U.N. human rights officials said Israel's strikes on the Jabalia refugee camp could be war crimes.
  • Hamas-run government says Israeli strikes on Jabalia refugee camp in Gaza killed at least 195 Palestinians, with concerns raised by the UN that these could constitute war crimes.
  • Evacuation of foreign nationals from Gaza is underway, with 320 already crossed into Egypt; about 7,500 are expected to leave within two weeks.
  • The strikes targeted Hamas military leaders and infrastructure, with Israel’s campaign responding to Hamas’ cross-border attacks from Oct. 7.
  • U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is set to visit Israel and Jordan to discuss the conflict and the need to minimize civilian casualties.

Media Bias Fact Check (Reuters):

Overall, we rate Reuters Least Biased based on objective reporting and Very High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information with minimal bias and a clean fact check record.

  • 𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠English
    21·
    1 year ago

    That would be exactly my choice. One terrorist is not worth blowing up children over. Wait for a better opportunity that doesn’t definitely have collateral damage. A terrorist does not “win” if he lives a bit longer. Nobody is “winning” anything in Gaza anyways right now.

    Besides, blowing up children is a win for the terrorists.

    • qnick@lemmy.worldEnglish
      211·
      1 year ago

      What I hear from your comment is “let’s let them kill more Israeli kids”.

          • zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
            2·
            1 year ago

            I mean if the person you’re talking to only believes in two options then you are correct and they are wrong. End of discussion. But there is always a 3rd option for those not talking: receive with empathy.

            The thought of people killing Israeli kids makes us upset, to the point where we might consider killing other kids if it means rooting out evil. It seems like you’re not so much saying the option is between Israelites and Palestinians, but it’s to kill or be killed?

            • qnick@lemmy.worldEnglish
              23·
              1 year ago

              It is exactly that. Your third option seems too abstract to me. Would you mind clarifying what it means practically?

              • zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
                2·
                1 year ago

                The third option is what I just demonstrated. Instead of me imposing my own feelings on the matter (pro-cease fire) I received what you were saying as an expression of a need and I try to understand it. Being able to understand this as “kill or be killed” gets more to the point, but I’m no Jesus so this is about as far as I can go… For now.