Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Friday gave one of his most direct condemnations of the civilian death toll in Gaza and said more needs to be done to “minimize harm to Palestinian civilians.”
Although Blinken commended Israel for its announcement of daily military pauses in areas of Northern Gaza and two evacuation corridors, he said that “there is more that can and should be done to minimize harm to Palestinian civilians.”
The top US diplomat has subtly shifted his messaging in the days since he departed the Middle East earlier this week to more directly voice condemnation of the civilian toll in Gaza and the US’ expectations for the Israeli government. However, he still has not condemned the Israeli government offensive and has continually voiced support for its right to defend itself.
Retaliation à la “well do a nightmarish orgy of mass murder, kidnapping, violence, and rape to get back at the nightmarish orgy of mass murder, kidnapping, violence, and rape” is truly fucked up.
Seeking justice is one thing, but going to war doesn’t end wars and terror doesn’t end terror.
What makes you dispute that this conflict is, as Israel claims, about self-defense and not inflicting terror? According to the IDF, they are supposedly targeting valid military targets with less concern for collateral damage than Hamas would like, thereby devaluing their human shield tactics. Intentionally targeting civilians in mass terror attacks is something done by only one side in this conflict, and Hamas owns it and celebrates it. Israel at least ostensibly holds itself to higher standards.
Opinion discarded
Based.
Guess you know their intentions better than they do, random internet stranger. Is your dismissal based on some evidence you can share with us, or just a gut feeling?
You can’t take terrorists words at face value. The IDF has a long history of lying about their intentions, especially when it comes to their military conquests and expansionism.
I’ll just pick the easy one today: Self defense ends where a non related human dies.
But even disregarding what history created the terrorist attack feels dirty.
If one truly wants a moral high ground, it should be preeetty unwavering. Now it’s just silly to say one thing and do another. Well more sad because people are dying.
If that’s your standard you’ve made retaliation impossible, there’s always collateral damage in war. Interesting limitation to impose on Israel, considering the initial attack that caused said retaliation was all about slaughtering and kidnapping non-related human civilians.
A repeatedly vanquished foe who constantly starts wars and loses, resulting in more and more land and freedoms taken from them each time, yet still refuses to sue for viable peace after 70+ years of this? The various Palestinian factions have remained belligerent while launching terrorist attacks and insisting on genocide against a foe they cannot defeat, and with each failed attempt they lose more. This reality hasn’t deterred them, and a refusal to accept these consequences has made groups like Hamas popular. Yeah this situation sucks but what caused this was a nation ignoring the realpolitik of their situation and poking the bear rather than trying to achieve peace, choosing pride over pragmatism. They are the ones who can end this conflict any time they want but it will mean giving up on some of their unattainable goals and laying down arms. Israel has all the cards and going all in against them, reality be damned, will yield tragic but predictable results.
Sure. Principles go all ways
Yes. The pretend of defense has been passed. It’s a tragedy which seems to just be escalating
It’s self-defense until Hamas has been rendered incapable of launching another such attack, stopping before then does not provide the safety that they claim this entire operation is about.
If they’d only defend towards Hamas. But now the world knows it’s not the case.
Huh? That’s a bit garbled. Are you suggesting they aren’t attacking Hamas, the government of Gaza? Are you suggesting they intentionally let the October 7th attack happen? Neither of these make sense to me and I’d like to see some supporting evidence if that’s what you’re getting at. Vague phrases like, “the world knows,” are empirically useless, like supporting a claim with, “people say.”
I don’t know where you pulled your assumptions. The whole topic is about civilian casualties. Defense would be fighting Hamas but now it’s clear that the attacks are towards others as well.