IDF begins evacuating civilians from eastern Rafah northward

[Blaster]

When it comes to 2-ton bombs, precision becomes meaningless. They are so huge, so devasting that it is impossible to avoid civilian casualties and extensive damage to surrounding infrastructure. That is why they are typically contraindicated for urban warfare with large civilian populations

Why the US paused the delivery of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel ahead of a possible Rafah attack

The U.S. paused a shipment of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel over concerns that the country has not adequately taken civilian safety into account in its upcoming military operation in Rafah.

apnews.com

The 2,000-pound bomb has multiple variants — some are designed to penetrate deep, underground targets while others detonate above ground and cause widespread damage. Depending on the variant, and whether the munition is dropped in an open or urban area, its blast radius can be as far as a quarter mile away or a much more confined area.​

The bombs are “dumb” or unguided bombs but can be turned into more precise weapons with the addition of Joint Direct Attack Munition kits, or JDAM kits which add a tail fin and navigation.​

​

That added kit enables troops to guide the munition to a target, rather than simply dropping it from a fighter jet onto the ground. The kits make the weapons more precise, but in a densely populated urban environment, a JDAM kit is not going to make much of a difference — a precise hit will still have the reach to kill unintended bystanders.​

Why would you want to use them in a place as densely packed now as Rafah is, especially when there appears to be no safe place for most of the civilian population to go?






The message being sent is very measured and clear. We support Israel, we support her right to defend herself, but we do not support the weapons we provide being used in what could be unlawful ways. It isn’t as though there are not other ways for Israel to fight Hamas.

By the way, Obama did not say that. In fact, these arms flowing to Israel are the result of a 38 billion dollar military aid package Obama gave Israel…the largest in our history. You should be saying thankyou Mr. Obama.

How about the atom bomb we dropped on Japan?

 

[Coyote]

How about the atom bomb we dropped on Japan?

And that is a great example of something that was HIGHLY controversal both at the time and later in hindsight both pro and con.

Have we used one since?

 

[Blaster]

And that is a great example of something that was HIGHLY controversal both at the time and later in hindsight both pro and con.

Have we used one since?

We started the arms race with that decision to drop the atom bomb.

 

[Lisa558]

How about the atom bomb we dropped on Japan?

That’s different. The JOOS didn‘t drop the bomb.

 

[Blaster]

Israel has a right to eradicate Hamas.

 

[Coyote]

We started the arms race with that decision to drop the atom bomb.

Yup.

 

[Coyote]

Israel has a right to eradicate Hamas.

It does…and?

 

[Coyote]

That’s different. The JOOS didn‘t drop the bomb.

It is different for a lot of reasons having nothing to do with ”joooos”. It was and remains extremely controversial and no one will ever forget the horrible pictures of people running with their skinning falling off. The legacy will never be forgotten I hope.

 

[Lisa558]

It does…and?

If the HAMAS savages hide behind civilians, resulting in more civilians deaths as Israel eradicates them, that’s all HAMAS’ fault,

They could have had this over with 6 months ago by returning the hostages and surrendering. But they’d rather have their people killed so the anti-Israel people can push the genocide lie.

HAMAS are evil, barbaric people. And don’t tell me again that they’re not all bad because they build roads. That’s like saying Hitler made the trains run on time.

 

[Blaster]

It is different for a lot of reasons having nothing to do with ”joooos”. It was and remains extremely controversial and no one will ever forget the horrible pictures of people running with their skinning falling off. The legacy will never be forgotten I hope.

We don't have the moral highground.

 

[Foxfyre]

The IDF has begun evacuating civilians from eastern Rafah to a new expanded humanitarian zone which includes al-Mawasi and parts of Khan Yunis and central Gaza, the IDF announced on Monday morning. The evacuation comes ahead of planned IDF operations in the Rafah area.

The new humanitarian zone includes field hospitals, tents, and increased provisions of food, water, medicine, and other supplies.

Additionally, the IDF is working in cooperation with international organizations and several countries to allow an increase of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip.

The IDF, in accordance with a decision made by the political echelon, is calling on the population currently under Hamas control to evacuate temporarily from the eastern neighborhoods of Rafah to the new zone. The evacuation will be conducted in a phased manner in accordance with continuing situation assessments.

The call to evacuate is being made through leaflets, text messages, phone calls, and statements in Arabic.

"The IDF will continue to operate in order to realize the goals of the war, including the dismantling of Hamas and the return of all the hostages," said the IDF.

Shortly after the IDF announcement, Palestinian media reported that the IDF began dropping leaflets over Rafah informing civilians about the evacuation. The leaflets warned that Gaza City is still off limits and considered a "dangerous combat zone" and that it is "forbidden to approach the eastern and southern security fence."

The leaflets, published by the IDF as well, noted that the IDF would act with "extreme force" against terrorist organizations in the areas under the evacuation order. "Anyone who is near terrorist organizations puts his life and the life of his family at risk," warned the leaflets.

IDF begins evacuating civilians from eastern Rafah northward

The new humanitarian zone includes field hospitals, tents, and increased provisions of food, water, medicine, and other supplies.

www.jpost.com

In hindsight, this should have been done in 2008.

From Day One the Israelis have done their best to minimize or eliminate civilian losses. The only reason there have been so many civilian losses is squarely on Hamas. The reason civilian aid has sometimes not gotten to civilians is strictly on Hamas.

The antisemites in the media and here at USMB want us to believe it is Israel breaking international law. It isn't. That is strictly on Hamas who refuses to release its hostages, who refuses to pledge never to try to kill innocent Jews or drive Israel off the face of the Earth again, who uses civilians as human shields, who confiscates some or much of the aid intended for civilians, who deliberately puts women and children at deadly risk. Who continue to promise many more October 7ths launched against the Israel.

To require Israel to unilaterally cease fire when Hamas is determined to kill all Jews and destroy Israel is about as unfair and unreasonable as it gets. To deny Israel the right to destroy its enemy is to ensure many thousands of murders of innocents into the foreseeable future.

 

[Coyote]

If the HAMAS savages hide behind civilians, resulting in more civilians deaths as Israel eradicates them, that’s all HAMAS’ fault,

At a certain point, that longer becomes a valid argument because has switched from eradicating Hamas to eradicating Palestinians. Is that tbe direction you want it to take?

They could have had this over with 6 months ago by returning the hostages and surrendering. But they’d rather have their people killed if so the anti-Israel people can push the genocide lie.

True. But Hamas clearly does not care. Is that sufficient reason to punish Palestinian civilians?

 

[Blaster]

Israel has my full support.

 

[Blaster]

At a certain point, that longer becomes a valid argument because has switched from eradicating Hamas to eradicating Palestinians. Is that tbe direction you want it to take?



True. But Hamas clearly does not care. Is that sufficient reason to punish Palestinian civilians?

War is hell. Unfortunately civilians become collateral damage.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I think you assume a lot, so don’t claim I say things I didn’t because we are once again treading into the “untouchable Israel” realm. I try to say things as specifically as I can because I mean it specifically. I have also been referencing non-IP conflicts (particularly Ukraine) or general principles so as to avoid the “everyone is attacking Israel unfairly” refrain.

Genocide. I am not accusing Israel genocide. Are we clear? This is what I HAVE said and why.

After October 7, the elements existed within Israel that could have led to genocide: a horrific attack on civilians with deliberate atrocities committed on them; a long standing conflict; a righteous anger; historic cultural attitudes towards Arabs; and the means and ability to do so.

I posted a thoughtful article that went into that.

HAS Israel or IS Israel committing genocide? In my opinion, no. It has been investigated by an international body that determined it was not genocide, though it also found significant concerns about Israel’s conduct in the war. You can’t just take this ala carte and choose what fits your personal bias (and to be clear and specific, I am using “you/your” in general sense, not you specifically.)

Now…the part about measuring evil by outcome and not intent. I do not know where you get that unless it is because I DO bring outcome into the equation.

Intent matters a lot. In law it is the difference between murder and homicide.

In regards to evil, intent has to be there.

There are different moral considerations attached depending on intent.

• A car driving at night doesn’t see a pedestrian run out between cars and strikes him.
• A drunk driver, who lost his license due to DUI’s, swerves and strikes another car, killing a family.
• a robber committing a robbery shoots a police officer.
• A person see’s someone in the street and decides to kill him for fun.
• A person kills another solely because he is an (insert ethnic/religious/racial/sexual group of choice), something our laws single

These all lead to horrible outcomes, but they aren’t all evil or the same degree of evil, because of intent.

Then you have “outcome” which you seem to imply does not matter in defining evil, but it clearly does in how we define crimes. We recognize that not only does intent matter, but so do the results. That is the difference between the above and these examples: intent AND outcome.

A kid with a gun gets pissed off in a drug deal and shoots tbe dealer.

A mass shooter enters an elementary school and guns down dozens of students and teachers.

or..in terms of war….

1. Country A is in a border dispute with country B and a large number of combatants are killed on both sides.
2. Country A is striking military targets in Country B and some civilians are killed in the process.
3. Country D is targeting military targets in Country A killing large numbers of civilians.
4. Country C deliberately targets civilian infrastructure and populations in country B as part of its campaign to win a defensive war.
5. Country A deliberately targets civilian infrastructure and populations in country B as part of it’s campaign to win an offensive war.
6. Country B invades Country A for territorial gain after spreading dehumanizing propaganda defining those of country A as uniquely evil. In the process of conquering they round up and kill massive numbers of Country A civilians and destroy/ban their culture/language were conquered.
7. Country A defines Country B’s ethnic population as uniquely evil and as a result is careless in targeting resulting in large numbers of civilian casualties.
8. Country C decides the ethnic population of Country A needs to be exterminated because their ethnic identity is uniquely evil, and invades and attempts to do so for that purpose.

All are examples found various conflicts, both historic and current, around the world.

1-3 are neutral in intent, but 3 could be viewed more critically in ethical terms (why such high casualty rates, should be examined as to intent).

4-5 differ only in terms of whether it is a “righteous” combat. In both cases, civilians are deliberate targets. Evil or not?

6-8 include far more intent regarding civilians and views about the target population. Are 4-5 in the same realm of evil as 6-8? If intent was irrelevant, all would be classified as the same degree of evil.

In these examples, only 8 would fit the definition of genocide, the others either neutral or possible war crimes. Yet, in terms of evil, what makes 8 more evil than 6? Where does 7 fit in the scale? Is deliberate carelessness because of feelings about the particular ethnic/national group evil? (it is a bit like the drunk driver example.).

Then there is outcome, which I presume is what you are accusing me of, when claiming I am making it only about numbers. However, outcome is the difference between all the examples in the first group and the second group, or the difference between a mass shooting and a single shooting, and outcome is what is the same in 6-8.

So how can you say outcome doesn’t carry any weight in the moral calculous?



What is the difference between that and a goal of exterminating a population (through massacres, starvation, concentration camps, cultural irradication) in order to absorb territory and impose cultural supremacy over it when it comes to what is evil? (referencing Stalin/Ukraine, NOT Israel/Palestine).



Absolutely, as in the examples I gave above.


I disagree: the moral differences are tied to intent and outcome TOGETHER.

Intent: I hate redheads and want to kill them.

Intent AND Outcome: I hate readheads and killed one.

A lot of words to say nothing. Here is the difference between what the Palestinians, not just Hamas, did on Oct 7 and what Israel has done since.

There was never a real possibility the Oct 7 attack could bring about any change that would benefit the quality of life of the Palestinian people, or any beneficial political change, the motivation, the intent behind the Palestinians' Oct 7 attack was just to produce as much pain as possible for the Israeli people, in other words, it was just a racist hate crime on an exceptional scale.

On the other hand, in response to this heinous crime by the Palestinians, Israel has acted only in defense of its citizens, seeking to free the hostages and remove Hamas' ability to launch more racist hate crimes on that scale, and as the ICJ has ruled, there is no genocide, and as the US State Dept. reported yesterday, there is no evidence of war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza.

The fact that the Palestinians committed and continue to celebrate these heinous hate crimes, must place them as a people near the bottom of any scale of morality, and the fact that Israel, after suffering these crimes and continuing to suffer the torture of seeing its citizens, not only men and women but also the elderly and even infants, held hostage, has been able to wage this most moral military campaign, according to the ICJ and US State Dept., clearly places Israel very high up on any scale of morality.

 

[toomuchtime_]

A nice exclamation but too long.

It takes more words to try to sell a lie than it does to tell the truth.

 

[Blaster]

It takes more words to try to sell a lie than it does to tell the truth.

I keep my posts brief and to the point.

 

[Lisa558]

From Day One the Israelis have done their best to minimize or eliminate civilian losses. The only reason there have been so many civilian losses is squarely on Hamas. The reason civilian aid has sometimes not gotten to civilians is strictly on Hamas.

The antisemites in the media and here at USMB want us to believe it is Israel breaking international law. It isn't. That is strictly on Hamas who refuses to release its hostages, who refuses to pledge never to try to kill innocent Jews or drive Israel off the face of the Earth again, who uses civilians as human shields, who confiscates some or much of the aid intended for civilians, who deliberately puts women and children at deadly risk. Who continue to promise many more October 7ths launched against the Israel.

To require Israel to unilaterally cease fire when Hamas is determined to kill all Jews and destroy Israel is about as unfair and unreasonable as it gets. To deny Israel the right to destroy its enemy is to ensure many thousands of murders of innocents into the foreseeable future.

The Democrats would never insist that blacks or Muslims hang back and let a racist or Islamophobic terrorist group who has sworn to kill them continue with their genocide. The Jews are the only minority they demand sit back and let their enemy regroup in order to make good on their threat to commit another October 7th massacre.

 

[Foxfyre]

At a certain point, that longer becomes a valid argument because has switched from eradicating Hamas to eradicating Palestinians. Is that tbe direction you want it to take?



True. But Hamas clearly does not care. Is that sufficient reason to punish Palestinian civilians?

The point is that Israel is doing what it reasonably can to minimize Palestinian civilian harm.

What the U.N. should be demanding is a cease fire with the mandate that Hamas NEVER again fires a rocket into Israel, never again kidnaps another Israeli, never again seeks to harm Israel or Israelis in any way. If Hamas breaks that agreement then the U.N. will join with Israel to eradicate Hamas.

I'm pretty sure Israel would accept that deal in a heartbeat.

 

[Lisa558]

The point is that Israel is doing what it reasonably can to minimize Palestinian civilian harm.

What the U.N. should be demanding is a cease fire with the mandate that Hamas NEVER again fires a rocket into Israel, never again kidnaps another Israeli, never again seeks to harm Israel or Israelis in any way. If Hamas breaks that agreement then the U.N. will join with Israel to eradicate Hamas.

I'm pretty sure Israel would accept that deal in a heartbeat.

Of course they would, but the U.N. Is full of antisemitic Arabs. I’m sure you are aware that at least a dozen employees were among the terrorists who tortured Jews to death that day.

Now, would HAMAS accept that deal? Never. Their objective remains to eradicate Israel and kill all the Jews, and will NEVER agree to let Israel exist in peace.

In fact, the Palestinians were offered a land deal granting them 95% of what they wanted, but HAMAS turned it down. Why? It was conditioned on accepting Israel’s right to exist. The Palestinians should have kicked HAMAS to the curb then, but they agreed with them.