UN chief condemns attack on ambulance convoy in Gaza: ‘This must stop’
(thehill.com)
from TinyPizza@kbin.social to world@lemmy.world on 04 Nov 2023 15:44
https://kbin.social/m/world@lemmy.world/t/597821
from TinyPizza@kbin.social to world@lemmy.world on 04 Nov 2023 15:44
https://kbin.social/m/world@lemmy.world/t/597821
The United Nations (U.N.) condemned a recent attack by Israel on a convoy of ambulances leaving a Gaza hospital. “I am horrified by the reported attack in Gaza on an ambulance convoy outside Al Shi…
#world
threaded - newest
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The United Nations (U.N.) condemned a recent attack by Israel on a convoy of ambulances leaving a Gaza hospital.
“I am horrified by the reported attack in Gaza on an ambulance convoy outside Al Shifa hospital,” Antonio Guterres posted on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.
“Now, for nearly one month, civilians in Gaza, including children & women, have been besieged, denied aid, killed & bombed out of their homes,” Guterres continued.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF), who claimed responsibility for the strike, countered, saying it killed “a number of Hamas terrorist operatives.”
Guterres’s comments follow warnings from fellow U.N. officials about a dire humanitarian situation in Gaza amid a conflict between Israel and Palestinian militant group Hamas.
Israeli air campaigns and a recent ground offensive in response have more than 9,200 Palestinians dead, according to the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry.
The original article contains 276 words, the summary contains 142 words. Saved 49%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
dude sounds too woke to run the UN
/s
Meanwhile western nations are falling over each other to deliver military aid to Israel, a nation that clearly does not need it and is using those tools to manufacture fresh child skeletons as part their religious war.
Yeah, they had no issues with putting restrictions on how and where Ukraine was allowed to use certain weapons, but Israel can just casually do any war crime. The US is literally allowing them to target American citizens.
The big difference is Ukraine is on the border of NATO, Ukraine is fighting Russia. Russia could end the world in nuclear war, its a non-zero chance. NATO can affect western interests very well in Eastern Europe.
Israel is in the middle east the only “Western” country, and used as a foil for “Western” interests in the region acting as a bulwark against other middle eastern countries. Israel is fighting a group that poses nearly zero threat to world stability. Israel divides middle eastern alliances and can play KSA and Iran off each other.
So the big difference is Ukraine is useful to be the rock upon which the Russian military is destroyed, winning the war isn’t really a western goal. So the west ties the hands of Ukraine in their military aid as the big strategic risk is if the war spreads.
Israel has no restrictions because they need to be a political foil in the area, and none of their neighbors pose a risk to international order.
Hamas doesn't have nukes, unlike Russia. That's the only reason the US has tried to avoid rapid escalation in Ukraine.
Other than the US and perhaps the UK, which western nations have given significant military aid to Israel recently?
I googled, and from what I can tell plenty of countries have sold the Israelis weapons under exiting contracts, but haven't sent much actual military aid.
UK and Germany, for two.
Other than the US and UK.
Google says Germany's providing 4 combat drones which were already in the country.
I feel goal posts shifting away to any response I make. Pass.
No. I asked a genuine question.
You claimed:
I asked:
To which you answered the UK and Germany. My initial google suggested all that Germany has sent are 4 combat drones which were already in Israel but being used for training, which is why I asked you to backup your claim.
So to be honest, given I couldn't find anything to support you claim, and you didn't provide anything to source your claim, it sounds like you were talking out of your backside.
It’s quite believable that there were terrorists inside the convoy.
However, despite that, I would not attack a convoy of ambulances because there could still be a risk of killing actual doctors.
Reasonable! Doctors and civilians? It's OK if you just say doctors. Legitimately interested in your stance.
Civilian causalities will be always there but at some point it may not be worth to kill that many people for finding a single military target.
E.g. I would never support throwing a nuclear bomb at Qatar just because those sons of bitches are hiding there, despite the fact I would no longer like to see them in this world.
What is your acceptable ratio of civilian to target then?
That’s my personal opinion and is not really relevant.
However, so far the numbers were not higher than in other wars.
The past wars in Gaza or the proportion of civilian deaths in wars in general? I understand that it's your personal opinion that's why I was curious. 1/5, maybe 1/10? That's not a lot, is it? Do you feel that changes with the importance of target? Does it have to be important targets or are there acceptable numbers that you'd attach to any combatant?
Not OP, but this is just a bunch of hypothetical nonsense. Any scenario would vastly change the numbers. Say it’s a Rogue terrorist group with multiple nuclear weapons, that is set on launching in 24 hours… the allowable civilian casualties could be almost as high as a total city population. Too many variables for your question.
I'm asking for their opinion, how is that nonsense? I was specific in the context of the situation, so there really aren't that many variables. I even volunteered the main things that would account for exceptions. What would you say with the specifics at hand?
They said they do have an opinion on it. They mention those numbers aren't out of line with previous conflicts, so does that make the current ratios normal? If we're here to discuss these topics, then why not this one? How is this anymore taboo then a thread about an ambulance convoy being targeted?
Deciding how many civilians can be killed for each target is for another discussion. Ideally the lower the number is, the better. That’s unfortunately not possible though
Would a ground campaign of selective engagement of hostile targets not lower that number? I mean, when someone shoots at you, or has a gun or is in front of you in a terror tunnel (hostages not withstanding) doesn't that lead to a much lower toll? Israel fields one of the best trained and equipped forces in the world. How could they not have conducted this with the support of very limited/targeted strikes? This is a legitimate question that is being asked globally. You don't think what I just laid out was possible?
Can I ask what exactly you mean by “selective engagement of hostile targets”?
Sure, beyond firing at people who are clearly not civilians, I mean it in the sense of picking your areas of battle to avoid further civilian casualty. If Hamas is using these people as human shields and PR fodder, then why not use your superior force to engage and disengage based on that. The Hamas terrorists aren't going anywhere. You can pick and choose your battle conditions and time should only be a factor that opposes them.
You can advance and retreat at your leisure and drain the opponent through attrition. Find an area you know to be clear of civilians and draw the enemy to you. Any of these methods allow you to set the terms of the battle and control the space in a way that most benefits the moral aspect of your cause.
I mean this sounds reasonable. But how do you want to make sure that terrorists don’t bring civilians with them?
Furthermore, how about those that are in the tunnels?