218

Israeli strike hits Rafah area after Hamas barrage (www.bbc.co.uk)

submitted 5 months ago by QuantumSpecter@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

159 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 106 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Dozens of people have been killed or injured in a blast at a refugee camp in the Rafah area, the Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza has said.

The rocket barrage highlights the threat Hamas still poses to people across Israel, although there were no reports of injuries.

No reports of injuries in Israel and dozens of Palestinians injured or dead in Rafah, but Hamas is still the 'big threat'.

Really getting sick of this bs reporting.

[-] DancingBear@midwest.social 48 points 5 months ago

It’s because they are desperately trying to frame this as Israel responding to a terrorist attack rather than Israel openly defying the International court of justice order to stop bombing civilians.

Israel is openly committing genocide while actively trying to frame this as defense of their borders, which could have worked as a strategy had not everything they have stated and said been proven absolute lies, to the point where they got their feelings hurt and had to openly assasinate journalists so that what they say can no longer be shown to be lies.

[-] small44@lemmy.world 38 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

They are trying to discredit the casualities numbers by saying it's coming from hamas run health ministry while the world health organization said that there is no reason to doubt the numbers

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago

*No reason to doubt the numbers

[-] TheFonz@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago

[removed by mod]

[-] livus@kbin.social 37 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

In my country we have a law that self defense has to be proportional and you are only allowed to use enough force to stop the attack.

It can't be like "the guy down the street threw a rock through my window so I go and kill his whole family in their beds".

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 12 points 5 months ago

Proportionality is international law: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-51

[-] scorpious@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

Gotta love this thinking here.

So tell me, should the US have stopped attacking Japan once they’d matched the ~2.4k soldiers killed at Pearl Harbor?

Or should the allies have stopped “genociding” Nazi Germany once they’d matched Hitler’s body count?

OF COURSE NOT. This isn’t about tit for tat. Especially when going after an enemy that is openly committee to your annihilation. Israel certainly appears to be doing a shit job of it, but there is no need to muddy the waters with specious arguments.

[-] Natanael@slrpnk.net 8 points 5 months ago

You're mixing up things. Proportionality is a specific thing about scale. It doesn't say you're not allowed to respond to failed attacks.

You can for example evaluate the likely future harm your enemy would cause if you don't stop them and then apply the proportionality principle to that when you try to stop them. Or evaluate likely harm if somebody else attempted and succeeded with an attack you just stopped, and decide what kind of deterrence is needed based on that.

And Israel isn't just doing a shit job of it. they're not doing it at all

[-] TheFonz@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

That's great and all. I'm sure that works at the individual level. When your country enters an active war none of that matters, does it? So why bring it up?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 22 points 5 months ago

Of course it matters! If your enemy kills 3 innocent people on your side and you retaliate by killing a million people on their side, it matters a whole fucking lot.

Hamas is bad. Very few people will dispute that. Israel has proven that, at this point in time, it is far worse because it kills far more innocent people.

[-] TheFonz@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago

Discourse on Lemmy is so stupid. It's so stupid. Like Facebook boomer stupid.

Is the IDF counter-attack proportional or is it excessive compared to what Hamas is doing? I would say it's absolutely excessive. How is that excess justified? I would urge you guys to put more thought into any of this discourse beyond "genocide; colonialism; apartheid; imperialism". Please, for the love of god. Try. When you use cheap logic, all you do is give more fodder to IDF --and I'm not a fan of IDF.

If I take your claim and analyze it logically it's not sound at all. The typical numbers game to counter whether the occupation is justified: More civilians dead = IDF bad. Pause. Think about this statement for a second. Do we measure justification for war based on the number of casualties incurred? When the allies bombed Dresden, did we find reason to defeat the Nazis even though many civilian casualties occurred? Yes, a calculated risk was made.

The question is: What ought the IDF do in this scenario with Hamas perpetually shelling them with rockets by planting themselves in civilian areas?

[-] livus@kbin.social 15 points 5 months ago

Dresden was a horrendous war crime too.

I can see how it's harder for you to argue against war crimes from other nations if you're an apologist for war crimes committed by your own ancestors.

But many of us don't need to jump through those particular rhetorical hoops. The barrage of war crimes in WW2 was part of the impetus for strengthening international law against that shit.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago

Agreed. Kurt Vonnegut wrote all about what he witnessed firsthand at Dresden. It was a war crime. "The good guys" can commit war crimes.

[-] TheFonz@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

I never said it wasn't horrendous. Clearly the rules of engagement back then were different. That's not what is being discussed though is it? What do you think I'm saying? Can you TRY to steel man my position or do you only like to hear yourself?

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 13 points 5 months ago

... with Hamas perpetually shelling them

Yeah, you're wrong.

Hamas launched a barrage of rockets at central Israel on Sunday afternoon, setting off air-raid sirens in the Tel Aviv area for the first time since at least late January Source

[-] TheFonz@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

"central israel". Key word. Also, not connected to what we're discussing. But thanks for sharing, I guess?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago

Sorry... you're comparing what Israel is doing right now to what allies did to a city in the country that was itself perpetrating the genocide? A country that was also itself invading Allied nations?

Is this opposite day or something?

[-] TheFonz@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

Nop. I'm contesting your logic. Not comparing the countries. We are examining whether your logic holds up to scrutiny.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

I don't even know what you think my logic is beyond "the more innocent people you kill, the less morally justified your position becomes."

Can you give an example of when that is not the case? Because I don't know too many people who think that the bombing of Dresden was morally justified.

[-] TheFonz@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Ok, so if Hamas kills more people that automatically makes Israel's actions justified?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

If it was proportional? If it didn't involve innocents? Yes.

[-] TheFonz@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Is there any war-ever in history- that didn't involve civilian casualties? Any?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Is there any war ever in history that all actions on either are morally justified?

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

In war, you are allowed to kill innocents if necessary to achieve a valid military objective.

In this war, the IDF's objective is to destroy Hamas.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

"Allowed" by whom? "Necessary" by whose metric?

If their objective is to destroy Hamas and they determine that the only way to do that is wipe out the Palestinian people from the face of the Earth, you're saying that's justified because it's their necessary military objective?

load more comments (96 replies)

load more comments (13 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] Tryptaminev@lemm.ee 10 points 5 months ago

Yeah Germany also claimed it was attacked by Poland in 1939. Guess everything after was justified then... The US claimed to have been attacked by North Vietnam. Guess Vietnam was aokay then. Putin claimed to have been attacked by Ukraine before invading. Guess we should consider everything since then as self defense...

[-] TheFonz@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

You're saying because some countries lied about needing defense no country should be allowed to defend themselves? What exactly is your point here? Is it possible some countries actually need to defend themselves?

[-] Tryptaminev@lemm.ee 6 points 5 months ago

Proportionality is simply not dependent on the question of who "started first" and you will always find something that is credibly or uncredibly put forth as "the beginning". This is why Israel tries to claim it all started on Oct. 7. This is why Germany argued Poland started arming and preparing for war first. This one is even technically true, but ignores the context of Germany already announcing its Lebensraum ideology back then.

That is the problem. There is a both a larger context and a direct context to the question of proportionality, where there is no plus points for being "just retaliating". Retaliation can be a legitimate goal, but only in the context of deterring from further attacks, like Iran did after the embassy attack.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] teft@lemmy.world 18 points 5 months ago

You’re incorrect. War has escalation of force for modern militaries. My rules of engagement in Iraq were the similar to the poster above you. If someone threw a rock at me I couldn’t just shoot them.

[-] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 15 points 5 months ago

You must not be a part of the IDF. They firmly believe that throwing rocks deserves getting shot

[-] TheFonz@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Cool. Are we talking about people throwing rocks?

[-] AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago

No, we're talking about people lobbing a handful of rockets at a multi-billion dollar defense system that is more than capable of stopping such a small attack. Kind of like throwing rocks at a tank.

Then we're talking about a response of bombing tents that have no defense system. Kind of like using a tank to fire shells at a person in response to a rock being thrown.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] teft@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

It's called an example. I was demonstrating escalation of force. You should maybe rethink how you talk to people. Being so rude and confrontational isn't going to bring people to your side of the argument.

[-] TheFonz@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Yeah, ok but perhaps be careful with the example you choose. There are people here who genuinely believe Hamas is literally fighting only with rocks. Escalation of force is a discussion to be had, but no one here is interested in that.

I'm not interested in people coming to my side, because oddly enough, more often than not I'm actually aligned with the people criticizing me on the actual positions.

My issue is more with people not coming to sound conclusions using sound arguments and just repeating sound bytes from social media. They aren't capable of engaging with any of these topics beyond really superficial levels.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] livus@kbin.social 16 points 5 months ago

Because it's a sound principle.

Genociding tens of thousands of people, half of whom are children, is not self defense.

[-] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

Tell that to the tens of civilians they murder every time they fire a rocket strike into civilian areas.

A country is still responsible for the war crimes they commit, Israel just thinks it's above being held to account for war crimes, including genocide.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 12 points 5 months ago

Israel suffered no injuries or casualties as the rockets were shot down or fell into fields.

So Israel's response was overkill, which is par for the course.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 27 May 2024

218 points (100.0% liked)

World News

38944 readers

1421 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.