You are conflating two entirely different scales of action to draw a completely false moral equivalence, Ferida.
First, on the NYT/Reuters allegations: If individual soldiers or units breached protocol, those cases are investigated and handled under Israeli military law because we have a judicial system. But comparing isolated tactical field incidents to the state-mandated strategy of Hamas and Hezbollah is a joke. Hamas didn’t just 'embed' into communities; they explicitly built hundreds of miles of military tunnels beneath civilian living rooms, hospitals, and schools with the deliberate, top-down strategy of using their entire population to shield their arsenal.
Second, you mention Donald Trump talking about a 'more tactical approach.' No one disputes that urban warfare in one of the most densely populated, booby-trapped environments on earth causes catastrophic destruction. But neither Trump nor anyone else has ever provided a magical alternative for how you defeat an army of 40,000 embedded terrorists without destroying the civilian infrastructure they transformed into military outposts.
When a terrorist fires a rocket from a school or a bedroom window, that civilian structure legally becomes a military target under international law. Pointing out that civilian deaths are the direct consequence of human shielding isn't a 'weak argument' it is the literal definition of urban warfare against a death cult. You can call it un-optimal, but we don't have the luxury of fighting a theoretical war from a keyboard

1. You asked a question
2. You were provided with a response
3. You denied the response and deflected
4. I highlighted that your deflection was weak as it did not address the response properly
5. You then went down a rabbit hole, not addressing the original response

i.e. Your main Ally, The United States, has told Israel, that there is something wrong with your strategy. As was said before, if there is a terrorist holding a bus full of school children hostage, the idea that blowing up the entire bus is acceptable, is not acceptable outside of Israel.

this analogy, and the response you were provided, were verbatim said previously by users (not me) in this thread.

Blanket bombing in Gaza and Lebanon is problematic.

See also: https://www.un.org/unispal/document/coi-report-23jun26/ - problematic.

All of that, is problematic. You have repeatedly dismissed the UN, and its reports on Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. I understand your position but your arguments against the UN are simply not sound, because Israel IS a member of the UN.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jun 24 2026 09:19am

you think its just bombing?


this is a quote from the UNC commission on the active genocide





https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session62/a-hrc-62-crp-2.pdf

the IDF is sniping breastfeeding babies in broad daylight

Internet best take a backup of that video and Andrew might want to go in hiding.

Your bus analogy is a textbook example of why Western armchair critics completely fail to understand this conflict, Ferida.
If a terrorist takes a bus hostage, you negotiate or send a swat team because the goal of the terrorist is to trade the hostages for something, and the bus isn't shooting at you.
But that is not what is happening here. The actual analogy is a massive army taking over an entire city, turning every single apartment building, hospital, and school into an active rocket-launching pad, and firing tens of thousands of missiles directly into your children's bedrooms. If you don't take out those launch pads, your own people are slaughtered. No country on earth would sit back and let its population be wiped out just to avoid 'problematic' optics, and you know it.
Second, you keep throwing around the term 'blanket bombing.' It’s a flat-out lie. If Israel were blanket bombing, Gaza and Beirut would have been erased in 48 hours. The destruction is massive because Hamas and Hezbollah built their entire military infrastructure inside civilian concrete. Under international law, when a civilian building is used to launch a rocket or store ammo, it becomes a legitimate military target. The responsibility for its destruction falls entirely on the group that militarized it.
Finally, citing a UN report from yesterday as some kind of objective moral truth is laughable. This is the same UN whose agency, UNRWA, had employees literally participating in the October 7th massacres. This is the same UN that places serial human rights abusers like Iran on its human rights committees. Israel being a member of the UN doesn’t mean we have to accept the institutionalized bias of a stacked jury that passes more resolutions against the only democracy in the Middle East than against Syria, North Korea, and Iran combined.
We listen to our allies, and we constantly adapt our tactics. But at the end of the day, Washington doesn't have to live with the consequences of a genocidal army on its border we do.

I asked what are the options he answered what not to do out of context

This post was edited by Many_Names on Jun 24 2026 02:10pm

The simplest response to this is:

Did Israel use 2000lbs bombs on Gaza. If Yes, describe the area of affect of such a bomb being dropped on an urban area.

Yes, Israel used 2,000-lb bombs, and any military expert will tell you exactly why: they are engineered to penetrate the hundreds of miles of reinforced concrete terror tunnels built directly underneath Gaza's urban areas.
When an enemy buries its entire military command, weapons factories, and rocket arsenals 60 feet underground beneath apartment buildings, standard munitions do absolutely nothing. You cannot dismantle a subterranean fortress with a surgical knife.
Of course the blast radius of a 2,000-lb bomb in a dense urban zone is destructive and devastating to the surrounding civilian infrastructure. That is tragic, but it is the exact, calculated outcome Hamas wanted when they deliberately placed their military infrastructure under civilian feet.
Under international humanitarian law, the legality of a weapon depends on its necessity to destroy a legitimate military target and the measures taken to mitigate civilian presence. Israel dropped millions of leaflets, made phone calls, and evacuated entire neighborhoods before striking these underground targets.
If a genocidal enemy puts a massive military fortress under a city, your argument implies they should have total immunity to attack your citizens forever because hitting them is 'too destructive.' No sovereign nation on earth would accept that suicide pact.

***drops 2000 pound bombs*** plays victim immediately after