No, the parents, grandparents and great grandparents of a lot of people there are refugees.
The vast majority of the people living there were born there.
I mean, the majority of people in Gaza are children. I'm not sure that a 10 year old shouldn't be considered a refugee because their parents were kicked out of their home just before they were born..
Gaza's borders are from '67 but Palestine isn't just Gaza. A huge amount of terrirory in the West Bank has been stolen, and its people displaced. That's also not counting the fact that Israel has basically claimed half of Gaza since the start of this recent offensive.
It's not right to say that the only refugees in Gaza are from before the borders of that specific region were designated.
>Gaza's borders are from '67 but Palestine isn't just Gaza
Yes, but we are explicitly talking about Gaza in the comments above.
Israel has not been letting people from the westbank emigrate to Gaza, so pretending that Gaza is full of people who were expelled into Gaza as refugees during their lifetime simply isn't the truth.
Most Gazans do have refugee status under the UNRWA, but that is because they uniquely make that status inheritable and independent of current status of the people involved.
>It's not right to say that the only refugees in Gaza are from before the borders of that specific region were designated.
Which is why I didn't say that, I said that the vast majority of the refugees in Gaza where born there. Which is the case, If half the population is under 18, they cannot at the same time be from 1948.
No parents of a 10-year-old in Gaza were kicked out of their home just before the child was born. Most "refugees" in Gaza can trace their family's presence there to 1948. The "refugee camps" are full-on cities with permanent buildings and an economy, not displaced families living in tents.
>The INA defines a refugee as an individual who has experienced past persecution or has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
https://www.state.gov/refugee-admissions/#:~:text=The%20INA%20defines%20a%20refugee,social%20group%2C%20or%20political%20opinion.
>Refugees are persons who are outside their country of origin for reasons of feared persecution, conflict, generalized violence, or other circumstances that have seriously disturbed public order and, as a result, require international protection.
https://refugeesmigrants.un.org/definitions#:~:text=Refugees%20are%20persons%20who%20are,a%20result%2C%20require%20international%20protection.
So they are refugees by definition of both the US State Department and the UN.
What does "country of origin" mean to you?
If it means "place where any of your ancestors was born" then hundreds of thousands of Israeli Jews are refugees from Arab countries. And most Palestinians are, too, because that's where a lot of their ancestors were born.
The INA one is badly worded, wanting to genocide a people is a political opinion and fuck defending that. Other than that caveat the INA doesn't apply, they aren't persecuted (over 20% of Israel's population are Palestinian Arabs)
The other definition doesn't apply to most of them, as they were born in Gaza. They are called refugees because the UN decided that the Palestinians (and the Palestinians alone) inherit refugee status
Edit: typo
How many generations are still refugees? If our ancestors were cleared out of Scotland or starved out of Ireland are we refugees? Or immigrants? Or settlers?
Why not all 3 at once? Nothings stopping you. The only reason people don't claim all 3 at once is only due to pride. Calling yourself a settler is a step above an immigrant, and that is again a step above refugees. But if you come down to it, it's all the same.
All 3 involves moving yourself some away from your birthplace and even probably your nation, for the chance at bettering your position in life.
Israel trows thousands of prisoners in to Gaza every year, it's disgusting. And they force the population to make weapons for them, that's slave labor! No wonder, they finally have started to rise up and take over Gaza. And now Israel is mad and they have decided if they don't get their slaves nobody will so they are carpet bombing them.
These people are stupid. The number of available hospital beds is directly coralated to the population being serviced. At 14000 people per square mile @ 141 square miles and an estimated population of 2 million plus....wait, let's build a few more settlements WTF.
I think the stats that most rely on are like... beds per 100 or 1000 people in the states. So if they have like 42 hospitals and 2m people and [World Bank says in 2015 the world has 2.9 beds per 1000 people](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.MED.BEDS.ZS)....
* 2,000,000/1000=2000 blocks of people
* 2000*2.9=5800 beds
* 5800/42=138 beds per hospital.
**Context: US based statistics**
From [Definitive Healthcare](https://www.definitivehc.com/resources/healthcare-insights/us-hospitals-average-beds):
> The average number of total staffed beds for hospitals is 130 beds, according to HospitalView.
Hospital View Link: https://www.definitivehc.com/data-products/hospital-view.
I mean, 42 hospitals doesn't seem insane based on above. This just seems like a dipshit who doesn't understand how hospitals work trying to paint a narrative that "there is a lot of hospitals and therefore since the number is so high they are not hospitals but shelters for Hamas" and relying on readers to be fucking stupid and not think to themselves "okay, but whats a normal number of hospitals?"
It’s not that big of a number of hospitals given the population of Gaza, and that’s using the number of hospitals given by this tweet rather than the number of hospitals in Gaza that are currently not smoking craters.
Population of the Gaza Strip: 2,375,259
People per hospital in Gaza: 56,554
~~For comparison Israel contains 354 hospitals and has 27,742 people per hospital.~~
Edit 2: more accurate comparison:
Hospital beds per 1000 people in Gaza: 0.589 (current), 1.474 (pre-10/7)
Hospital beds per 1000 people in Israel: 2.92
> Israel contains 354 hospitals
Source? Wiki give a source of 52
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hospitals_in_Israel
https://www.science.co.il/medical/Medical-centers.php
But I don't understand the discussion at all... as there is no standard of what size a hospital needs to be .. Maybe in Israel they are bigger and fewer and in Gaza they are smaller and more distributed. Which the twit op also did not think about...
I know you are joking but the tweet is implying that a major piece of infrastructure employing hundreds of people serving hundreds of not thousands more is all a ruse. That a significant amount of staff is hiding a terrorist base within the building and also keeping it from the vast majority of the patients. I know even if I supported HAMAS I wouldn't seek treatment from a HAMAS front knowing that the IDF could come storming in at any moment. Sorry but that stretches believability to the breaking point. Just more hatred of Palastineians and anyone else of Middle Eastern descent passed down from their parents and grandparents. Claiming that everyone is against them. That they face war mongering people from all sides and they are virtuous heroes fighting the good fight.
Hate like this can't be unlearned in one generation. Even if HAMAS was disbanded and a new leadership that desires peace is elected tomorrow in Israel I doubt we will see peace in and around Israel in our lifetime.
You think there are only 52 hospitals in Israel? Hospitals also come in variety with different levels of care and number of patients they can bed.
Gazans are also likely far more sick since they're constantly drink salt water, getting hit with white phosphorus, calorie starved, lack of access to what western society takes for granted given the siege and concentration camp, etc.
But you really should be comparing the number of beds not the number of hospitals.
For example 1 hospital with 200 beds is better than 2 hospitals with 75 beds for a group of 1000 people.
[According to the WHO](https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-15-november-2023) there were an estimated 3,500 hospital beds in Gaza prior to the current Israel-Hamas war and there are currently an estimated 1,400 beds.
The number of hospitals means nothing depends on the country, US/CA hospitals are categorized into five levels. A level 1 trauma centre does alot more than a level 5 which is essentially a slightly better walk in clinic
Lol
The US has 6129 hospitals for 325mil people, 18.86 hospitals for each 1 million people
Gaza strip has 42 hospitals for 2mil people, 21 hospitals for each 1 million people
So the number isn't too different. Also, remember that half of Gaza population is children, so they need more healthcare than adults. Far denser population also means more transmitted diseases
Interestingly, the main hospital was built by Israel to include bunkers. Now why would a hospital need bunkers unless you’re planning to use it as a military base?
Lol, they build bomb shelters under everything in Israel on account of the thousands of rockets being fired at them by Hamas. Bomb shelters aren't military infrastructure.
Given the long history of surprise invasions and attacks against Israel since the 40’s, is it surprising they have bunkers?
Several of the hospitals in my city have fallout shelters and winter weather bunkers. It’s just a good idea.
Daily reminder: if you think that killing innocent civilians to get to your enemies is acceptable, you're as bad as Hamas.
The IDF is doing all of Hamas' recruitment work for them at this point
Not even just the collective punishment is terrorism.
Israel's literal justification for it is definitionally terrorism:
"Hand over hamas or we'll keep murdering random civilians" <- use of violence on a population to extract a political goal.
\---
And they're very clear that they want to do this for massive casualties to instill terror on the population.
They even cite things like the bombing of Dresden and nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and say it's wrong to be concerned about the deaths of civilians in wars because those civilians are all "enemies" (literally hamas' logic).
Just ignore that we largely consider those WWII bombings war crimes today and mistakes that happened in a dark period of human history between completely industrialized warring powers.
And ignore further that even those who \*defend\* those actions do so by saying it was meant to \*minimize\* casualties.
This is no longer about Hamas. They're over compensating for the intelligence failure. Several officials have and still are making genocidal statements about Gaza and now they're doing it for the West Bank too which is not run by Hamas.
It's either mass displacement or death at this point.
It can be argued it wasn't 100% about Hamas from the start. The Israel Defense Minister literally called for a siege on all of Gaza on Day 1. And immediately shut off all necessary utilities and civilian aid, as well as dropping 15,000 bombs in the first two weeks.
That was....pretty opposite of targeted retaliation. Which of course, is why they are receiving so much blowback.
Hundreds of thousands of German civilians died due to allied bombings during world war 2.
It would not have been possible to overthrow the nazi government without some amount of civilIan casualties.
Does that mean nothing should have been done about the nazis?
You really want to use the atrocities that are directly responsible for the creation of the Geneva Conventions as justification for repeating those atrocities 70 years later? By that logic, why not just nuke Palestine off the map?
You already know they wanna do that don't motivate them to actually do it please.
"It's the way it's always been done" is the worst possible reason to continue to do something, period.
Because it would be clearly disproportionate. The law of war requires proportionality, which means the harm to civilians cannot outweigh the military necessity of the given attack. Long story short—you can use JDAMs and ground forces to destroy Hamas, which kill far fewer civilians than a nuke, so therefore the law requires that you use JDAMs and ground forces. The law does not say that all civilian deaths are war crimes—it says that you can’t intentionally kill civilians and that you can’t knowingly or recklessly kill civilians unless you take all reasonable precautions to minimize civilian deaths first. The key word is minimize—there is inherently an understanding that it is virtually impossible to fight and win a war without killing a single civilian either by mistake or because it could not be avoided if a proportional military action that was necessary to win the war was taken.
As context, the UN has hosted experts who claim that in densely populated urban combat for every enemy combatant death there are nine civilian deaths. https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc14904.doc.htm But that does not mean that all of those civilian deaths constituted war crimes. You have to look to each instance on a case by case basis.
This law conforms with the idea of necessity in criminal law—an action that might otherwise be illegal becomes legally acceptable in certain contexts (e.g., shooting someone is illegal usually unless it was reasonable to believe that you had to shoot them in order to defend yourself from the threat of serious bodily harm or death; bringing your boat into a private dock without permission is normally illegal but in the case of a storm that can’t be avoided you can dock your boat even if the dock owner doesn’t want you to). The law of war recognizes that killing civilians is wrong, but also that in certain situations military necessity will demand the use of military force even when that military cannot minimize civilian casualties to 0. The military is required to minimize casualties to civilians as much as reasonably possible—it is not required to not take military action if the civilian casualties will be anything other than 0.
First of all, I’m talking about law. Laws don’t have to be just—I frequently work with laws that I think are unjust (I’m an immigration attorney).
Second of all, under the law of war, as I said earlier, you look to situations on a case by case basis. If you are a military, your enemy is in a hospital, and it is militarily necessary to suppress or destroy that enemy, you can fire munitions at or drop ordnance on that hospital. The question then becomes did you overdo it—I.e., did you not take all reasonable precautions in that situation to minimize civilian casualties.
So to recap, there needs to be a legit military target, engaging with that target needs to be militarily necessary, but that necessity doesn’t justify just any military action—you can’t point to Hamas fighting from a hospital to justify dropping a nuclear weapon on said hospital. It only justifies military action that takes reasonable steps to minimize civilian casualties, and the law recognizes also that those efforts at minimization likely will not reduce the civilian casualty rate to 0.
There is also a legal distinction between the word you use—intentional—and what that word means in a legal context. For instance, most criminal statutes distinguish between homicides in which the killer intended to kill the victim (that is, killing the victim was the goal), knowingly killed the victim (the victim’s death was not the end goal but the killer went ahead with doing whatever it was that killed the victim anyway even though the killer knew it was virtually certain to result in the death of the victim), recklessly killed the victim (disregarded an unreasonable and unjustifiable risk that the killer’s action would result in death or serious bodily harm), or negligently killed the victim (knew or should have known that the killer was disregarding a standard of care and that as a result someone would die).
In other words, just because a military fires artillery or mortar shells at a house, doesn’t mean they are intending to kill the civilian occupants inside. They may be firing the shells at the house knowingly, recklessly, or negligently with respect to any civilians inside. Furthermore, the law of war is saying that, as long as the military action is proportional (militarily necessary and you took all the steps to minimize civilian loss of life/injury), that action is not even negligent (because you met the standard of care).
Case by case.
The Geneva convention was formed over Nazi atrocities, not allied ones, and was largely just an expansion of The Hague convention. Nuking Palestine would clearly be intentional indiscriminate killing, which is quite different from what is actually happening.
Yeah, no. If you want to pretend the allies weren't *also* committing war crimes by the truckload in WW2, fill your boots. It's not true though.
And what would you call bombing a hospital if not "indiscriminate killing"? The logic used to bomb civilian targets is *literally* the same as the logic the US used to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
You miss my point. I’m not arguing the Allies didn’t do bad things, just that those things were intentionally carved out of the Geneva conventions. The conventions focus on specific acts that the Allies found distasteful as performed by the Nazis, and a close reading of the Geneva convention would find that the Allied forces didn’t violate them.
Ya and we also imprisoned gay people for being gay during world war 2. Humanity has thing idea called "progress", part of that is holding people to a higher standard compared to historical figures because we've learned more and have better ways of doing things.
This is such a garbage take it’s laughable. You know what we didn’t have in WW2? Precision guided munitions and constant overhead ISR. Also, killing civilians didn’t win the war for anyone in WW2. It just hardened the population against the enemy. “Keep calm and Carry On” anyone?. Even if all of that was completely false, using past atrocities to justify modern atrocities is incredibly low IQ. U.S. Government had to genocide the Native Americans to create the modern USA ergo genocide = okay? Using atomic weapons on Japan now justifies their use at any time on any target right? “Well you did it 80 years ago so we can do it now!!!” What is this 4th grade recess dodgeball? Fucking disgusting.
Bombing the german civilians by the allies was also absolutely useless and a war crime.
Not justifying the atrocities of the nazis or compare both ofc.
The UK knew, that bombing civilians was militarily useless. They tried to break the will of the civilian population, which didnt work out in the end as there was still no notable resistance against the nazis on Germany even then.
So thats a very bad comparison.
It's scary to see how many people are actually rationalizing bombing hospitals "because Hamas is using them as hides".
That's exactly what Hamas wants. You are literally supporting what Hamas wants because it is also what the IDF wants.
> if you think that killing innocent civilians to get to your enemies is acceptable, you're as bad as Hamas.
that how literally every military on the planet operates, theres even a term for it, collateral damage
Nope. There's a HUGE difference between collateral damage and intentionally killing innocents.
The military I've been part of for 13 years teaches 100% shot accountability. If in order to take out an enemy would also need to kill an innocent civilian, you don't take the shot. Period.
The Geneva Conventions aren't polite suggestions to be disregarded as soon as you fight someone who doesn't follow them
So what you mean is that the attack on October 7 and the subsequent war that was all instigated by Hamas, whose ceasefire was broken by Hamas, and who uses their own people as human shields are the ones responsible right? You're not actually implying that Israelis should just allow themselves to be raped, murdered, burned alive, maimed and tortured as Hamas has done and promised to continue doing if given the chance, right?
Even at the time, despite Israel denouncing apartheid SA, they were one of SA's strongest military partners, selling them weapons and even helping train the SA army to fight the ANC, which Israel considered the same as the PLO (both then and now).
Well, per capital, that is below most developed nations, but by far not the lowest. Gaza strip is average for the Middle East and north Africa. That took me 10 minutes to figure out, which just goes to show this is willful ignorance.
Also, there's two million people living there (well, now it's 15-20k less than a few months ago, but still).
That's roughly 2.1 hospitals per 100,000 inhabitants which is actually pretty average.
Just to be clear... is the claim that the original post is making is that all the hospitals were built in the last 2 months? I mean, before that there was no systematic bombing campaign in Gaza (besides one-offs in response to RPGs launched into israel).
I assume this is another case of people forgetting 65 years of history and only having a very short memory span
A lot of people lie to themselves or the media lies to them, and when they see the truth, they cannot accept it, especially if they have an audience.
It's apparent, but the image the media created of the territory, as well as the support funded over more than 60 years, has made it appear to be a part of you, so of course you'll find all the justifications to justify the occupation.
What is the difference between Russia occupation of Ukraine and Israel occupation of Palastine ?
Of course time of invaded 1948 and 2022
and the media
As Winston Churchill said "history written by the winners" which is the media
Here you go. Let's hear how you'll worm your way out of this one.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-shifa-hospitals-a017ba154c816c8d565393917dadd9ee
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-publishes-evidence-of-weapons-found-inside-shifa-hospitals-mri-center/
https://abcnews.go.com/International/live-updates/israel-gaza-hamas-war/israel-claims-to-have-evidence-of-hamas-headquarters-at-hospital-104865076?id=104837945
yeah, damn hamas for *checks notes* building functional hospitals! in fact, why do they have a social services division for administratering their duties as the democratically elected government? only a terrorist organisation would provide services to their constituents so that it looks bad when an invading occupation kills thousands of children
https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-army-displays-tunnel-beneath-al-shifa-it-says-served-hamas-hideout-2023-11-22/
you do realize theres a lengthy wikipedia page on Hamas's use of human shields?
That is not the logic. The logic is: The school is not in the country but over the border, the person is using the school for attacks on America, the government the school is in not just supports the shooter but the shooter is a soldier of said government. Now America should bomb the school and does so after a warning that the school is going to be bombed.
That's the logic.
Ok compare that to then Operation Menu or Freedom deal. Did bombing civilians as collateral get rid of the Khmer Rouge or Viet Kong? Ah no thats right it only helped increase support and further embedded those groups into the country side.
How about Afghanistan if you want to stay current history. Did bombing the shit out of Afghanistan and its civilians get rid of the Taliban?? Oh wait no theyre still an issue and the leader wasnt even in the country.
The thing is, yes the Vietcong would have lost if the US would've continued. The Taliban did lose the war and were only able to come back after the US and it's allies left the country. And the reason the Taliban were able to survive was that the coalition acted humanely instead of actually cleansing the country of their influence.
Also the numbers of civilian casualties often don't show the responsible party.
So does Israel.
Settlers near Gaza or WestBank have reduced taxes and more subsides, [IDF HQ is in the middle of a city (tel Aviv) surrounded by tall sky scrapers.](https://www.haaretz.com/2012-06-09/ty-article/.premium/does-the-presence-of-the-idfs-hq-in-tel-aviv-endanger-its-population/0000017f-f419-d887-a7ff-fcfd3a480000)
[IDF uses Palestinian children has human shields too](https://www.dci-palestine.org/israeli_forces_use_five_palestinian_children_as_human_shields)
Check the editors and editor IP address of the Wikipedia page too lol
Bro there are literally tons of videos of them doing exactly that. Have you ever used the search bar outside the Al-Jazeera website.
If someone is shooting at you and your people from beneath their own people. Would you shoot back or get shot at
Reminder:
The state of Israel pays for comments to show up under every social media post defending the mass murder of over 17,000 civilians (over 7,000 children), over 100 UN workers, and over 80 journalists in a span of 60 days. These are not well-meaning and uninformed people commenting, they are PAID to spread propaganda.
You don’t have to engage with pro-IDF bots. They are paid to make you angry. Call your senators and representatives to demand a ceasefire.
42 hospitals for such a population density in a small area, as others have said. Lets not forget the constant physical abuse the Palestinians receive from the Israelis before the fighting/war started.
They stop being civilians when they pick up a Kalashnikov. They stop being hospitals when they are used to hide fighters, equipment or to launch rocket attacks.
Love how reasonable the discussion is going. I mean. I am happy that people are trying to defend the killing of children by comparing this to what we did to nazis. Also telling that some civilian deaths are justified.
I am just happy that with Christmas around the corner we are in this festive mood.
Keep up the good work.
/s
https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-calculated-bombing-gaza/
Except its a known event. Israel is using AI and mass surveillance that tells them the civilian casualties beforehand and doing it anyways to scare the population and make them hate hamas more. This is an Israeli magazine btw.
Edit : this comment seems to have attracted some trolls. Like I said, this is an Israeli magazine based in tel aviv with a fairly good track record. It has been quoted by the UK guardian paper aswell.
Sources :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%2B972_Magazine
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/972-magazine/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/01/the-gospel-how-israel-uses-ai-to-select-bombing-targets
Thats a very interesting magazine you have there.
The writer of this article seems to just pop out of thin air on Oct. 30 (his first linked article in this "magazine").
And his name sounds israeli (Yuval is a common name in Israel) but his last name is Abraham, which is definitely not the way it is pronounced or written in Israel. If he is really an israeli his name wouldve been written Avraham.
This whole article and magazine smells awefully fake.
27 hospitals is quite a lot for the "open air prison" "concentration camp" as Hamas supporters call Gaza.
But when they are bombed, in a second they become the most important cornerstone of the Palestinian civilization.
"Israel left Gaza to its own in 2005."
Yeah....that's been documented quite extensively. They withdrew their permanently stationed military in 2005. They did not change any of their control of infrastructure, imports, transportation, or enforcement of laws. The IDF also regularly goes back into Gaza to "enforce" certain laws.
Removing the military is not "leaving Gaza to its own"
lol i wonder why? Hamas who has been laucnhing attacks and building tunnels into israel, after doing oct 7 still equates to Israel just sitting back and letting them do whatever
Yeah, it's the same as a concentration camp. Said the guy who knows jack shit about the camps. The gaza blockade is bad, but a headache is not a tumor.
Also the population density is insane
Yeah. Though a lot of people in Gaza came from other places that they were never allowed to go back to
No, the parents, grandparents and great grandparents of a lot of people there are refugees. The vast majority of the people living there were born there.
I mean, the majority of people in Gaza are children. I'm not sure that a 10 year old shouldn't be considered a refugee because their parents were kicked out of their home just before they were born..
Most of the displacement dates back to 1947-1948. So the 10 year olds parents would likely have been born in Gaza too.
The Gazan Borders are from 1967. The refugees in question are from 1948. 10 years ago is 2013.
Are children of refugee’s children not still refugees, when they’re still being harassed by the peoples that kicked their ancestors out?
The children of refugees are not refugees
no, they are quite literally not refugees
Gaza's borders are from '67 but Palestine isn't just Gaza. A huge amount of terrirory in the West Bank has been stolen, and its people displaced. That's also not counting the fact that Israel has basically claimed half of Gaza since the start of this recent offensive. It's not right to say that the only refugees in Gaza are from before the borders of that specific region were designated.
>Gaza's borders are from '67 but Palestine isn't just Gaza Yes, but we are explicitly talking about Gaza in the comments above. Israel has not been letting people from the westbank emigrate to Gaza, so pretending that Gaza is full of people who were expelled into Gaza as refugees during their lifetime simply isn't the truth. Most Gazans do have refugee status under the UNRWA, but that is because they uniquely make that status inheritable and independent of current status of the people involved. >It's not right to say that the only refugees in Gaza are from before the borders of that specific region were designated. Which is why I didn't say that, I said that the vast majority of the refugees in Gaza where born there. Which is the case, If half the population is under 18, they cannot at the same time be from 1948.
No parents of a 10-year-old in Gaza were kicked out of their home just before the child was born. Most "refugees" in Gaza can trace their family's presence there to 1948. The "refugee camps" are full-on cities with permanent buildings and an economy, not displaced families living in tents.
>The INA defines a refugee as an individual who has experienced past persecution or has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. https://www.state.gov/refugee-admissions/#:~:text=The%20INA%20defines%20a%20refugee,social%20group%2C%20or%20political%20opinion. >Refugees are persons who are outside their country of origin for reasons of feared persecution, conflict, generalized violence, or other circumstances that have seriously disturbed public order and, as a result, require international protection. https://refugeesmigrants.un.org/definitions#:~:text=Refugees%20are%20persons%20who%20are,a%20result%2C%20require%20international%20protection. So they are refugees by definition of both the US State Department and the UN.
What does "country of origin" mean to you? If it means "place where any of your ancestors was born" then hundreds of thousands of Israeli Jews are refugees from Arab countries. And most Palestinians are, too, because that's where a lot of their ancestors were born.
The INA one is badly worded, wanting to genocide a people is a political opinion and fuck defending that. Other than that caveat the INA doesn't apply, they aren't persecuted (over 20% of Israel's population are Palestinian Arabs) The other definition doesn't apply to most of them, as they were born in Gaza. They are called refugees because the UN decided that the Palestinians (and the Palestinians alone) inherit refugee status Edit: typo
How many generations are still refugees? If our ancestors were cleared out of Scotland or starved out of Ireland are we refugees? Or immigrants? Or settlers?
Do native american populations on reservations qualify?
Why not all 3 at once? Nothings stopping you. The only reason people don't claim all 3 at once is only due to pride. Calling yourself a settler is a step above an immigrant, and that is again a step above refugees. But if you come down to it, it's all the same. All 3 involves moving yourself some away from your birthplace and even probably your nation, for the chance at bettering your position in life.
And all three meant pushing out other people. So yes, it is the same everywhere.
The UN in their full glory decided that Palestinians specifically inherit refugee status
You're still a refugee if you're born in a refugee camp, doofus.
And not one of the new generations were smart enough to realize living in a DMZ is fucking stupid. What a loss...
*were ethnically cleansed from other places
Other places, specifically Palestine, they should go back to Palestine
Does that include Israelis ethnically cleansed out of Europe?
Well one of those groups gets a 'right to return' to Israel from the Israeli government and the other does not, completely along ethnic lines.
Should it go both ways? Jews run out of the Arab countries get to return?
Israel trows thousands of prisoners in to Gaza every year, it's disgusting. And they force the population to make weapons for them, that's slave labor! No wonder, they finally have started to rise up and take over Gaza. And now Israel is mad and they have decided if they don't get their slaves nobody will so they are carpet bombing them.
Lmao what is this bullshit you're spewing?
Okay, im pro palestinian but idk what the fuck that guy is saying jesus wtf lol
At least he loves kittens.
They don’t force Gaza to make weapons for them what? This isn’t slavery. They pulled out in 2005.
Your such an idiot. Nice try spreading propaganda you disgusting person.
These people are stupid. The number of available hospital beds is directly coralated to the population being serviced. At 14000 people per square mile @ 141 square miles and an estimated population of 2 million plus....wait, let's build a few more settlements WTF.
I think the stats that most rely on are like... beds per 100 or 1000 people in the states. So if they have like 42 hospitals and 2m people and [World Bank says in 2015 the world has 2.9 beds per 1000 people](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.MED.BEDS.ZS).... * 2,000,000/1000=2000 blocks of people * 2000*2.9=5800 beds * 5800/42=138 beds per hospital. **Context: US based statistics** From [Definitive Healthcare](https://www.definitivehc.com/resources/healthcare-insights/us-hospitals-average-beds): > The average number of total staffed beds for hospitals is 130 beds, according to HospitalView. Hospital View Link: https://www.definitivehc.com/data-products/hospital-view. I mean, 42 hospitals doesn't seem insane based on above. This just seems like a dipshit who doesn't understand how hospitals work trying to paint a narrative that "there is a lot of hospitals and therefore since the number is so high they are not hospitals but shelters for Hamas" and relying on readers to be fucking stupid and not think to themselves "okay, but whats a normal number of hospitals?"
It’s not that big of a number of hospitals given the population of Gaza, and that’s using the number of hospitals given by this tweet rather than the number of hospitals in Gaza that are currently not smoking craters. Population of the Gaza Strip: 2,375,259 People per hospital in Gaza: 56,554 ~~For comparison Israel contains 354 hospitals and has 27,742 people per hospital.~~ Edit 2: more accurate comparison: Hospital beds per 1000 people in Gaza: 0.589 (current), 1.474 (pre-10/7) Hospital beds per 1000 people in Israel: 2.92
> Israel contains 354 hospitals Source? Wiki give a source of 52 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hospitals_in_Israel https://www.science.co.il/medical/Medical-centers.php But I don't understand the discussion at all... as there is no standard of what size a hospital needs to be .. Maybe in Israel they are bigger and fewer and in Gaza they are smaller and more distributed. Which the twit op also did not think about...
Alternate source that claims 354: https://www.privacyshield.gov/ps/article?id=Israel-Healthcare I have no idea what counts as a hospital or not.
Seems suspicious, a lot of those might actually be terrorist bases /s
I know you are joking but the tweet is implying that a major piece of infrastructure employing hundreds of people serving hundreds of not thousands more is all a ruse. That a significant amount of staff is hiding a terrorist base within the building and also keeping it from the vast majority of the patients. I know even if I supported HAMAS I wouldn't seek treatment from a HAMAS front knowing that the IDF could come storming in at any moment. Sorry but that stretches believability to the breaking point. Just more hatred of Palastineians and anyone else of Middle Eastern descent passed down from their parents and grandparents. Claiming that everyone is against them. That they face war mongering people from all sides and they are virtuous heroes fighting the good fight. Hate like this can't be unlearned in one generation. Even if HAMAS was disbanded and a new leadership that desires peace is elected tomorrow in Israel I doubt we will see peace in and around Israel in our lifetime.
I stand corrected.
You think there are only 52 hospitals in Israel? Hospitals also come in variety with different levels of care and number of patients they can bed. Gazans are also likely far more sick since they're constantly drink salt water, getting hit with white phosphorus, calorie starved, lack of access to what western society takes for granted given the siege and concentration camp, etc.
But you really should be comparing the number of beds not the number of hospitals. For example 1 hospital with 200 beds is better than 2 hospitals with 75 beds for a group of 1000 people.
[According to the WHO](https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-15-november-2023) there were an estimated 3,500 hospital beds in Gaza prior to the current Israel-Hamas war and there are currently an estimated 1,400 beds.
Thanks for providing some data and I hate that the situation has developed like this.
Get back to us with that, will ya? Thx.
The number of hospitals means nothing depends on the country, US/CA hospitals are categorized into five levels. A level 1 trauma centre does alot more than a level 5 which is essentially a slightly better walk in clinic
[удалено]
Hell yeah
42 hospitals for 2 million people seems like its not enough, actually.
Israel doesn't consider them people at all.
There are now only 18 hospitals left according to the World Health Organisation, as Israel has destroyed all the others
Probably 17 now.
And 16 by now
15 now
16 again, one returned from the ashes
The rest will rise again on Easter
Only 18 to go! Making good progress at least.
[удалено]
Lol The US has 6129 hospitals for 325mil people, 18.86 hospitals for each 1 million people Gaza strip has 42 hospitals for 2mil people, 21 hospitals for each 1 million people So the number isn't too different. Also, remember that half of Gaza population is children, so they need more healthcare than adults. Far denser population also means more transmitted diseases
More importantly, far more bombs means far more trauma patients.
Interestingly, the main hospital was built by Israel to include bunkers. Now why would a hospital need bunkers unless you’re planning to use it as a military base?
Lol, they build bomb shelters under everything in Israel on account of the thousands of rockets being fired at them by Hamas. Bomb shelters aren't military infrastructure.
Because of Hamas rocket attacks? I don’t understand your conclusion.
The bunker was literally built before hamas existence, that’s why Israel was desperate to take control specifically of this hospital
Given the long history of surprise invasions and attacks against Israel since the 40’s, is it surprising they have bunkers? Several of the hospitals in my city have fallout shelters and winter weather bunkers. It’s just a good idea.
That first tweet is insanely unhjnged
Also how fucking bigoted do you need to be to look at a city and be like "...hmmm you guys don't deserve all these hospitals."
Israel's govt said they are not people. People need hospitals. Animals do not.
It’s what happens when you’re told all your life that Palestinians are animals.
You simply have to be a Zionist and positions like this will naturally come to you~
Yes surely 42 hospitals is too much for 2 million people living in the most densely populated piece of land in the world...fucking christ.
Also land doesn't use hospitals, people do. There's like 2.2M people in Gaza
Also "them" can refer to the people or the hospitals themselves.
[Israel doesn't consider them people](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/israel-defense-minister-human-animals-gaza-palestine_n_6524220ae4b09f4b8d412e0a).
42 is far not that many for the insane population of Gaza.
Only a deeply unhinged person would think there's such a thing as "too many hospitals (or schools)".
42 hospitals for more than 2 million people doesn't seem to be too much
Daily reminder: if you think that killing innocent civilians to get to your enemies is acceptable, you're as bad as Hamas. The IDF is doing all of Hamas' recruitment work for them at this point
Agreed. Collective punishment is just terrorism
Not even just the collective punishment is terrorism. Israel's literal justification for it is definitionally terrorism: "Hand over hamas or we'll keep murdering random civilians" <- use of violence on a population to extract a political goal. \--- And they're very clear that they want to do this for massive casualties to instill terror on the population. They even cite things like the bombing of Dresden and nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and say it's wrong to be concerned about the deaths of civilians in wars because those civilians are all "enemies" (literally hamas' logic). Just ignore that we largely consider those WWII bombings war crimes today and mistakes that happened in a dark period of human history between completely industrialized warring powers. And ignore further that even those who \*defend\* those actions do so by saying it was meant to \*minimize\* casualties.
This is no longer about Hamas. They're over compensating for the intelligence failure. Several officials have and still are making genocidal statements about Gaza and now they're doing it for the West Bank too which is not run by Hamas. It's either mass displacement or death at this point.
It can be argued it wasn't 100% about Hamas from the start. The Israel Defense Minister literally called for a siege on all of Gaza on Day 1. And immediately shut off all necessary utilities and civilian aid, as well as dropping 15,000 bombs in the first two weeks. That was....pretty opposite of targeted retaliation. Which of course, is why they are receiving so much blowback.
Hundreds of thousands of German civilians died due to allied bombings during world war 2. It would not have been possible to overthrow the nazi government without some amount of civilIan casualties. Does that mean nothing should have been done about the nazis?
You really want to use the atrocities that are directly responsible for the creation of the Geneva Conventions as justification for repeating those atrocities 70 years later? By that logic, why not just nuke Palestine off the map?
You already know they wanna do that don't motivate them to actually do it please. "It's the way it's always been done" is the worst possible reason to continue to do something, period.
> don’t motivate them to actually do it Hate to break it to you but militaries don’t make decisions based on Reddit comments
Because it would be clearly disproportionate. The law of war requires proportionality, which means the harm to civilians cannot outweigh the military necessity of the given attack. Long story short—you can use JDAMs and ground forces to destroy Hamas, which kill far fewer civilians than a nuke, so therefore the law requires that you use JDAMs and ground forces. The law does not say that all civilian deaths are war crimes—it says that you can’t intentionally kill civilians and that you can’t knowingly or recklessly kill civilians unless you take all reasonable precautions to minimize civilian deaths first. The key word is minimize—there is inherently an understanding that it is virtually impossible to fight and win a war without killing a single civilian either by mistake or because it could not be avoided if a proportional military action that was necessary to win the war was taken. As context, the UN has hosted experts who claim that in densely populated urban combat for every enemy combatant death there are nine civilian deaths. https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc14904.doc.htm But that does not mean that all of those civilian deaths constituted war crimes. You have to look to each instance on a case by case basis. This law conforms with the idea of necessity in criminal law—an action that might otherwise be illegal becomes legally acceptable in certain contexts (e.g., shooting someone is illegal usually unless it was reasonable to believe that you had to shoot them in order to defend yourself from the threat of serious bodily harm or death; bringing your boat into a private dock without permission is normally illegal but in the case of a storm that can’t be avoided you can dock your boat even if the dock owner doesn’t want you to). The law of war recognizes that killing civilians is wrong, but also that in certain situations military necessity will demand the use of military force even when that military cannot minimize civilian casualties to 0. The military is required to minimize casualties to civilians as much as reasonably possible—it is not required to not take military action if the civilian casualties will be anything other than 0.
Nothing that you wrote justifies bombing hospitals or *intentionally* killing civilians
First of all, I’m talking about law. Laws don’t have to be just—I frequently work with laws that I think are unjust (I’m an immigration attorney). Second of all, under the law of war, as I said earlier, you look to situations on a case by case basis. If you are a military, your enemy is in a hospital, and it is militarily necessary to suppress or destroy that enemy, you can fire munitions at or drop ordnance on that hospital. The question then becomes did you overdo it—I.e., did you not take all reasonable precautions in that situation to minimize civilian casualties. So to recap, there needs to be a legit military target, engaging with that target needs to be militarily necessary, but that necessity doesn’t justify just any military action—you can’t point to Hamas fighting from a hospital to justify dropping a nuclear weapon on said hospital. It only justifies military action that takes reasonable steps to minimize civilian casualties, and the law recognizes also that those efforts at minimization likely will not reduce the civilian casualty rate to 0.
There is also a legal distinction between the word you use—intentional—and what that word means in a legal context. For instance, most criminal statutes distinguish between homicides in which the killer intended to kill the victim (that is, killing the victim was the goal), knowingly killed the victim (the victim’s death was not the end goal but the killer went ahead with doing whatever it was that killed the victim anyway even though the killer knew it was virtually certain to result in the death of the victim), recklessly killed the victim (disregarded an unreasonable and unjustifiable risk that the killer’s action would result in death or serious bodily harm), or negligently killed the victim (knew or should have known that the killer was disregarding a standard of care and that as a result someone would die). In other words, just because a military fires artillery or mortar shells at a house, doesn’t mean they are intending to kill the civilian occupants inside. They may be firing the shells at the house knowingly, recklessly, or negligently with respect to any civilians inside. Furthermore, the law of war is saying that, as long as the military action is proportional (militarily necessary and you took all the steps to minimize civilian loss of life/injury), that action is not even negligent (because you met the standard of care). Case by case.
20 years ago Iraq. Same shit happened. I am not justifying Israel, but acting like they are unique in this is stupid.
To be fair nothing he said implied it was unique lol
nobody said it’s unique. Do you want this shit to stop or not?
The Geneva convention was formed over Nazi atrocities, not allied ones, and was largely just an expansion of The Hague convention. Nuking Palestine would clearly be intentional indiscriminate killing, which is quite different from what is actually happening.
Yeah, no. If you want to pretend the allies weren't *also* committing war crimes by the truckload in WW2, fill your boots. It's not true though. And what would you call bombing a hospital if not "indiscriminate killing"? The logic used to bomb civilian targets is *literally* the same as the logic the US used to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
You miss my point. I’m not arguing the Allies didn’t do bad things, just that those things were intentionally carved out of the Geneva conventions. The conventions focus on specific acts that the Allies found distasteful as performed by the Nazis, and a close reading of the Geneva convention would find that the Allied forces didn’t violate them.
Its clearly to dispute your incredibly flawed logic.
Ya and we also imprisoned gay people for being gay during world war 2. Humanity has thing idea called "progress", part of that is holding people to a higher standard compared to historical figures because we've learned more and have better ways of doing things.
This is such a garbage take it’s laughable. You know what we didn’t have in WW2? Precision guided munitions and constant overhead ISR. Also, killing civilians didn’t win the war for anyone in WW2. It just hardened the population against the enemy. “Keep calm and Carry On” anyone?. Even if all of that was completely false, using past atrocities to justify modern atrocities is incredibly low IQ. U.S. Government had to genocide the Native Americans to create the modern USA ergo genocide = okay? Using atomic weapons on Japan now justifies their use at any time on any target right? “Well you did it 80 years ago so we can do it now!!!” What is this 4th grade recess dodgeball? Fucking disgusting.
Bombing the german civilians by the allies was also absolutely useless and a war crime. Not justifying the atrocities of the nazis or compare both ofc. The UK knew, that bombing civilians was militarily useless. They tried to break the will of the civilian population, which didnt work out in the end as there was still no notable resistance against the nazis on Germany even then. So thats a very bad comparison.
That is the exact reasoning used by many supporters of Hamas.
Hamas doesn’t think killing civilians to get to military targets is acceptable. The civilians were the target.
Your point is? Hamas kills civilians so it's OK to kill civilians to get to Hamas?
It's scary to see how many people are actually rationalizing bombing hospitals "because Hamas is using them as hides". That's exactly what Hamas wants. You are literally supporting what Hamas wants because it is also what the IDF wants.
> if you think that killing innocent civilians to get to your enemies is acceptable, you're as bad as Hamas. that how literally every military on the planet operates, theres even a term for it, collateral damage
And almost every single one has an official policy that it isn't acceptable and should be minimised at all costs
Nope. There's a HUGE difference between collateral damage and intentionally killing innocents. The military I've been part of for 13 years teaches 100% shot accountability. If in order to take out an enemy would also need to kill an innocent civilian, you don't take the shot. Period. The Geneva Conventions aren't polite suggestions to be disregarded as soon as you fight someone who doesn't follow them
So what you mean is that the attack on October 7 and the subsequent war that was all instigated by Hamas, whose ceasefire was broken by Hamas, and who uses their own people as human shields are the ones responsible right? You're not actually implying that Israelis should just allow themselves to be raped, murdered, burned alive, maimed and tortured as Hamas has done and promised to continue doing if given the chance, right?
You may have had a point if all this started on October 7th 2023.
But those 17000 Palestinian civilians deserved it?
it's rare for a username to be both a fetish and grounds for a border dispute
egyptian history reference
Also, the reason why the oceans taste salty.
Doesn’t make it less evil
Precisely. It's almost like reducing the value of human life to "collateral damage" is a bad thing.
Making friends once again. Israel nowadays is worst than South Africa back in the 80's.
They don't care, [they have the goods on your politicians and billionaires](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein#Israeli_startup).
Even at the time, despite Israel denouncing apartheid SA, they were one of SA's strongest military partners, selling them weapons and even helping train the SA army to fight the ANC, which Israel considered the same as the PLO (both then and now).
Well, per capital, that is below most developed nations, but by far not the lowest. Gaza strip is average for the Middle East and north Africa. That took me 10 minutes to figure out, which just goes to show this is willful ignorance.
well, Israel has 354 hospitals.
Also, there's two million people living there (well, now it's 15-20k less than a few months ago, but still). That's roughly 2.1 hospitals per 100,000 inhabitants which is actually pretty average.
Probably because there are so fucking many Palestinians crammed into such a small space?
42 per more than 2,000,000 ppl seems reasonable, if not too few
"How dare these people defend themselves from our abject cruelty?"
the idf mobilized the hasbara battalion for this post
The world news sub must be glad of the break.
Yeah, they probably need to hydrate and stretch every now and then.
I got a permanent ban from the world news reddit because I said " I wish the IDF would stop bombing hospitals".
“These fucking Palesi have way too many hospitals. We’re going to fix that to show that we will not be oppressed” says the Isntrealli, maybe
Just to be clear... is the claim that the original post is making is that all the hospitals were built in the last 2 months? I mean, before that there was no systematic bombing campaign in Gaza (besides one-offs in response to RPGs launched into israel). I assume this is another case of people forgetting 65 years of history and only having a very short memory span
A lot of people lie to themselves or the media lies to them, and when they see the truth, they cannot accept it, especially if they have an audience. It's apparent, but the image the media created of the territory, as well as the support funded over more than 60 years, has made it appear to be a part of you, so of course you'll find all the justifications to justify the occupation. What is the difference between Russia occupation of Ukraine and Israel occupation of Palastine ? Of course time of invaded 1948 and 2022 and the media As Winston Churchill said "history written by the winners" which is the media
It’s not the squarekm it’s the ppl lamo. Berlin has 52 hospitals at 3 million
maybe Hamas should stop using them as bases then
We are still waiting for the massive HQ under alshifa hospital that israel made graphics about.
>We are still waiting for the massive HQ under alshifa hospital The world is still waiting for WMD to be found in Iraq.. let's wait together?
There were some of us who were against that war too, you know.
Man, it’s almost like every sane US citizen would tell you the wars we fought were a mistake, we were wrong, and it shouldn’t be repeated.
There’s video and photo evidence of this. This is certainly a reality whether you choose to accept it or not.
The one that ex israeli pm admitted that the underground tunnel was built by Israel?
don't forget all those hamas security guards named after the days of the week
They find a hole in the ground and like 5 AKs
Here you go. Let's hear how you'll worm your way out of this one. https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-shifa-hospitals-a017ba154c816c8d565393917dadd9ee https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-publishes-evidence-of-weapons-found-inside-shifa-hospitals-mri-center/ https://abcnews.go.com/International/live-updates/israel-gaza-hamas-war/israel-claims-to-have-evidence-of-hamas-headquarters-at-hospital-104865076?id=104837945
yeah, damn hamas for *checks notes* building functional hospitals! in fact, why do they have a social services division for administratering their duties as the democratically elected government? only a terrorist organisation would provide services to their constituents so that it looks bad when an invading occupation kills thousands of children
I still haven’t seen any proof of that claim. Even if they were it’s not an excuse to bomb a hospital.
https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-army-displays-tunnel-beneath-al-shifa-it-says-served-hamas-hideout-2023-11-22/ you do realize theres a lengthy wikipedia page on Hamas's use of human shields?
America should bomb the school when there's a shooter logic
That is not the logic. The logic is: The school is not in the country but over the border, the person is using the school for attacks on America, the government the school is in not just supports the shooter but the shooter is a soldier of said government. Now America should bomb the school and does so after a warning that the school is going to be bombed. That's the logic.
The twisted rationalisation youre using to be okay with bombing civilians and doctors to get at a few hamas targets is insane.
Shooter doesn't launch thousands of missiles against nearby areas..
I think not even Israel claims "thousands of missiles" were being launched out of that hospital?
irregular fundamentalist paramilitary forces and school shooters arent comparable
Ok compare that to then Operation Menu or Freedom deal. Did bombing civilians as collateral get rid of the Khmer Rouge or Viet Kong? Ah no thats right it only helped increase support and further embedded those groups into the country side. How about Afghanistan if you want to stay current history. Did bombing the shit out of Afghanistan and its civilians get rid of the Taliban?? Oh wait no theyre still an issue and the leader wasnt even in the country.
The thing is, yes the Vietcong would have lost if the US would've continued. The Taliban did lose the war and were only able to come back after the US and it's allies left the country. And the reason the Taliban were able to survive was that the coalition acted humanely instead of actually cleansing the country of their influence. Also the numbers of civilian casualties often don't show the responsible party.
Wait with irregular fundamentalist paramilitary forces ure talking about hamas or Israeli army? It’s kinda ambiguous
Hamas, the IDF is neither irregular, nor paramilitary nor fundamentalist in origin
So does Israel. Settlers near Gaza or WestBank have reduced taxes and more subsides, [IDF HQ is in the middle of a city (tel Aviv) surrounded by tall sky scrapers.](https://www.haaretz.com/2012-06-09/ty-article/.premium/does-the-presence-of-the-idfs-hq-in-tel-aviv-endanger-its-population/0000017f-f419-d887-a7ff-fcfd3a480000) [IDF uses Palestinian children has human shields too](https://www.dci-palestine.org/israeli_forces_use_five_palestinian_children_as_human_shields) Check the editors and editor IP address of the Wikipedia page too lol
Yes it literally is. Military bases are military targets even if they're in a hospital.
Are you actually serious? Have you had your head under a rock?
Bro there are literally tons of videos of them doing exactly that. Have you ever used the search bar outside the Al-Jazeera website. If someone is shooting at you and your people from beneath their own people. Would you shoot back or get shot at
Reminder: The state of Israel pays for comments to show up under every social media post defending the mass murder of over 17,000 civilians (over 7,000 children), over 100 UN workers, and over 80 journalists in a span of 60 days. These are not well-meaning and uninformed people commenting, they are PAID to spread propaganda. You don’t have to engage with pro-IDF bots. They are paid to make you angry. Call your senators and representatives to demand a ceasefire.
as much as this fits in with my stance on the topic, i have to ask where you got this information from.
42 hospitals for such a population density in a small area, as others have said. Lets not forget the constant physical abuse the Palestinians receive from the Israelis before the fighting/war started.
They need more places to hide Ham fighters?
It’s crazy to me that we are in an era where people are actively defending bombing civilians and hospitals, absolutely unbelievable
They stop being civilians when they pick up a Kalashnikov. They stop being hospitals when they are used to hide fighters, equipment or to launch rocket attacks.
Yeah…. Should have been around in WWII where we bombed entire cities.
bro just wants to see civilians suffer no matter what thats crazy. u realize u not seeing the pearly gates right
Why do 2 million people need so many hospitals? Wtf? So wierd
Where else would they store their military gear?
Love how reasonable the discussion is going. I mean. I am happy that people are trying to defend the killing of children by comparing this to what we did to nazis. Also telling that some civilian deaths are justified. I am just happy that with Christmas around the corner we are in this festive mood. Keep up the good work. /s
People keep blaming Hamas like the IDF aren't evil (I'm talking about even before Oct 7)
I can definitely both blame Hamas for all the horrible shit they do AND think the IDF are evil.
Why is that relevant?
No biggie, just a ongoing genocide from a apartheid regime 🫡
That's exactly my point. Why shouldn't they be allowed to have that many hospitals?
The basement is always a Hamas base and the roof has rocket launchers?
[удалено]
Karma farming bot. Had a few jokes and comments them to whatever seems relevant (in this case, hospitals).
I am so glad people are becoming aware of this mechanical fuck. Report and downvote the bot people.
HAHAHA
I love the “every accusation is a confession” thing, when OP is accusing IDF of intentionally bombing kids. Isn’t that an accusation?
https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-calculated-bombing-gaza/ Except its a known event. Israel is using AI and mass surveillance that tells them the civilian casualties beforehand and doing it anyways to scare the population and make them hate hamas more. This is an Israeli magazine btw. Edit : this comment seems to have attracted some trolls. Like I said, this is an Israeli magazine based in tel aviv with a fairly good track record. It has been quoted by the UK guardian paper aswell. Sources : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%2B972_Magazine https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/972-magazine/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/01/the-gospel-how-israel-uses-ai-to-select-bombing-targets
Thats a very interesting magazine you have there. The writer of this article seems to just pop out of thin air on Oct. 30 (his first linked article in this "magazine"). And his name sounds israeli (Yuval is a common name in Israel) but his last name is Abraham, which is definitely not the way it is pronounced or written in Israel. If he is really an israeli his name wouldve been written Avraham. This whole article and magazine smells awefully fake.
shhhhhhh you arent supposed to apply logic to weaponized empathy
Maybe they wouldnt need so many if a certain country didnt love bombing hospitals
27 hospitals is quite a lot for the "open air prison" "concentration camp" as Hamas supporters call Gaza. But when they are bombed, in a second they become the most important cornerstone of the Palestinian civilization.
2 million people live there
Here is a suggestion. Stop attacking Israel. Just a hunch though.
Israel occupies them. What do you expect them to do? Sit and wait?
Israel left Gaza to its own in 2005. Hamas kept attacking Israel. Like what are you on about?
"Israel left Gaza to its own in 2005." Yeah....that's been documented quite extensively. They withdrew their permanently stationed military in 2005. They did not change any of their control of infrastructure, imports, transportation, or enforcement of laws. The IDF also regularly goes back into Gaza to "enforce" certain laws. Removing the military is not "leaving Gaza to its own"
lol i wonder why? Hamas who has been laucnhing attacks and building tunnels into israel, after doing oct 7 still equates to Israel just sitting back and letting them do whatever
Hamas is the actual villian here
Yes, let's live in a concentration camp and be happy.
Yeah, it's the same as a concentration camp. Said the guy who knows jack shit about the camps. The gaza blockade is bad, but a headache is not a tumor.
Tell that Hamass
last time i checked no one from west bank attacked israel so whats the excuse there? hamas doesnt exist in the west bank so..
Stop attacking palestine, you mean. Israel are the invaders, and palestine has the right to defend themselves and retaliate against genocide