Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
Israeli air force launches strike upon ~~Hospital~~ "Hamas Base" parking lot, with an R9X missile.
For context, the image is from Reuters with info about the missile. It references a different time that the US used it to kill a terrorist leader. The video below is a hospital parking lot in gaza.
No dude... Nothing like that... Israel has made plenty of mistakes, especially in the past, and this is an extremely complex issue.
To answer your first question in terms of casualty counts. The very first thing is that casualty counts are very commonly over/under inflated, especially during times of conflict. There are many reasons you may want to over inflate or deflate your numbers. But honestly it is really difficult to take casualty rates at face value. Let's say we take it for what it is and its skewed. Now we run straight into a philosophical conundrum that is probably much to big to effectively argue through on the internet.
Your philosophical position on about a dozen or so moralistic arguments are going to shape your ultimate decision on where you stand in terms of casualty imbalances.
So I will skip all that and give you some of the things that I believe would bring me to your side.
Elaborate on "following the restoration of page" I'm unfamiliar with the term "page" in this context?
As for my position it's only that I hate how violence is somehow "justified" as if anything can give you the right to end someone else's life. It might be considered naive, utopian or simplistic by some but it really isn't. Almost every human subscribe to some level of sacredness of human life. Some extend it only to their family, some to all humans irregardless but we pretty much all agree that at least some life can't be ended morally, be it kids or whatever. Just about everyone has at sometime been a sacred life in the eyes of the majority of humans, and that the reason they stopped being seen such is almost never grounded in factual, indisputable truth but opinion, prejudice, lies, circumstances and assumptions. If we, as most agree, see humans as fallible then we shouldn't be able to declare someone's life as no longer sacred and worth protecting. And from that simple position we can extrapolate that any active attempts to end someone's life is amoral, the only moral kill is one in (proportional) self-defense. Which is of course what both Israel and Hamas argue they're doing, to varying extent. It's their main justification for why they're (morally) in the right.
Up to there I think I have a good majority on board. Then people put vastly different things into what constitutes proportional self-defense. Which is what I assume you're alluding to. Am I then right to think that your position as such is that it's still self-defense and still proportional and the two bullet points are examples of when it stops being proportional?
EDIT:
I see you've edited to "restoration of peace". What does that mean in a place that hasn't seen peace for over 80 years? What "peace" are you referring too? The pre Oct 7 status quo? If so isn't restoration of peace hinging on Israel leaving Gaza more so than anything else?