My point is that, in this context, "bombing a refugee camp" is not meaningfully different than bombing any other urban environment.
Which is to say, very deadly and terrible and generally a bad idea unless there are literally no other options, which I would say isn't really the case here.
"Refugee camps" is something of a misleading term when it comes to Gaza. While there are several settlements that did begin decades ago as camps of tents, which is the image the term conjures, at this point they are essentially cities like any other. Due to some unique legal circumstances, a huge chunk of the population of Gaza are legally considered refugees by the UN, but this is a unique status that's even inheritable by the descendents of the people who originally fled during the establishment of Israel.
This isn't to defend bombing civilians, to be clear. It's just that, frankly, it's difficult to throw a dart at Gaza without hitting what is legally considered a refugee camp.
"They're just disrupting the oil trade to help reverse climate change!"
The non-doomer approach is that it's blatantly and obviously unconstitutional, even from this SCOTUS. Similar laws have already been struck down. Performance of gender is generally understood to be speech, and thus largely immune from government regulation via the 1st Amendment.
Reducing inflation by cutting the cost of imports would be one reason.
Of course, the consequence of that is that voters in the Rust Belt hate you and you lose re-election, so that explains that one pretty easily.
Well, thank you for at least openly admitting that you have the reading comprehension of a middle schooler so I can save my time elsewhere.
Validating attacking random merchant ships as an effective political tactic is not a good idea, actually. This will just lead to Iran attacking ships every time it wants something.
Israel should scale down operations in Gaza, yes. Houthi military positions that are launching these attacks should also be obliterated to make it very clear that is is not an acceptable tactic.
Which is to say, markets that actually matter.
I might perhaps blame the people actually launching missiles at random trading ships, personally.
Strictly speaking, it's the governing body of Gaza, which hasn't held elections in well over a decade. The West Bank is governed by the party Fatah, which is much less militant.
There is, however, the awkward truth that the West Bank has also not held elections in a long time, precisely because Hamas would probably win them.
Well, in multiple ways, really.
There's an uncomfortable fundamental truth that people will generally prefer a seemingly peaceful dictatorship that doesn't negatively affect them personally over ostensibly democratic chaos and violent anarchy, even if plenty of other innocents get caught up in the mess. I honestly don't know if I can say that that's fundamentally wrong, and I'm not in any real position to comment on it because I have no idea what it's like to be terrified every time I leave my house (El Salvador had a higher murder rate than active war zones), but that doesn't change the fact that this is one incredibly slippery slope. It takes a very wise and benevolent person to wield that level of power in a fair and just way, and Bukele doesn't exactly inspire confidence there. More than anything, I'm just thankful that I don't have to make these kinds of decisions.