamas official with the rank of battalion or brigade commander, the army on several occasions authorized the killing of more than 100 civilians in the assassination of a single commander.
It is not a war crime to kill commanding officers in a war. On the contrary, this is a common and widely accepted strategy that can reduce the number of overall casualties, since it often motivates lower ranks to surrender.
It’s too bad that killing a commander along with killing 100 civilians probably net increases the amount of fighters because of innocent people killed in the indiscriminate bombings and their surviving family members.
Independent Palestinian polls show that support for Hamas and especially violent struggle are lower in Gaza than in the West Bank. This goes against your hypothesis. Also, as the war rages on, there has been a recent and rather dramatic uptick among Gazans who support a two-state solution, a complete change from before. This indicates that people directly affected of the war are becoming tired of it and want peaceful coexistence, not a continuation of the fighting.
One might even go so far as to say that Israel is breaking the fighting spirit of Gazans. Israel is winning this war, slowly but surely, at a great cost - especially, but not only, at the cost of Palestinian lives - but there will be no other outcome. Hamas could end it right now by admitting defeat, but they choose to let the people die until the bitter end while they are hiding, in bunkers and in Qatar.
One more thing: Striking a commander and hitting civilians with him is the opposite of an indiscriminate bombing. That’s still a targeted discriminate strike, even with additional civilian casualties. Indiscriminate would be carpet bombing - and Israel doesn’t even have aircraft that are capable of this.
“Civilians want to stop being bombed en masse, more open to demands of bombers” isn’t exactly the argument you think it is.
Your comment also fully assumes that the goals of Israel are to reduce war sentiment in Palestine.
Among other odd issues in this comment, ultimately you’re not addressing the core issue people are taking with Israel’s choices by taking a hard-line ‘realism’ stance.
“Civilians want to stop being bombed en masse, more open to demands of bombers” isn’t exactly the argument you think it is.
It’s an observation. Not to mention, a two-state solution is the best thing Palestinians can ever hope for. At this point, it’s highly optimistic at best, but still more realistic than the genocidal “from the river to the sea” pipe dream.
Your comment also fully assumes that the goals of Israel are to reduce war sentiment in Palestine.
Not the goal, but it’s most certainly a goal. Before this war, I was under the impressions that many Palestinians and their supporters failed to realize just how massive the difference in capabilities between the two sides are. Palestinian leadership decided to essentially poke the bear through horrendous massacres and rapes, hoping that the rest of the Arab world would join in before they’ve been bombed back to the stone age. They were extra stupid doing this while a far-right coalition was in power. One can only call these a series of grave miscalculations that ordinary Palestinians will be paying for for decades to come.
Among other odd issues in this comment, ultimately you’re not addressing the core issue people are taking with Israel’s choices by taking a hard-line ‘realism’ stance.
So being realistic is a bad thing now?
Here’s the deal: Israel had no other choice but to declare war over this. No other nation would have acted any differently. If you do not strike back at a pseudo-state that staged one of the worst terrorist attacks in history, you are inviting more attacks like these. If you make concessions in response, you are showing terrorists that terrorism works, also inviting more attacks. Even Denmark would have declared war in this kind of situation.
The only valid point worth discussing is how they are choosing to fight this war. I feel like Israel is between a rock and a hard place and can only ever hope to choose the least terrible option - and since they are not infallible, they are not capable of always doing that and even if they do in certain situations, this can still result in the suffering of civilians. War is awful, always has been and people should get rid of the delusion that a clean war is even possible.
I wish there was a different and far more moderate government in power in Israel instead one under the leadership of the Israeli equivalent of Donald Trump, one that is far less callous about human lives, but here’s the problem: After every single terrorist attack in the past, the Israeli public has moved further to the right. I’m sure Palestinian leadership knew this when they made their plans, I’m convinced they hoped for this, because it means the conflict will live on. Seemingly paradoxically, both the Israeli far right and the Palestinian leadership need this mess to remain unsolved, because they rely on it for power. Neither are capable nor willing to actually solve problems and are largely in it for personal gain.
I would have never chosen this word myself to describe any of my stances, but since you did it, even with quotation marks, it’s a bit odd that you’re now complaining about it.
Not that I was expecting much from your response, but that’s all you have to say?
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !news@beehaw.org
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Is it a war crime to assassinate?
Like I’d someone was to assassinate Biden, would that be legitimate or a war crime?
It is not a war crime to kill commanding officers in a war. On the contrary, this is a common and widely accepted strategy that can reduce the number of overall casualties, since it often motivates lower ranks to surrender.
It’s too bad that killing a commander along with killing 100 civilians probably net increases the amount of fighters because of innocent people killed in the indiscriminate bombings and their surviving family members.
Independent Palestinian polls show that support for Hamas and especially violent struggle are lower in Gaza than in the West Bank. This goes against your hypothesis. Also, as the war rages on, there has been a recent and rather dramatic uptick among Gazans who support a two-state solution, a complete change from before. This indicates that people directly affected of the war are becoming tired of it and want peaceful coexistence, not a continuation of the fighting.
https://i.imgur.com/h5TlemJ.png
https://i.imgur.com/jyP8jrT.png
https://i.imgur.com/3JncEU4.png
Source: https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/969
One might even go so far as to say that Israel is breaking the fighting spirit of Gazans. Israel is winning this war, slowly but surely, at a great cost - especially, but not only, at the cost of Palestinian lives - but there will be no other outcome. Hamas could end it right now by admitting defeat, but they choose to let the people die until the bitter end while they are hiding, in bunkers and in Qatar.
One more thing: Striking a commander and hitting civilians with him is the opposite of an indiscriminate bombing. That’s still a targeted discriminate strike, even with additional civilian casualties. Indiscriminate would be carpet bombing - and Israel doesn’t even have aircraft that are capable of this.
“Civilians want to stop being bombed en masse, more open to demands of bombers” isn’t exactly the argument you think it is.
Your comment also fully assumes that the goals of Israel are to reduce war sentiment in Palestine.
Among other odd issues in this comment, ultimately you’re not addressing the core issue people are taking with Israel’s choices by taking a hard-line ‘realism’ stance.
It’s an observation. Not to mention, a two-state solution is the best thing Palestinians can ever hope for. At this point, it’s highly optimistic at best, but still more realistic than the genocidal “from the river to the sea” pipe dream.
Not the goal, but it’s most certainly a goal. Before this war, I was under the impressions that many Palestinians and their supporters failed to realize just how massive the difference in capabilities between the two sides are. Palestinian leadership decided to essentially poke the bear through horrendous massacres and rapes, hoping that the rest of the Arab world would join in before they’ve been bombed back to the stone age. They were extra stupid doing this while a far-right coalition was in power. One can only call these a series of grave miscalculations that ordinary Palestinians will be paying for for decades to come.
So being realistic is a bad thing now?
Here’s the deal: Israel had no other choice but to declare war over this. No other nation would have acted any differently. If you do not strike back at a pseudo-state that staged one of the worst terrorist attacks in history, you are inviting more attacks like these. If you make concessions in response, you are showing terrorists that terrorism works, also inviting more attacks. Even Denmark would have declared war in this kind of situation.
The only valid point worth discussing is how they are choosing to fight this war. I feel like Israel is between a rock and a hard place and can only ever hope to choose the least terrible option - and since they are not infallible, they are not capable of always doing that and even if they do in certain situations, this can still result in the suffering of civilians. War is awful, always has been and people should get rid of the delusion that a clean war is even possible.
I wish there was a different and far more moderate government in power in Israel instead one under the leadership of the Israeli equivalent of Donald Trump, one that is far less callous about human lives, but here’s the problem: After every single terrorist attack in the past, the Israeli public has moved further to the right. I’m sure Palestinian leadership knew this when they made their plans, I’m convinced they hoped for this, because it means the conflict will live on. Seemingly paradoxically, both the Israeli far right and the Palestinian leadership need this mess to remain unsolved, because they rely on it for power. Neither are capable nor willing to actually solve problems and are largely in it for personal gain.
People often mistake convenient and unsympathetic rationalizations of their own views as realism.
I would have never chosen this word myself to describe any of my stances, but since you did it, even with quotation marks, it’s a bit odd that you’re now complaining about it.
Not that I was expecting much from your response, but that’s all you have to say?
What purpose did you think the quotes served?
Yes, I’m not going to devote much time engaging with comments very very interested in bringing up their unsympathetic idea of genocide real politik.