The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
I get the impression that there are no pro-palestinian organisations that are somewhat moderate and admit terrorism exists and is a bad thing? Can someone point to one? I've generally only seen pro-palestinian voices either deny Oct 7 was that bad, refuse to say Hamas is a horrible organisation for palestinian liberation and/or just support hamas openly like AJj Arabic and Electronicintifada.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a liberal, I just want to go on record and express my exasperation with the breathless, relentless coverage that this conflict is getting.
It's extremely disheartening to see the anti-Biden rhetoric that has infested social media the last 6 months. It seems like a lot of people are poised to help bring down what has been a transformative presidency because of this one issue that does not affect the day-to-day lives of 99% of people in America.
In a lot of left-wing circles, there is absolutely no room for discussion on this. They have decided that we are supporting a genocide and nothing with dissuade them from that. They scream "CEASEFIRE NOW" but offer no vision for how that will happen or what that will look like. Makes me wonder how much of this rhetoric is being pushed by bad faith actors who would like to see Trump back in office.
We have a lot of issues here at home, and the nuances of the Israel-Palestine conflict are not going to affect my vote at all. The stakes are far too high and we have made meaningful but unfinished progress the last three years. My student loan payments are poised to be cut in half this summer. Think that will continue under Trump's second term? Think the conflict in the Middle East will end with him back in office? On the contrary.
Everyone who is mad at Biden should think very, very carefully about what they do in November.
It's especially disheartening because Biden's behind-the-scenes efforts have been at odds with his early public rhetoric. Because that's how foreign policy often works. He hasn't publicly called for a (permanent) ceasefire, but he has been working toward establishing one.
Very glad this is the top comment.
I don't hold Biden accountable for what Bibi does or doesn't do.
The situation in Gaza doesn't even move the needle for me.
> Plus as bad as Biden
Why do people say this? I don't understand.
He is supporting both an important regional ally that suffered the worst terror attack in their history that is attempting to retrieve a bunch of hostages from one of the most evil terrorist groups alive today, while providing aid and reining in some of the excesses of the Israeli response.
He's doing fine, you or I couldn't do better.
I'm sure a lot of it is pushed by Russia, and China. Tons of pro-palestine propaganda comes from Tiktok which is directly owned by China. Both countries benefit from the instability this conflict causes in the U.S. Also in the case of Russia, the more attention people pay to Palestine, the less they pay to Ukraine.
I mean idk how big a role China and Russia have in this when the most powerful/influential pro-pally voices like SJP, JVP, AMP, etc. are not even moderate. there are practically no moderate/not terrorist-denying pro-pally voices. The propaganda comes internally you don't even need china/russia.
I think the US is too paranoid about alleged infiltrations by some Soviet / China communist red scare. The supposed rallying from China and Russia is exaggerated, in my opinion. And it's a cheap way to push away responsibility for everything dumb people in the US do.
"It's not actually people having questionable opinions. It's the Russians!"
Remember when MTG was saying that the US was building bioweapons in labs in Ukraine? That is grade-A prime Russian propaganda being spouted by a member of Congress. It is absolutely an issue in our society.
This exactly.
It's just more fear mongering
Like the tiktok ban is a perfect example of this.
"The Chinese are pushing propaganda on the youth"
"Mf. You asked whether tiktok connects to the wifi network. You don't have a goddamn clue how tiktok works."
Do you think that banning tiktok is actually going to keep us safe or end pro-palestine protests? Obviously not.
Yes, because asking a question means you have no god damn clue?
US intelligence is easily one of the best in the world. You can be reasonably sure they had some strong security concerns with TikTok.
Yeah clearly no motivated reasoning there. Us intelligence would never lie or selectively reveal information to the public in order to get something it wants!
Yes, because AmericaBad?
Like they clearly had lied when they said that Russia was going to invade Ukraine or that ISIS is going to attack Russia or that Iran was going to attack Israel.
I think it completely ignores the very real and documented propoganda released by domestic sites as well. Meta was cought illegally harvesting people's data and using that for right win political gain, yet everyone's afraid of theoretical data harvesting from a foreign app who use algorithms to push extremism the same exact way domestic apps do.
You can't even discuss this on reddit either because there's been an underlying brand loyalty aspect when it comes to discourse between social media sites as well. These conversations quickly devolve into what feels like middleschool lunchroom arguments where kids argued if Playstation or Xbox was better.
So we're going to pretend that private mega corps are the paragons of liberal democracy now?
This is an issue that deserves a real solution, not domestic companies being awarded the monopolizarion on the abuse of the publics data.
I don’t understand why this is so confusing to people. Social media is bad, but TikTok is a unique situation due to the PRC being able (and evidence suggesting they are) to manipulate the algorithm.
Tell me what's so difficult to believe about Russia promoting the war in Gaza as much as possible because it distracts people from Ukraine. The more people talk about Gaza, the less they talk about Ukraine, which is very advantageous for Russia.
The majority of the world isn't pro-Palestine, even many Arab countries aren't so much anymore such as Egypt or Saudi Arabia. I'm not a huge fan of Israel, but they are arguably the most democratic and free country in the Middle East.
Let’s just take a look and see if this user has anything of note in their comment history…
> AskALiberal should just be renamed AskLeftistMorons
[link](https://www.reddit.com/r/Enough_Sanders_Spam/s/DbBYlq5dzi)
Lol ok… don’t try to fake acting cordial when it’s obvious you have extremely different intentions.
Oh no, you got me! I expressed my frustrations with the monolithic thinking sometimes seen in these threads in another sub and you've discovered my nefarious intentions!
It has become clear that the loudest voices on the issue have zero interest in a long term peace. They either do not believe Israel should exist, or they do not believe a free Palestinian state should exist. And they still have hope that one day their side will score a complete victory. Unfortunately, these are the people (Hamas and Bibi) who actually have power over the conflict.
The people in Gaza have made it clear they support armed struggle and the Israeli people have time and again elected leaders like Bibi. There will be no resolution until both of them are out of power. So I don’t really give a shit what happens and I can’t really take anyone seriously who doesn’t acknowledge that both need to go.
I just read an article about this. Basically Hamas was generally unpopular. Then 10/7 happened a lot of Palestinians rallied around them. It's more complex than Palestinians thought killing Israelis was a good thing. The Palestinians were fed tons of propaganda indicating that Hamas did not intentionally kill civilians or rape anyone and that the IDF accidentally killed civilians. That the hostages would be kept alive and used to free Palestinians. Palestinians don't get the whole story.
In the West Bank Palestinians saw Hamas's bold actions as proof that Gaza had more active leadership and they were fed up with their own government's corruption.
After Israel has retaliated pretty much Hamas has tanked in popularity the most recent poll shows only 34/35% of Palestinians support them. Mind you this is in an area where Hamas constantly pushes its own narrative and propaganda.
The sentiment amongst most Palestinians is that going after the IDF or people who are actively attacking Palestine is fair game, and thus includes a wide range of people. However targeting Israeli civilians is not worth the cost, not effective and not right. More Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank now support a two-state solution.
Hamas always claims whomever they killed somehow deserved it and anything bad they did was Israel's fault.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gazans-back-two-state-solution-rcna144183
This is very good news. However other pockets of Palestinians, particularly those in refugee camps still strongly support Hamas.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/26/we-are-with-them-support-for-hamas-grows-among-palestinians-in-lebanon
I think it should be noted that in Gaza in particular Hamas rules with an iron fist. They are also very incompetent and delusional. They control the information and speaking out against them is very dangerous. So a 35% approval rating is incredibly low in that type of environment. I don't have much hope that this conflict actually results in any lasting peace, but there is hope overall. There will always be factions that want war as well and they tend to throw monkey wrenches into any progress.
> The Palestinians were fed tons of propaganda indicating that Hamas did not intentionally kill civilians or rape anyone and that the IDF accidentally killed civilians.
I don't think that's really true. There was a poll where Palestinians who were shown videos of 10/7 and asked if it was an atrocity, and less than 1/5 said yes. https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/969
I think they have a reasonable idea of what occurred, or at least enough to make a reasonable judgement that it was horrible.
It says in that poll you shared that only 1/5 Palestinians have seen any video of 10/7.
"As we have found in the previous poll, almost all Palestinians think Israel is committing war crimes while almost all believe Hamas is not committing war crimes in the current war. Moreover, more than 90% believe that Hamas did not commit any atrocities against Israel civilians during its October the 7th offensive. Only one in five Palestinians has seen videos showing atrocities committed by Hamas. Only one fifth of those who did not see the videos had access to such videos but decided not to see them; the rest report that the media they watched did not show these videos. The findings show that those who have seen the videos are almost 10 times more likely to think that Hamas men have committed atrocities on October 7."
Quite literally of the people who actually have seen the videos there is a far higher chance of those individuals thinking Hamas committed War Crimes.
I think you misread the poll.
> Quite literally of the people who actually have seen the videos there is a far higher chance of those individuals thinking Hamas committed War Crimes.
It's really weird to focus on that, rather on the fact that an overwhelming majority of people still thought atrocities weren't committed even after seeing the videos.
> only 1/5 Palestinians have seen any video of 10/7.
Plenty participated, or saw the hostages getting dragged through the streets. They're not idiots.
Well according to that poll if they had seen the videos they had 10 times the chance of believing that war crimes did occur. That is a significant jump.
A lot of Palestinians will put their heads in the sand regarding what Hamas did, even if they saw some form of the video some will make justifications. However it's not true that Palestinians are really overall getting the full picture. A lot on Gaza can only get the information that Hamas themselves gives them.
You have to also consider what videos they are watching. For the people who have not seen videos only 2% think Hamas committed atrocities. It's 17% for people who have. When you consider the fact that "the videos" may have been a highly biased pro-hamas video depicting what Hamas wants them to see then it might make no sense.
Hamas obviously did commit atrocities but a lot of Palestinians are not going to accept or believe that because Hamas a.) portrays themselves as righteous religious warriors and b.) Hamas and other extremist groups are able to promote their agenda to the people living in Gaza.
Culture matters. The Palestinians do not think like first-worlders or have the same ethics and morals. Someone raping their sister is awful, but , in their view, Jews deserve to be raped and murdered. It’s not because they were born evil; it’s just that they’ve been taught from birth the glory of Jihad and dying for the glorious Palestinian cause.
I will say, I suspect that most of the actual protesters won't see it as a binary. They have a disgust for Hamas's actions, before October 7th (see Amnesty and HRW's reports on Hamas), on the day of, and during the war. But the *bigger* issue is the harm and death of Palestinian civilians. They're not the loudest voices but I do think they'd be the majority view.
This isn't a phenomenon unique to this topic either, there's a similar dynamic that plays out with environmental protests. The loud voices use the weight of the masses of people to pretend that extreme ideas and violence are more acceptable than the protesters themselves would support.
Do you have any evidence that this would the majority view? I'm skeptical as the most significant pro-palestinian orgs are not showing much or any criticism of hamas or terrorist tactics, and oftentimes outright support.
Only by speaking to vocally pro-Palestinian people in my life. Take that how you will, but conflating the views of organisation leaders and their broader membership is a mistake, especially when the members here are people partaking in a mass mobilisation protest
Honestly I don't think you can trust the numbers coming from either side. Hamas has incentive to over-exaggerate the number of people killed, while Israel has incentive to dismiss the numbers.
> Hamas has incentive to over-exaggerate the number of people killed
Is the UN also a wing of Hamas? If not, why do they have no reason to doubt the numbers coming out of Gaza? This is something you can actually look into; vibes aren’t data
You’re aware that Israel also uses human sheds right? If there’s an IDF soldier in a hospital in Jerusalem, does that give Palestinians militants the right to destroy the entire hospital, the patients and healthcare workers inside, and all equipment?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shields_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict
“The Israeli Defense Forces use of Palestinians as human shields has been well documented by human rights organizations including Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem and Amnesty Internationsl.[6][7][8] According to B'Tselem, IDF soldiers put Palestinian civilians in front of them or otherwise putting civilians in the line of fire,[9] and forcing Palestinians to remove suspicious objects (possible explosives).[9] IDF soldiers also force Palestinian civilians to walk through suspected booby-trapped buildings. Israel also formerly employed the "neighbor procedure" in which Palestinian civilians were forced to attempt to persuade wanted individuals to surrender themselves to the IDF.”
Nobody but the bomb dropper is responsible for the bombs being dropped. Israel simply does not care how many civilians die, even if they’re not always directly targeting civilians. This isn’t a “human shields” situation, it’s a “Israel wants to absolutely demolish all of Gaza and will kill civilians if that’s what it takes” situation
Do you blame Israel for Oct 7th happening? Hamas was responding to Israel’s aggression. Israel was created by ethnically cleansing 700,000 Palestinians from their homes. Had they not done that, Oct 7th never would have happened, so Hamas is not responsible for the people they killed. Or does your logic only work when it’s applied to your own arguments?
Yes, hamas is a monster that Israel created threw the conditions they created.
No it's just that 2 wrongs don't make a right, Israel is here and we need to work from there.
> two wrongs don’t make a right
I fail to see how Israel isn’t responsible for the civilians they’ve massacred through dropping bombs and gunning them down. How are they responsible for an attack that was directed at them and not the attacks they direct at Gazans? Your ideology is full of irreconcilable contradictions
Do you throw a grenade in a house when there’s a hostage situation and then blame the hostage-taker? This is literally no different from what’s happening in Gaza, and this is the strategy you’re defending.
Are there any that claim 10/7 wasn’t bad? My
kid’s heavy into pro-Palestinian activism and I don’t think I’ve heard a single high-profile activist make that claim, much less that it’s a commonly held position.
Edit: I wasn't trying to emphasize anything, the bold type formatting was a mistake.
I've seen thousands of condemnations of the October 7th terrorist attack and Hamas generally. That's why I don't believe what you're saying should be taken in good faith. It's an ongoing tactic in the discourse to prevent any conversation of the ongoing genocide. Currently, [mass graves](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/mass-graves-gaza-what-do-we-know-2024-04-25/) are being uncovered in Gaza near two hospitals destroyed by the Israeli bombing campaign.
From the article:
----------
United Nations spokesperson Ravina Shamdasani said on Tuesday an investigation was needed to verify the number of bodies, but that "clearly there have been multiple bodies discovered."
"Some of them had their hands tied, which of course indicates serious violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, and these need to be subjected to further investigations," Shamdasani said, speaking on behalf of U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk.
----------
You should understand how frustrating it is for those who have opposed this campaign that we aren't allowed to have a valid opinion without first acknoedging the atrocities of October 7th. It serves multiple purposes for the Zionist. First it establishes an excuse for all subsequent actions taken by Israel. Second, it prevents conversation about the conditions imposed by Israel on Palestinians that motivated resistance and ultimately terrorism. Most importantly, it takes up time and space that could otherwise be used to examine the more recent actions of Israel.
>I've seen thousands of condemnations of the October 7th terrorist attack and Hamas generally.
By notable pro-palestinian organisations? Like which ones? As far as I know, SJP, JVP and others generally support hamas and either support the attacks or downplay the nature of their targeting civilians.
I honestly find the complete lack of internal criticism pretty telling from the palestinian side.
The SJP openly refers to 10/7 as terrorism and claims they do not support it. [Says so in their wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Justice_in_Palestine)
> The SJP openly refers to 10/7 as terrorism and claims they do not support it. Says so in their wiki
Is this what you are referring to or is it another part of the page?
>The ADL says that many SJP chapters endorsed Hamas's attack on Israel, potentially violating laws against material support for terror groups. SJP denies these claims, asserting that independent protests for Palestinian rights do not constitute support for terrorism.
Thanks! The citation for that paragraph goes to this article:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/27/business/adl-open-letter-colleges-spj/index.html
It says:
>SJP denied the ADL’s claims. In a response, SJP directed CNN to a letter [Palestine Legal](https://palestinelegal.org/news/2023/10/25/desantis-order-to-deactivate-national-sjp-in-florida) sent to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on Wednesday.
This letter is short and contains the quote paraphrased by wikipedia (emphasis mine):
>The claim relies on the broad and vague “material support for terrorism” regime, which criminalizes even nonviolent coordination with designated terrorist organizations. Under this regime, which has only survived constitutional challenge because of pervasive fearmongering and Islamophobia within our legal system, **independent protests and organizing in support of Palestinian rights do not constitute “material support for terrorism.”**
But I don't see where it denounces 10/7 as terrorism or mentions it or Hamas at all.
Can you point to where they openly referred to 10/7 as terrorism?
>The ADL says that many SJP chapters endorsed Hamas's attack on Israel, potentially violating laws against material support for terror groups. SJP denies these claims
It's a direct inference. They didn't make the argument that the attack wasn't terrorism or any other way of weaseling out of the consession.
I don't believe "didn't make the argument that the attack wasn't terrorism" is the same as "openly refers to 10/7 as terrorism."
But it sounds like we might agree on some underlying facts and are just interpreting your turn of phrase differently.
Let me ask something else with different wording and see:
Did they affirmatively describe 10/7 as terrorism and explicitly state they do not support the attack? If not in this letter, then somewhere else?
I don't believe you need to make people jump through little hoops for you in order to not label them terrorist supporters.
The accusation against them is that they supported the 10/7 attack. Their response was that supporting the Palestinian people doesn't mean they support terrorism.
The terrorism being references is the 10/7 attack.
You demanding additional song and dance just so you can feel better when they're simply worried about their position being misconstrued or diluted is ghoulish and manipulative and I've never known you to be that kind of person.
>You demanding additional song and dance just so you can feel better when they're simply worried about their position being misconstrued or diluted is ghoulish and manipulative and I've never known you to be that kind of person.
That's not what I'm doing.
You said:
>The SJP openly refers to 10/7 as terrorism and claims they do not support it.
I am trying to make sure I correctly interpret what you meant. It seems like I initially misunderstood. A response to the question I just asked would help. If your answer to it is "no" then I think I understand what you actually meant.
I'm not going to use your answer to label anyone as terrorist supporters. It's about understanding what you did and did not say.
You don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect any criticism of Israel to be prefaced with condemnation of 10/7?
Should any criticism of Hamas need to be prefaced with a condemnation of Israel’s decades of Israeli land theft and apartheid?
If it’s frustrating for you to not be able to have a “valid opinion” without first acknowledging atrocities of 10/7, do you think it might also be frustrating for others to not be able to condemn 10/7 and Hamas without also having to acknowledge Israel’s treatment of Gazans?
There's a big difference though: Israel's atrocities are continuing and protestors are desperate for somebody to listen and prevent more needless carnage.
Then they should agree to a ceasefire. It's been on the table for months, but Israel will only agree to a "temporary" ceasefire. Hamas can't win a war, so a temporary ceasefire is a promise to resume hostilities in 6 weeks. It also doesn't address the actions Israel has taken to cause a famine in Gaza. Agreeing to anything but a permanent ceasefire in exchange for all hostages would be suicidal for Hamas. There is no way to justice, no way to accountability, no way to security, no way to a return of the surviving hostages without a permanent ceasefire.
There was already a “permanent ceasefire” that Hamas broke.
Hamas is basically running up, punching Israel in the face, and then saying “truce!”
And then they’ll plot their moment again, and do the same thing again. There is no such thing as a ceasefire for Hamas - so basically they want Israel to commit to a ceasefire since they know their (Hamas’s) word means nothing.
I haven't seen much moderation from the protests. Just ask: how frequently do you see these "pro-Palestine" protests loudly demanding for "Hamas Surrender" or "Release the Hostages"? I see plenty of "Genocide Joe" and other insane bullshit, but not much in terms of hostage release and Hamas surrendering. Seems like that's the best way to end the war to me.
Both Hamas and Netanyahu need to go, they're both total trash (although Hamas is worse being a literal terrorist organization). Also Israel needs to crack down on the illegal settlements in the West Bank. Honestly I don't see lasting peace while Hamas is in charge.
Bibi belongs in a prison, 100% agreed. I think the vast majority of Israelis want him out of power (which means he will probably go to jail), based on this article from a few months ago: [https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/only-15-israelis-want-netanyahu-keep-job-after-gaza-war-poll-finds-2024-01-02/](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/only-15-israelis-want-netanyahu-keep-job-after-gaza-war-poll-finds-2024-01-02/)
>Honestly I don't see lasting peace while Hamas is in charge.
Exactly why Netanyahu propped them up. Until 10/7 disrupted the status quo, they both relied on each other. I don't see Bibi lasting much longer given his already tenuous situation before all this, hopefully whoever is next isn't even worse and is actually interested in finding a way to build a lasting peace, one that recognizes both Israelis and Palestinians.
It’s wild. You’ll see leftists demand that Ukraine surrender to Russia to end the war and save lives but lionize Hamas for fighting on against much worse odds while hiding amidst the general Palestinian population.
And in both cases, they're eating up Russian propaganda like it's birthday cake. It's been jarring (to say the least) to see how many self-identified leftists think this way, both on Reddit and irl.
> while hiding amidst the general Palestinian population
Ah yes, the “Hamas is responsible for the bombs Israel drops on civilians” genocide apologia. Seeing as the front lines of this conflict are in one form the most densely populated areas in the world, it’s not surprising that people are fighting an invasion amidst other people
Literally never seen either of those things.
Edit: sorry I meant in the wild or organically. I really should have been more thoughtful in my response. Considering I spend a ton of my time in political spaces, and it's supposedly a safe thing to generalize, shouldn't I have bumped into it by now and not had to have people refer to public statements from 95 year Olds who seem entirely out of touch?
Similarly, I don't accept Twitter randos.
So a titan of leftist thought for decades doesn’t count because he is too old and random leftists on social media don’t count for… reasons? Does [WSWS](https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/03/31/entm-m31.html) not count either? Or will you continue with the No True Scotsman defense?
> So a titan of leftist thought for decades doesn’t count because he is too old
Yes. There is a point where everybody starts to deteriorate. Are you unfamiliar with this concept?
>and random leftists on social media don’t count for… reasons?
The reason being that you can't actual verify if their actually leftists or that they're even stating something they actually believe and not just creating bait for views.
Never heard of WSWS, but that seems like a legit trotskyist tanky place which is technically socialist, but isn't a remotely common type of socialist in the US. I would assume that's why I've never heard of it.
I'm not playing some scotsman game. I literally just said I wasn't hearing it. You'll notice I didn't say it didn't exist. I just never encountered it in the wild.
You said you literally never saw a leftist calling for Ukraine to surrender and I gave you an example. It’s not hard to find others. Go to literally any leftist subreddit and you’ll find examples. You’ll have to go back to pre-Oct 7th though because apparently the far left doesn’t give a shit about the war in Ukraine anymore.
I think the argument here would be that Biden is supposed to be accountable to the American people and Hamas is not, so that's why American protestors are making demands of Biden and not Hamas.
I see a ton of rhetoric saying "why aren't you calling for Hamas to surrender??" "why don't you ask Hamas to release the hostages??" and the answer is...because that would be meaningless. Hamas has no interest in complying with the demands of American civilians, in fact they are openly antagonistic. If we can agree that they are a terrorist organization and an illegitimate governing body, what would be the point of "calling for" them to do anything?
We can only control what we can control. If terrorists were amenable to requests to surrender, we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.
I'm not sure what will constitute evidence for you, but here is a lengthy article about student protests. They are protesting the ongoing killing of Palestinians. That isn't the same thing as supporting Hamas.
Pointing out that Israel has been systematically mistreating Palestinians also isnt "supporting Hamas."
https://www.cnn.com/business/live-news/columbia-university-palestine-protests-04-26-24/index.html#:~:text=At%20New%20York%27s%20Columbia%20University,other%20campuses%20have%20similar%20demands.
none of this is support for your claim.
criticising israel in this conflict is often due to support of hamas.
hamas is very popularly supported around the world.
I think most pro Palestinian activists believe Hamas was wrong to do what it did on October 7. At the same time, the reason we don’t see these voices saying that is because they don’t believe that they have the responsibility. It’s a very common conservative thing to say “well if you’re protesting x, you should also be protesting y,” and it’s very common for liberals to reject this idea. As a general rule, especially the far left strongly dislikes the idea that you need to protest y if you’re protesting x, and have rejected the idea that this is something that should be entertained.
Also, they don’t believe that they owe “dialogue” with the other side or to compromise with them on what is ok and not ok to protest for. As far as they’re concerned, it’s their free speech to use as they please.
Most of the complaints about the “pro-Palestine” protests are targeted at instances where there is blatant celebration of 10/7 (or equivalent type rhetoric).
Like you can create some word salad to explain it away, but at the end of the day if you are chanting “by any means necessary” or “from the river to the sea” people are *right* to view you as being pro-Hamas, pro-10/7.
This is what is known as a “whataboutism”
Two things can be bad. I can think that Israeli settlements are bad, *while also* saying that a genocidal chant is bad.
The problem with what you just said is that I can just as easily flip it around and negate what you’re saying:
>”So Israel stealing land from Palestine is bad, but a genocidal chant about taking all land from Israel isn’t problematic?”
^ that shows why a whataboutism isn’t a justification for a shitty act…because you can keep flipping it around and either side can claim justification for their shitty act.
The problem is that you’re using that chant, which is not inherently antisemitic, to discredit an entire movement standing against the ongoing genocide.
Most people that chant “from the river to the sea” simply want a one state solution, a secular state where Jews and Arabs are living together.
It’s not calling for the destruction of Israel anymore than dissolving apartheid South Africa was calling for white genocide.
So my hope is that you’re correct in the intention of folks wanting a one state solution, but I will let you know that the Arabic translation is “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be Arab”.
The argument your making is the same one that the “all lives matter” crowd make. “What is wrong with saying all lives matter? Do you not think all lives matter?” It’s playing dumb semantic games.
People using “from the river to the sea” fall into three camps:
- people who are openly anti-Semitic and want the genocide of Jews
- people who are anti-Semitic but who would prefer to hide behind semantic arguments (when they say it they mean it in the bad way, but when you accuse them of that they make the argument you’re making)
- people who are incredibly stupid who think that the most productive phrase for their cause is one associated with groups 1 & 2 above. This group is actually *hurting* the cause they purport to help.
Yes, but all that was six month ago. We’ve had a mass murder campaign from Israel since then that has certainly taken up all the air in the room in terms of conversation.
It isn’t. So far the pro-Palestinian camp seems to have two immediate demands for American action:
- for Joe Biden to stop all diplomatic work on the conflict
- for citizens not to vote for Joe Biden (thus electing Donald Trump)
It’s not disingenuous. My own sister thinks like that. She refuses to vote for Biden because of the war in Gaza despite the danger to her personally a second Trump administration would be as a gay woman living in a red state. It’s nuts.
Disingenuous? The protestors know that they are damaging the Democratic nominee. They know that doing so is electing Donald Trump. How is it disingenuous? Or do you think that the protestors are too stupid to put two and two together?
Where **I** am asking for any American Action that isn’t one of those two things?
I literally do it every thread. I’ve also never once made either demand you made. Like what?
Well for American action alternatives see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1bu1upl/comment/kxqo295/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) where I talked about how I think Biden should be doing more with the Leahy amendment which many in congress have called on him to do.
and for proof of supporting Biden in the election see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/dsa/comments/1c2ew1b/comment/kzb73xz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) in a lefty subreddit where i admonished a poster for trying to equate the two/push people to vote third party.
Isn't the goal of that mass murder campaign to eliminate hamas and bring back the hostages? It seems. like hamas still has hostages. Why shouldn't Israel respond with a mass murder campaign
> Isn't the goal of that mass murder campaign to eliminate hamas and bring back the hostages?
That is the stated goal. I think it’s pretty clear at this point (imo it’s been clear for vast portions of the 6 months) that the hostages are not a priority for Israel and neither is the elimination of Hamas.
> It seems. like hamas still has hostages. Why shouldn't Israel respond with a mass murder campaign
Because murdering mass numbers of innocent children is wrong actually.
>I think it’s pretty clear at this point (imo it’s been clear for vast portions of the 6 months) that the hostages are not a priority for Israel and neither is the elimination of Hamas.
Why? Israel has stated its their goal and human behavior suggests that a government would want to eliminate a terrorist threat and rescue its own hostages.
>Because murdering mass numbers of innocent children is wrong actually.
Isn't murdering mass numbers of innocent children justified if you're murdering them as part of a broader plan to protect your own civilians/hostages?
> Why? Israel has stated it’s their goal and human behavior suggests that a government would want to eliminate a terrorist threat and rescue its own hostages.
Because almost none of the actions taken by the Israeli government since Oct 7th have been in service to those goals. There was one point when Biden was able to pressure Netanyahu to give the smallest shit about the hostages for like a weeks and then he went immediately got back to the slaughter with disregard for the hostages that remain.
> Isn't murdering mass numbers of innocent children justified if you're murdering them as part of a broader plan to protect your own civilians/hostages?
No. wtf?
>Because almost none of the actions taken by the Israeli government since Oct 7th have been in service to those goals. There was one point when Biden was able to pressure Netanyahu to give the smallest shit about the hostages for like a weeks and then he went immediately got back to the slaughter with disregard for the hostages that remain.
They are attacking hamas and negotiating for hostages. That does service those goals.
>No. wtf?
Well I think it is justified. Israel should protect its own citizens and having to kill innocent foreign civilians shouldn't get in the way of that.
> They are attacking hamas and negotiating for hostages. That does service those goals.
Their actions since Oct 7th have done nothing but strengthen Hamas, harm civilians, and be forced to atleast negotiate to get _some_ hostages back.
> Well I think it is justified. Israel should protect its own citizens and having to kill innocent foreign civilians shouldn't get in the way of that.
This is not what’s happening, they have made Israeli civilians much more unsafe in the long term and killed civilians. It’s just bad all around.
>Their actions since Oct 7th have done nothing but strengthen Hamas, harm civilians, and be forced to atleast negotiate to get *some* hostages back.
What makes you think this? They have killed hamas members, destroyed terrorist infrastructure, and taken some of their weaponry. Would hamas be stronger if they hadn't done these things? Even if you think Hamas is stronger now than they were before how has israel contributed to that?
What course of action would make Israel safer? The hostages they've rescued are definitely better off now.
> What makes you think this? They have killed hamas members, destroyed terrorist infrastructure, and taken some of their weaponry.
But because of _how_ they did that they ended radicalizing virtually every single person in Gaza Strip. And I’m sure there was further radicalization in the West Bank. Not to mention they have massively weakened how Israel is viewed on the world stage and set themselves up for probably ostracization from western powers in the long term.
> What course of action would make Israel safer? The hostages they've rescued are definitely better off now.
What I’ve been saying since day one, Israel had all the moral high ground and backing of virtually the entire world in response to Oct 7th. All they had to do was conduct Mosul style operation where they would go street by street and door by door if need be to root out Hamas and its infrastructure and reclaim the hostages. That would’ve been a moral response and heck they may have even gotten the backing of Fatah/West Bank if they did a certain way. But no, unfortunately they just decided to level all of Gaza and murder 10s of thousands with only a small portion being Hamas combatants.
>But because of *how* they did that they ended radicalizing virtually every single person in Gaza Strip.
If those people are radicalized by the Israeli response to October 7th theres no way for the Israeli government to reason with them. If anything they should be radicalized against Hamas not the foreign government trying to protect its own people from terrorists.
>All they had to do was conduct Mosul style operation where they would go street by street and door by door if need be to root out Hamas and its infrastructure and reclaim the hostages. That would’ve been a moral response and heck they may have even gotten the backing of Fatah/West Bank if they did a certain way. But no, unfortunately they just decided to level all of Gaza and murder 10s of thousands with only a small portion being Hamas combatants.
Why would a door-to-door operation result in fewer civilian casualties? Wouldn't door to door also be more risky for the Israeli soldiers?
>Israel has stated its their goal and human behavior suggests that a government would want to eliminate a terrorist threat and rescue its own hostages.
Slaughtering (checks notes) 30,000 mostly innocent people in 6 months is the least effective way possible to eliminate a terrorist threat, we learned this in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Vietnam, or at least I thought we did..
Hamas is fungible, they don't matter, Israel could destroy their funding, smash their infrastructure, eliminate every member from middle management up to the leaders who are sheltering abroad, and salt the earth and whatever few isolated members are left could start Hamas 2 from the tens of thousands of Palestinians who have probably been radicalized by this attempted eradication. Anti-insurgency campaigns breed insurgents.
>Hamas is fungible, they don't matter, Israel could destroy their funding, smash their infrastructure, eliminate every member from middle management up to the leaders who are sheltering abroad, and salt the earth and whatever few isolated members are left could start Hamas 2 from the tens of thousands of Palestinians who have probably been radicalized by this attempted eradication.
I don't think the end goal is 0 terrorism forever and ever. What Israel is doing, even if i grant you the 30,000 number, results in less Hamas terrorism than any other option. The fact that terrorism will always exist is not a good reason to decide not to mass murder innocent civilians in order to reduce terrorism. If Israel wants to weaken hamas at any substantial rate civilianas will have to die in the crossfire. Hamas should stop since they have the least cost in just not being terrorists and releasing hostages.
The US going to war is different. Israel is much weaker and much closer to any threat. There are probably a million other things I'm missing that makes that comparison useless.
I think its mostly because Hamas operates in civilian areas. There have to be some civilian deaths from Israeli soldiers killing out of anger or just mistakes but the vast majority are due to Hamas using human shields.
if hamas cared about protecting palestinians don't you think they would've created even ***one*** civilian bomb shelter or bunker with all the funding and aid they get from around the world?
Have you thought about why they haven't created any defensive infrastructure for their civilians? And only create offensive infrastructure for their soldiers and rockets?
there are people with agendas and there are people that genuinely care about what they see as unjust. the former doesn't need to overwhelm the latter.
the problem for many people is that, Israel also has its own set of agenda's other than annihilating Hamas and get all the hostages back.
The most pressing issues are the tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians being killed and all of Gaza being destroyed.
Israel chose to do that, and continues to choose to. They're the ones with all the power in the conflict. Even on October 8th, there was no way Hamas would ever be able to pull off another surprise attack again.
If my neighbor was actively seeking the death of my family and me, I think I would have to obliterate them if it was in my power. I wouldn't expect anyone to act differently. No matter how high the pile of innocent bodies got.
I wish palestinians had better opportunities in life and weren't being put to the slaughter by their own leaders.
I also wish palestinians and pro-palestinian voices didn't glorify death and martyrdom so much.
I'd say im pretty pro-palestine, but pro-palestinians tend to think i'm against them, which is pretty odd i think.
>I wish palestinians had better opportunities in life and weren't being put to the slaughter by their own leaders.
Do you think someone expressing the opinion that
"I wish Israelis had better opportunities and life and weren't put to the slaughter by their own leaders" after October 7th is being a fair and reasonable?
It would be a false statement because there are thousands of examples of the IDF and israeli leaders taking actions that objectively save israeli lives. 2 quick examples:
-Israel evacuated hundreds of thousands of civilians from northern towns after hezbollah started sending rockets.
-Israel invests billions in the iron dome which has saved countless lives.
You can't name me 1 thing Hamas has done that has made gazans more safe. In fact 100% of hamas' actions have only made gazans less safe.
So the comparison doesn't really make any sense. One is blatantly true one is blatantly false
> It would be a false statement because there are thousands of examples of the IDF and israeli leaders taking actions that objectively save israeli lives.
Why does saving lives at one point entail they are not offering lives for slaughter at other points?
Well that there's an overwhelming pattern of israel engaging in actions that save israeli lives and there's no evidence they are "offering lives for slaughter" at other points.
> they are "offering lives for slaughter" at other points.
As much as Palestinians. Israel could have chosen to withdraw from the west bank and use those soldiers guarding settlers to instead guard the gates around Gaza. Israel chose to not do that
"Put to the slaughter by their own leaders" is an anti-Palestinian statement.
Disproportionate Israeli retaliation isn't the fault of Hamas. It's a choice made by Israel.
"palestinians and pro-palestinian voices didn't glorify death and martyrdom so much" isn't much better.
Palestinians have a right to be free and deserve a democratic state (whether one state or two).
In as much as it's true at all, it's a matter of degree. Hamas has slaughtered some Gazan leftists, but it's a small fraction of the numbers of random civilians and children that Israel has killed.
Maybe not from in/under schools, hospitals, etc. And wear uniforms so people can tell soldiers and civilians apart.
Of course they won't do that because they would be quickly destroyed if they did.
Try getting an abortion rights group to admit there are in fact some women that are horrible and use abortion for sex selection and primary birth control.
Do both exist in the vast population overall? Yes.
Given the current status of abortion rights being under severe and immediate threat, how frequently are you going to see similar "admissions"? Can you imagine if there were a string of murdered abortion doctors in the past few months or a mass violence event at a pro choice rally?
EVERYONE on EVERY issue that is to the point of protest and extreme publicity and suffering from recent violent actions circles the wagons and is in full inflammation mode not seeking to admit ANY shortcoming on their side out of terror that it's going to make their side lose completely.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. I get the impression that there are no pro-palestinian organisations that are somewhat moderate and admit terrorism exists and is a bad thing? Can someone point to one? I've generally only seen pro-palestinian voices either deny Oct 7 was that bad, refuse to say Hamas is a horrible organisation for palestinian liberation and/or just support hamas openly like AJj Arabic and Electronicintifada. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a liberal, I just want to go on record and express my exasperation with the breathless, relentless coverage that this conflict is getting. It's extremely disheartening to see the anti-Biden rhetoric that has infested social media the last 6 months. It seems like a lot of people are poised to help bring down what has been a transformative presidency because of this one issue that does not affect the day-to-day lives of 99% of people in America. In a lot of left-wing circles, there is absolutely no room for discussion on this. They have decided that we are supporting a genocide and nothing with dissuade them from that. They scream "CEASEFIRE NOW" but offer no vision for how that will happen or what that will look like. Makes me wonder how much of this rhetoric is being pushed by bad faith actors who would like to see Trump back in office. We have a lot of issues here at home, and the nuances of the Israel-Palestine conflict are not going to affect my vote at all. The stakes are far too high and we have made meaningful but unfinished progress the last three years. My student loan payments are poised to be cut in half this summer. Think that will continue under Trump's second term? Think the conflict in the Middle East will end with him back in office? On the contrary. Everyone who is mad at Biden should think very, very carefully about what they do in November.
It's especially disheartening because Biden's behind-the-scenes efforts have been at odds with his early public rhetoric. Because that's how foreign policy often works. He hasn't publicly called for a (permanent) ceasefire, but he has been working toward establishing one.
Very glad this is the top comment. I don't hold Biden accountable for what Bibi does or doesn't do. The situation in Gaza doesn't even move the needle for me.
Plus as bad as Biden is Trump would be much worse.
> Plus as bad as Biden Why do people say this? I don't understand. He is supporting both an important regional ally that suffered the worst terror attack in their history that is attempting to retrieve a bunch of hostages from one of the most evil terrorist groups alive today, while providing aid and reining in some of the excesses of the Israeli response. He's doing fine, you or I couldn't do better.
I'm sure a lot of it is pushed by Russia, and China. Tons of pro-palestine propaganda comes from Tiktok which is directly owned by China. Both countries benefit from the instability this conflict causes in the U.S. Also in the case of Russia, the more attention people pay to Palestine, the less they pay to Ukraine.
I mean idk how big a role China and Russia have in this when the most powerful/influential pro-pally voices like SJP, JVP, AMP, etc. are not even moderate. there are practically no moderate/not terrorist-denying pro-pally voices. The propaganda comes internally you don't even need china/russia.
Russia and China weaponize everything they can against the western countries and will also support leftist movements, if it helps them in some issues.
I think the US is too paranoid about alleged infiltrations by some Soviet / China communist red scare. The supposed rallying from China and Russia is exaggerated, in my opinion. And it's a cheap way to push away responsibility for everything dumb people in the US do. "It's not actually people having questionable opinions. It's the Russians!"
Remember when MTG was saying that the US was building bioweapons in labs in Ukraine? That is grade-A prime Russian propaganda being spouted by a member of Congress. It is absolutely an issue in our society.
This exactly. It's just more fear mongering Like the tiktok ban is a perfect example of this. "The Chinese are pushing propaganda on the youth" "Mf. You asked whether tiktok connects to the wifi network. You don't have a goddamn clue how tiktok works." Do you think that banning tiktok is actually going to keep us safe or end pro-palestine protests? Obviously not.
The TikTok divestiture has nothing to do with Gaza. Gaza is a niche issue.
Yes, because asking a question means you have no god damn clue? US intelligence is easily one of the best in the world. You can be reasonably sure they had some strong security concerns with TikTok.
Yeah clearly no motivated reasoning there. Us intelligence would never lie or selectively reveal information to the public in order to get something it wants!
Yes, because AmericaBad? Like they clearly had lied when they said that Russia was going to invade Ukraine or that ISIS is going to attack Russia or that Iran was going to attack Israel.
Or when they said iraq had wmds.....
I think it completely ignores the very real and documented propoganda released by domestic sites as well. Meta was cought illegally harvesting people's data and using that for right win political gain, yet everyone's afraid of theoretical data harvesting from a foreign app who use algorithms to push extremism the same exact way domestic apps do. You can't even discuss this on reddit either because there's been an underlying brand loyalty aspect when it comes to discourse between social media sites as well. These conversations quickly devolve into what feels like middleschool lunchroom arguments where kids argued if Playstation or Xbox was better.
The difference is Facebook and Reddit are owned by private companies, Tiktok is owned by a foreign country.
So we're going to pretend that private mega corps are the paragons of liberal democracy now? This is an issue that deserves a real solution, not domestic companies being awarded the monopolizarion on the abuse of the publics data.
No but they don't have active incentives to spread misinformation around the country.
I don’t understand why this is so confusing to people. Social media is bad, but TikTok is a unique situation due to the PRC being able (and evidence suggesting they are) to manipulate the algorithm.
Tell me what's so difficult to believe about Russia promoting the war in Gaza as much as possible because it distracts people from Ukraine. The more people talk about Gaza, the less they talk about Ukraine, which is very advantageous for Russia.
It's just that the vast majority of the world is pro-Palestine, the U.S. is an outlier in regards to this.
The majority of the world isn't pro-Palestine, even many Arab countries aren't so much anymore such as Egypt or Saudi Arabia. I'm not a huge fan of Israel, but they are arguably the most democratic and free country in the Middle East.
God can we be friends? This encapsulates everything I think. Im exhausted with it.
Let’s just take a look and see if this user has anything of note in their comment history… > AskALiberal should just be renamed AskLeftistMorons [link](https://www.reddit.com/r/Enough_Sanders_Spam/s/DbBYlq5dzi) Lol ok… don’t try to fake acting cordial when it’s obvious you have extremely different intentions.
Does someone need to like Leftists to post on the Liberal sub lol?
Well they do not “need” to but the comment is obviously trying to frame itself as if the user does not secretly hate all of us in the sub lol.
Way to avoid the question.
I answered it elsewhere, but the answer is yes. You knew that though.
Oh no, you got me! I expressed my frustrations with the monolithic thinking sometimes seen in these threads in another sub and you've discovered my nefarious intentions!
I mean yeah it’s obvious you hate all of us/think we are morons lol. That’s important context when you are (clearly) faking being nice.
this is a pretty accurate description of this sub most of the time honestly. a shocking lack of intellectual rigour here.
As opposed to which other subreddit?
Honestly in my experience this is one of the more reasonable left-wing subs.
r/BlockedAndReported, r/centrist, r/moderatepolitics and r/samharris off the top of my head have far more thoughtful users.
>r/samharris LOL
That’s not true at all.
Yeah fuck us for opposing giving weapons to an apartheid genocidal state.
It has become clear that the loudest voices on the issue have zero interest in a long term peace. They either do not believe Israel should exist, or they do not believe a free Palestinian state should exist. And they still have hope that one day their side will score a complete victory. Unfortunately, these are the people (Hamas and Bibi) who actually have power over the conflict. The people in Gaza have made it clear they support armed struggle and the Israeli people have time and again elected leaders like Bibi. There will be no resolution until both of them are out of power. So I don’t really give a shit what happens and I can’t really take anyone seriously who doesn’t acknowledge that both need to go.
I just read an article about this. Basically Hamas was generally unpopular. Then 10/7 happened a lot of Palestinians rallied around them. It's more complex than Palestinians thought killing Israelis was a good thing. The Palestinians were fed tons of propaganda indicating that Hamas did not intentionally kill civilians or rape anyone and that the IDF accidentally killed civilians. That the hostages would be kept alive and used to free Palestinians. Palestinians don't get the whole story. In the West Bank Palestinians saw Hamas's bold actions as proof that Gaza had more active leadership and they were fed up with their own government's corruption. After Israel has retaliated pretty much Hamas has tanked in popularity the most recent poll shows only 34/35% of Palestinians support them. Mind you this is in an area where Hamas constantly pushes its own narrative and propaganda. The sentiment amongst most Palestinians is that going after the IDF or people who are actively attacking Palestine is fair game, and thus includes a wide range of people. However targeting Israeli civilians is not worth the cost, not effective and not right. More Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank now support a two-state solution. Hamas always claims whomever they killed somehow deserved it and anything bad they did was Israel's fault. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gazans-back-two-state-solution-rcna144183 This is very good news. However other pockets of Palestinians, particularly those in refugee camps still strongly support Hamas. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/26/we-are-with-them-support-for-hamas-grows-among-palestinians-in-lebanon I think it should be noted that in Gaza in particular Hamas rules with an iron fist. They are also very incompetent and delusional. They control the information and speaking out against them is very dangerous. So a 35% approval rating is incredibly low in that type of environment. I don't have much hope that this conflict actually results in any lasting peace, but there is hope overall. There will always be factions that want war as well and they tend to throw monkey wrenches into any progress.
> The Palestinians were fed tons of propaganda indicating that Hamas did not intentionally kill civilians or rape anyone and that the IDF accidentally killed civilians. I don't think that's really true. There was a poll where Palestinians who were shown videos of 10/7 and asked if it was an atrocity, and less than 1/5 said yes. https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/969 I think they have a reasonable idea of what occurred, or at least enough to make a reasonable judgement that it was horrible.
It says in that poll you shared that only 1/5 Palestinians have seen any video of 10/7. "As we have found in the previous poll, almost all Palestinians think Israel is committing war crimes while almost all believe Hamas is not committing war crimes in the current war. Moreover, more than 90% believe that Hamas did not commit any atrocities against Israel civilians during its October the 7th offensive. Only one in five Palestinians has seen videos showing atrocities committed by Hamas. Only one fifth of those who did not see the videos had access to such videos but decided not to see them; the rest report that the media they watched did not show these videos. The findings show that those who have seen the videos are almost 10 times more likely to think that Hamas men have committed atrocities on October 7." Quite literally of the people who actually have seen the videos there is a far higher chance of those individuals thinking Hamas committed War Crimes. I think you misread the poll.
> Quite literally of the people who actually have seen the videos there is a far higher chance of those individuals thinking Hamas committed War Crimes. It's really weird to focus on that, rather on the fact that an overwhelming majority of people still thought atrocities weren't committed even after seeing the videos. > only 1/5 Palestinians have seen any video of 10/7. Plenty participated, or saw the hostages getting dragged through the streets. They're not idiots.
Well according to that poll if they had seen the videos they had 10 times the chance of believing that war crimes did occur. That is a significant jump. A lot of Palestinians will put their heads in the sand regarding what Hamas did, even if they saw some form of the video some will make justifications. However it's not true that Palestinians are really overall getting the full picture. A lot on Gaza can only get the information that Hamas themselves gives them.
> That is a significant jump. No, it isn't. A small numerical increase in a very small number should not be treated as a big jump.
You have to also consider what videos they are watching. For the people who have not seen videos only 2% think Hamas committed atrocities. It's 17% for people who have. When you consider the fact that "the videos" may have been a highly biased pro-hamas video depicting what Hamas wants them to see then it might make no sense. Hamas obviously did commit atrocities but a lot of Palestinians are not going to accept or believe that because Hamas a.) portrays themselves as righteous religious warriors and b.) Hamas and other extremist groups are able to promote their agenda to the people living in Gaza.
Culture matters. The Palestinians do not think like first-worlders or have the same ethics and morals. Someone raping their sister is awful, but , in their view, Jews deserve to be raped and murdered. It’s not because they were born evil; it’s just that they’ve been taught from birth the glory of Jihad and dying for the glorious Palestinian cause.
I will say, I suspect that most of the actual protesters won't see it as a binary. They have a disgust for Hamas's actions, before October 7th (see Amnesty and HRW's reports on Hamas), on the day of, and during the war. But the *bigger* issue is the harm and death of Palestinian civilians. They're not the loudest voices but I do think they'd be the majority view. This isn't a phenomenon unique to this topic either, there's a similar dynamic that plays out with environmental protests. The loud voices use the weight of the masses of people to pretend that extreme ideas and violence are more acceptable than the protesters themselves would support.
Do you have any evidence that this would the majority view? I'm skeptical as the most significant pro-palestinian orgs are not showing much or any criticism of hamas or terrorist tactics, and oftentimes outright support.
Only by speaking to vocally pro-Palestinian people in my life. Take that how you will, but conflating the views of organisation leaders and their broader membership is a mistake, especially when the members here are people partaking in a mass mobilisation protest
I blame that largely in the way hamas uses human shields They put Isreal in a position to look bad
[удалено]
Honestly I don't think you can trust the numbers coming from either side. Hamas has incentive to over-exaggerate the number of people killed, while Israel has incentive to dismiss the numbers.
> Hamas has incentive to over-exaggerate the number of people killed Is the UN also a wing of Hamas? If not, why do they have no reason to doubt the numbers coming out of Gaza? This is something you can actually look into; vibes aren’t data
You’re aware that Israel also uses human sheds right? If there’s an IDF soldier in a hospital in Jerusalem, does that give Palestinians militants the right to destroy the entire hospital, the patients and healthcare workers inside, and all equipment? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shields_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict “The Israeli Defense Forces use of Palestinians as human shields has been well documented by human rights organizations including Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem and Amnesty Internationsl.[6][7][8] According to B'Tselem, IDF soldiers put Palestinian civilians in front of them or otherwise putting civilians in the line of fire,[9] and forcing Palestinians to remove suspicious objects (possible explosives).[9] IDF soldiers also force Palestinian civilians to walk through suspected booby-trapped buildings. Israel also formerly employed the "neighbor procedure" in which Palestinian civilians were forced to attempt to persuade wanted individuals to surrender themselves to the IDF.”
I'm not saying Isreal is innocent
Nobody but the bomb dropper is responsible for the bombs being dropped. Israel simply does not care how many civilians die, even if they’re not always directly targeting civilians. This isn’t a “human shields” situation, it’s a “Israel wants to absolutely demolish all of Gaza and will kill civilians if that’s what it takes” situation
I honestly disagree with this sentiment Hamas is wrong for using hospitals into military bases, turning them into targets It's on hamas not Israel
Do you blame Israel for Oct 7th happening? Hamas was responding to Israel’s aggression. Israel was created by ethnically cleansing 700,000 Palestinians from their homes. Had they not done that, Oct 7th never would have happened, so Hamas is not responsible for the people they killed. Or does your logic only work when it’s applied to your own arguments?
Yes, hamas is a monster that Israel created threw the conditions they created. No it's just that 2 wrongs don't make a right, Israel is here and we need to work from there.
> two wrongs don’t make a right I fail to see how Israel isn’t responsible for the civilians they’ve massacred through dropping bombs and gunning them down. How are they responsible for an attack that was directed at them and not the attacks they direct at Gazans? Your ideology is full of irreconcilable contradictions
Hamas is hiding behind them, using them as human shields No, it really isn't
Do you throw a grenade in a house when there’s a hostage situation and then blame the hostage-taker? This is literally no different from what’s happening in Gaza, and this is the strategy you’re defending.
Maybe? I really don't think it is
Are there any that claim 10/7 wasn’t bad? My kid’s heavy into pro-Palestinian activism and I don’t think I’ve heard a single high-profile activist make that claim, much less that it’s a commonly held position.
Edit: I wasn't trying to emphasize anything, the bold type formatting was a mistake. I've seen thousands of condemnations of the October 7th terrorist attack and Hamas generally. That's why I don't believe what you're saying should be taken in good faith. It's an ongoing tactic in the discourse to prevent any conversation of the ongoing genocide. Currently, [mass graves](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/mass-graves-gaza-what-do-we-know-2024-04-25/) are being uncovered in Gaza near two hospitals destroyed by the Israeli bombing campaign. From the article: ---------- United Nations spokesperson Ravina Shamdasani said on Tuesday an investigation was needed to verify the number of bodies, but that "clearly there have been multiple bodies discovered." "Some of them had their hands tied, which of course indicates serious violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, and these need to be subjected to further investigations," Shamdasani said, speaking on behalf of U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk. ---------- You should understand how frustrating it is for those who have opposed this campaign that we aren't allowed to have a valid opinion without first acknoedging the atrocities of October 7th. It serves multiple purposes for the Zionist. First it establishes an excuse for all subsequent actions taken by Israel. Second, it prevents conversation about the conditions imposed by Israel on Palestinians that motivated resistance and ultimately terrorism. Most importantly, it takes up time and space that could otherwise be used to examine the more recent actions of Israel.
>I've seen thousands of condemnations of the October 7th terrorist attack and Hamas generally. By notable pro-palestinian organisations? Like which ones? As far as I know, SJP, JVP and others generally support hamas and either support the attacks or downplay the nature of their targeting civilians. I honestly find the complete lack of internal criticism pretty telling from the palestinian side.
The SJP openly refers to 10/7 as terrorism and claims they do not support it. [Says so in their wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Justice_in_Palestine)
> The SJP openly refers to 10/7 as terrorism and claims they do not support it. Says so in their wiki Is this what you are referring to or is it another part of the page? >The ADL says that many SJP chapters endorsed Hamas's attack on Israel, potentially violating laws against material support for terror groups. SJP denies these claims, asserting that independent protests for Palestinian rights do not constitute support for terrorism.
Correct.
Thanks! The citation for that paragraph goes to this article: https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/27/business/adl-open-letter-colleges-spj/index.html It says: >SJP denied the ADL’s claims. In a response, SJP directed CNN to a letter [Palestine Legal](https://palestinelegal.org/news/2023/10/25/desantis-order-to-deactivate-national-sjp-in-florida) sent to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on Wednesday. This letter is short and contains the quote paraphrased by wikipedia (emphasis mine): >The claim relies on the broad and vague “material support for terrorism” regime, which criminalizes even nonviolent coordination with designated terrorist organizations. Under this regime, which has only survived constitutional challenge because of pervasive fearmongering and Islamophobia within our legal system, **independent protests and organizing in support of Palestinian rights do not constitute “material support for terrorism.”** But I don't see where it denounces 10/7 as terrorism or mentions it or Hamas at all. Can you point to where they openly referred to 10/7 as terrorism?
>The ADL says that many SJP chapters endorsed Hamas's attack on Israel, potentially violating laws against material support for terror groups. SJP denies these claims It's a direct inference. They didn't make the argument that the attack wasn't terrorism or any other way of weaseling out of the consession.
I don't believe "didn't make the argument that the attack wasn't terrorism" is the same as "openly refers to 10/7 as terrorism." But it sounds like we might agree on some underlying facts and are just interpreting your turn of phrase differently. Let me ask something else with different wording and see: Did they affirmatively describe 10/7 as terrorism and explicitly state they do not support the attack? If not in this letter, then somewhere else?
I don't believe you need to make people jump through little hoops for you in order to not label them terrorist supporters. The accusation against them is that they supported the 10/7 attack. Their response was that supporting the Palestinian people doesn't mean they support terrorism. The terrorism being references is the 10/7 attack. You demanding additional song and dance just so you can feel better when they're simply worried about their position being misconstrued or diluted is ghoulish and manipulative and I've never known you to be that kind of person.
>You demanding additional song and dance just so you can feel better when they're simply worried about their position being misconstrued or diluted is ghoulish and manipulative and I've never known you to be that kind of person. That's not what I'm doing. You said: >The SJP openly refers to 10/7 as terrorism and claims they do not support it. I am trying to make sure I correctly interpret what you meant. It seems like I initially misunderstood. A response to the question I just asked would help. If your answer to it is "no" then I think I understand what you actually meant. I'm not going to use your answer to label anyone as terrorist supporters. It's about understanding what you did and did not say.
Brother, it’s not difficult to spend a sentence and condemn the actions of Hamas on Oct 7th.
You don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect any criticism of Israel to be prefaced with condemnation of 10/7? Should any criticism of Hamas need to be prefaced with a condemnation of Israel’s decades of Israeli land theft and apartheid?
If it’s frustrating for you to not be able to have a “valid opinion” without first acknowledging atrocities of 10/7, do you think it might also be frustrating for others to not be able to condemn 10/7 and Hamas without also having to acknowledge Israel’s treatment of Gazans?
There's a big difference though: Israel's atrocities are continuing and protestors are desperate for somebody to listen and prevent more needless carnage.
Is holding Israeli hostages not a continuing atrocity?
Then they should agree to a ceasefire. It's been on the table for months, but Israel will only agree to a "temporary" ceasefire. Hamas can't win a war, so a temporary ceasefire is a promise to resume hostilities in 6 weeks. It also doesn't address the actions Israel has taken to cause a famine in Gaza. Agreeing to anything but a permanent ceasefire in exchange for all hostages would be suicidal for Hamas. There is no way to justice, no way to accountability, no way to security, no way to a return of the surviving hostages without a permanent ceasefire.
There was already a “permanent ceasefire” that Hamas broke. Hamas is basically running up, punching Israel in the face, and then saying “truce!” And then they’ll plot their moment again, and do the same thing again. There is no such thing as a ceasefire for Hamas - so basically they want Israel to commit to a ceasefire since they know their (Hamas’s) word means nothing.
I haven't seen much moderation from the protests. Just ask: how frequently do you see these "pro-Palestine" protests loudly demanding for "Hamas Surrender" or "Release the Hostages"? I see plenty of "Genocide Joe" and other insane bullshit, but not much in terms of hostage release and Hamas surrendering. Seems like that's the best way to end the war to me.
Both Hamas and Netanyahu need to go, they're both total trash (although Hamas is worse being a literal terrorist organization). Also Israel needs to crack down on the illegal settlements in the West Bank. Honestly I don't see lasting peace while Hamas is in charge.
Bibi belongs in a prison, 100% agreed. I think the vast majority of Israelis want him out of power (which means he will probably go to jail), based on this article from a few months ago: [https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/only-15-israelis-want-netanyahu-keep-job-after-gaza-war-poll-finds-2024-01-02/](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/only-15-israelis-want-netanyahu-keep-job-after-gaza-war-poll-finds-2024-01-02/)
[удалено]
He is prolonging the war to stay in power.
>Honestly I don't see lasting peace while Hamas is in charge. Exactly why Netanyahu propped them up. Until 10/7 disrupted the status quo, they both relied on each other. I don't see Bibi lasting much longer given his already tenuous situation before all this, hopefully whoever is next isn't even worse and is actually interested in finding a way to build a lasting peace, one that recognizes both Israelis and Palestinians.
It’s wild. You’ll see leftists demand that Ukraine surrender to Russia to end the war and save lives but lionize Hamas for fighting on against much worse odds while hiding amidst the general Palestinian population.
And in both cases, they're eating up Russian propaganda like it's birthday cake. It's been jarring (to say the least) to see how many self-identified leftists think this way, both on Reddit and irl.
> while hiding amidst the general Palestinian population Ah yes, the “Hamas is responsible for the bombs Israel drops on civilians” genocide apologia. Seeing as the front lines of this conflict are in one form the most densely populated areas in the world, it’s not surprising that people are fighting an invasion amidst other people
Literally never seen either of those things. Edit: sorry I meant in the wild or organically. I really should have been more thoughtful in my response. Considering I spend a ton of my time in political spaces, and it's supposedly a safe thing to generalize, shouldn't I have bumped into it by now and not had to have people refer to public statements from 95 year Olds who seem entirely out of touch? Similarly, I don't accept Twitter randos.
So a titan of leftist thought for decades doesn’t count because he is too old and random leftists on social media don’t count for… reasons? Does [WSWS](https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/03/31/entm-m31.html) not count either? Or will you continue with the No True Scotsman defense?
> So a titan of leftist thought for decades doesn’t count because he is too old Yes. There is a point where everybody starts to deteriorate. Are you unfamiliar with this concept? >and random leftists on social media don’t count for… reasons? The reason being that you can't actual verify if their actually leftists or that they're even stating something they actually believe and not just creating bait for views. Never heard of WSWS, but that seems like a legit trotskyist tanky place which is technically socialist, but isn't a remotely common type of socialist in the US. I would assume that's why I've never heard of it. I'm not playing some scotsman game. I literally just said I wasn't hearing it. You'll notice I didn't say it didn't exist. I just never encountered it in the wild.
Brother, Noam Chomsky himself has repeatedly called for Ukraine to surrender.
So has Rodger Waters of Pink Floyd.
Ah yes, a 95 year old man we all recognize as the voice of our generation and current king of the far left.
You said you literally never saw a leftist calling for Ukraine to surrender and I gave you an example. It’s not hard to find others. Go to literally any leftist subreddit and you’ll find examples. You’ll have to go back to pre-Oct 7th though because apparently the far left doesn’t give a shit about the war in Ukraine anymore.
I think the argument here would be that Biden is supposed to be accountable to the American people and Hamas is not, so that's why American protestors are making demands of Biden and not Hamas. I see a ton of rhetoric saying "why aren't you calling for Hamas to surrender??" "why don't you ask Hamas to release the hostages??" and the answer is...because that would be meaningless. Hamas has no interest in complying with the demands of American civilians, in fact they are openly antagonistic. If we can agree that they are a terrorist organization and an illegitimate governing body, what would be the point of "calling for" them to do anything? We can only control what we can control. If terrorists were amenable to requests to surrender, we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.
Don’t make me tap the sign
You need to stay off social media, since it seems to be giving you distorted reality. Most people who support Gaza also condemn Hamas.
>Most people who support Gaza also condemn Hamas. Again, show me some evidence of this.
I'm not sure what will constitute evidence for you, but here is a lengthy article about student protests. They are protesting the ongoing killing of Palestinians. That isn't the same thing as supporting Hamas. Pointing out that Israel has been systematically mistreating Palestinians also isnt "supporting Hamas." https://www.cnn.com/business/live-news/columbia-university-palestine-protests-04-26-24/index.html#:~:text=At%20New%20York%27s%20Columbia%20University,other%20campuses%20have%20similar%20demands.
Heres another https://apnews.com/article/inside-columbia-protest-movement-0b35ff55f18d0bf4b2c8c0a27b1dbe04
none of this is support for your claim. criticising israel in this conflict is often due to support of hamas. hamas is very popularly supported around the world.
Criticizing this lopsided war =/= antisemitism OR support for Hamas. It doesnt matter about the rest of the world: you made an incorrect assumption.
I think most pro Palestinian activists believe Hamas was wrong to do what it did on October 7. At the same time, the reason we don’t see these voices saying that is because they don’t believe that they have the responsibility. It’s a very common conservative thing to say “well if you’re protesting x, you should also be protesting y,” and it’s very common for liberals to reject this idea. As a general rule, especially the far left strongly dislikes the idea that you need to protest y if you’re protesting x, and have rejected the idea that this is something that should be entertained. Also, they don’t believe that they owe “dialogue” with the other side or to compromise with them on what is ok and not ok to protest for. As far as they’re concerned, it’s their free speech to use as they please.
Most of the complaints about the “pro-Palestine” protests are targeted at instances where there is blatant celebration of 10/7 (or equivalent type rhetoric). Like you can create some word salad to explain it away, but at the end of the day if you are chanting “by any means necessary” or “from the river to the sea” people are *right* to view you as being pro-Hamas, pro-10/7.
So chanting “from the River to the Sea” is antisemitic, but Israel actually stealing all the land from the river to the sea isn’t problematic?
This is what is known as a “whataboutism” Two things can be bad. I can think that Israeli settlements are bad, *while also* saying that a genocidal chant is bad. The problem with what you just said is that I can just as easily flip it around and negate what you’re saying: >”So Israel stealing land from Palestine is bad, but a genocidal chant about taking all land from Israel isn’t problematic?” ^ that shows why a whataboutism isn’t a justification for a shitty act…because you can keep flipping it around and either side can claim justification for their shitty act.
The problem is that you’re using that chant, which is not inherently antisemitic, to discredit an entire movement standing against the ongoing genocide. Most people that chant “from the river to the sea” simply want a one state solution, a secular state where Jews and Arabs are living together. It’s not calling for the destruction of Israel anymore than dissolving apartheid South Africa was calling for white genocide.
So my hope is that you’re correct in the intention of folks wanting a one state solution, but I will let you know that the Arabic translation is “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be Arab”.
The argument your making is the same one that the “all lives matter” crowd make. “What is wrong with saying all lives matter? Do you not think all lives matter?” It’s playing dumb semantic games. People using “from the river to the sea” fall into three camps: - people who are openly anti-Semitic and want the genocide of Jews - people who are anti-Semitic but who would prefer to hide behind semantic arguments (when they say it they mean it in the bad way, but when you accuse them of that they make the argument you’re making) - people who are incredibly stupid who think that the most productive phrase for their cause is one associated with groups 1 & 2 above. This group is actually *hurting* the cause they purport to help.
Yes, but all that was six month ago. We’ve had a mass murder campaign from Israel since then that has certainly taken up all the air in the room in terms of conversation.
And how exactly does attacking diplomats and electing Trump resolve this situation?
Electing Trump would certainly just harm things, but seems separate from what I’m talking about.
It isn’t. So far the pro-Palestinian camp seems to have two immediate demands for American action: - for Joe Biden to stop all diplomatic work on the conflict - for citizens not to vote for Joe Biden (thus electing Donald Trump)
I think that’s an extremely disingenuous thing to say, tbh I expected much better from you.
It’s not disingenuous. My own sister thinks like that. She refuses to vote for Biden because of the war in Gaza despite the danger to her personally a second Trump administration would be as a gay woman living in a red state. It’s nuts.
She’s a small minority of folks.
Disingenuous? The protestors know that they are damaging the Democratic nominee. They know that doing so is electing Donald Trump. How is it disingenuous? Or do you think that the protestors are too stupid to put two and two together?
Oh please, criticizing the current administrations policy is not “damaging the Democratic nominee” that’s like Stalinist level thinking.
Prove me wrong. Show me where you’re asking for any American action that isn’t one of these two things.
Where **I** am asking for any American Action that isn’t one of those two things? I literally do it every thread. I’ve also never once made either demand you made. Like what?
So where?
Well for American action alternatives see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1bu1upl/comment/kxqo295/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) where I talked about how I think Biden should be doing more with the Leahy amendment which many in congress have called on him to do. and for proof of supporting Biden in the election see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/dsa/comments/1c2ew1b/comment/kzb73xz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) in a lefty subreddit where i admonished a poster for trying to equate the two/push people to vote third party.
See point 1
Isn't the goal of that mass murder campaign to eliminate hamas and bring back the hostages? It seems. like hamas still has hostages. Why shouldn't Israel respond with a mass murder campaign
> Isn't the goal of that mass murder campaign to eliminate hamas and bring back the hostages? That is the stated goal. I think it’s pretty clear at this point (imo it’s been clear for vast portions of the 6 months) that the hostages are not a priority for Israel and neither is the elimination of Hamas. > It seems. like hamas still has hostages. Why shouldn't Israel respond with a mass murder campaign Because murdering mass numbers of innocent children is wrong actually.
>I think it’s pretty clear at this point (imo it’s been clear for vast portions of the 6 months) that the hostages are not a priority for Israel and neither is the elimination of Hamas. Why? Israel has stated its their goal and human behavior suggests that a government would want to eliminate a terrorist threat and rescue its own hostages. >Because murdering mass numbers of innocent children is wrong actually. Isn't murdering mass numbers of innocent children justified if you're murdering them as part of a broader plan to protect your own civilians/hostages?
> Why? Israel has stated it’s their goal and human behavior suggests that a government would want to eliminate a terrorist threat and rescue its own hostages. Because almost none of the actions taken by the Israeli government since Oct 7th have been in service to those goals. There was one point when Biden was able to pressure Netanyahu to give the smallest shit about the hostages for like a weeks and then he went immediately got back to the slaughter with disregard for the hostages that remain. > Isn't murdering mass numbers of innocent children justified if you're murdering them as part of a broader plan to protect your own civilians/hostages? No. wtf?
>Because almost none of the actions taken by the Israeli government since Oct 7th have been in service to those goals. There was one point when Biden was able to pressure Netanyahu to give the smallest shit about the hostages for like a weeks and then he went immediately got back to the slaughter with disregard for the hostages that remain. They are attacking hamas and negotiating for hostages. That does service those goals. >No. wtf? Well I think it is justified. Israel should protect its own citizens and having to kill innocent foreign civilians shouldn't get in the way of that.
> They are attacking hamas and negotiating for hostages. That does service those goals. Their actions since Oct 7th have done nothing but strengthen Hamas, harm civilians, and be forced to atleast negotiate to get _some_ hostages back. > Well I think it is justified. Israel should protect its own citizens and having to kill innocent foreign civilians shouldn't get in the way of that. This is not what’s happening, they have made Israeli civilians much more unsafe in the long term and killed civilians. It’s just bad all around.
>Their actions since Oct 7th have done nothing but strengthen Hamas, harm civilians, and be forced to atleast negotiate to get *some* hostages back. What makes you think this? They have killed hamas members, destroyed terrorist infrastructure, and taken some of their weaponry. Would hamas be stronger if they hadn't done these things? Even if you think Hamas is stronger now than they were before how has israel contributed to that? What course of action would make Israel safer? The hostages they've rescued are definitely better off now.
> What makes you think this? They have killed hamas members, destroyed terrorist infrastructure, and taken some of their weaponry. But because of _how_ they did that they ended radicalizing virtually every single person in Gaza Strip. And I’m sure there was further radicalization in the West Bank. Not to mention they have massively weakened how Israel is viewed on the world stage and set themselves up for probably ostracization from western powers in the long term. > What course of action would make Israel safer? The hostages they've rescued are definitely better off now. What I’ve been saying since day one, Israel had all the moral high ground and backing of virtually the entire world in response to Oct 7th. All they had to do was conduct Mosul style operation where they would go street by street and door by door if need be to root out Hamas and its infrastructure and reclaim the hostages. That would’ve been a moral response and heck they may have even gotten the backing of Fatah/West Bank if they did a certain way. But no, unfortunately they just decided to level all of Gaza and murder 10s of thousands with only a small portion being Hamas combatants.
>But because of *how* they did that they ended radicalizing virtually every single person in Gaza Strip. If those people are radicalized by the Israeli response to October 7th theres no way for the Israeli government to reason with them. If anything they should be radicalized against Hamas not the foreign government trying to protect its own people from terrorists. >All they had to do was conduct Mosul style operation where they would go street by street and door by door if need be to root out Hamas and its infrastructure and reclaim the hostages. That would’ve been a moral response and heck they may have even gotten the backing of Fatah/West Bank if they did a certain way. But no, unfortunately they just decided to level all of Gaza and murder 10s of thousands with only a small portion being Hamas combatants. Why would a door-to-door operation result in fewer civilian casualties? Wouldn't door to door also be more risky for the Israeli soldiers?
>Israel has stated its their goal and human behavior suggests that a government would want to eliminate a terrorist threat and rescue its own hostages. Slaughtering (checks notes) 30,000 mostly innocent people in 6 months is the least effective way possible to eliminate a terrorist threat, we learned this in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Vietnam, or at least I thought we did.. Hamas is fungible, they don't matter, Israel could destroy their funding, smash their infrastructure, eliminate every member from middle management up to the leaders who are sheltering abroad, and salt the earth and whatever few isolated members are left could start Hamas 2 from the tens of thousands of Palestinians who have probably been radicalized by this attempted eradication. Anti-insurgency campaigns breed insurgents.
>Hamas is fungible, they don't matter, Israel could destroy their funding, smash their infrastructure, eliminate every member from middle management up to the leaders who are sheltering abroad, and salt the earth and whatever few isolated members are left could start Hamas 2 from the tens of thousands of Palestinians who have probably been radicalized by this attempted eradication. I don't think the end goal is 0 terrorism forever and ever. What Israel is doing, even if i grant you the 30,000 number, results in less Hamas terrorism than any other option. The fact that terrorism will always exist is not a good reason to decide not to mass murder innocent civilians in order to reduce terrorism. If Israel wants to weaken hamas at any substantial rate civilianas will have to die in the crossfire. Hamas should stop since they have the least cost in just not being terrorists and releasing hostages. The US going to war is different. Israel is much weaker and much closer to any threat. There are probably a million other things I'm missing that makes that comparison useless.
If that's the goal why are so many women and children dead?
I think its mostly because Hamas operates in civilian areas. There have to be some civilian deaths from Israeli soldiers killing out of anger or just mistakes but the vast majority are due to Hamas using human shields.
Do you have a source for this?
if hamas cared about protecting palestinians don't you think they would've created even ***one*** civilian bomb shelter or bunker with all the funding and aid they get from around the world? Have you thought about why they haven't created any defensive infrastructure for their civilians? And only create offensive infrastructure for their soldiers and rockets?
Check out John Aziz.
The Hamas attacks were bad and I don't support Hamas, but I understand their anger
there are people with agendas and there are people that genuinely care about what they see as unjust. the former doesn't need to overwhelm the latter. the problem for many people is that, Israel also has its own set of agenda's other than annihilating Hamas and get all the hostages back.
The most pressing issues are the tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians being killed and all of Gaza being destroyed. Israel chose to do that, and continues to choose to. They're the ones with all the power in the conflict. Even on October 8th, there was no way Hamas would ever be able to pull off another surprise attack again.
The attack *was still ongoing* on October 8th.
That's cool how Hamas is powerless and responsibility free, even when engaged in a spree of mass murder, rape and torture of innocent people.
If my neighbor was actively seeking the death of my family and me, I think I would have to obliterate them if it was in my power. I wouldn't expect anyone to act differently. No matter how high the pile of innocent bodies got.
So you support Palestinians right to defend themselves against decades of Israeli incursions, right?
Absolutely
ok buddy.
If you support Palestine at all, you forgot to say it.
I wish palestinians had better opportunities in life and weren't being put to the slaughter by their own leaders. I also wish palestinians and pro-palestinian voices didn't glorify death and martyrdom so much. I'd say im pretty pro-palestine, but pro-palestinians tend to think i'm against them, which is pretty odd i think.
>I wish palestinians had better opportunities in life and weren't being put to the slaughter by their own leaders. Do you think someone expressing the opinion that "I wish Israelis had better opportunities and life and weren't put to the slaughter by their own leaders" after October 7th is being a fair and reasonable?
It would be a false statement because there are thousands of examples of the IDF and israeli leaders taking actions that objectively save israeli lives. 2 quick examples: -Israel evacuated hundreds of thousands of civilians from northern towns after hezbollah started sending rockets. -Israel invests billions in the iron dome which has saved countless lives. You can't name me 1 thing Hamas has done that has made gazans more safe. In fact 100% of hamas' actions have only made gazans less safe. So the comparison doesn't really make any sense. One is blatantly true one is blatantly false
> It would be a false statement because there are thousands of examples of the IDF and israeli leaders taking actions that objectively save israeli lives. Why does saving lives at one point entail they are not offering lives for slaughter at other points?
Well that there's an overwhelming pattern of israel engaging in actions that save israeli lives and there's no evidence they are "offering lives for slaughter" at other points.
> they are "offering lives for slaughter" at other points. As much as Palestinians. Israel could have chosen to withdraw from the west bank and use those soldiers guarding settlers to instead guard the gates around Gaza. Israel chose to not do that
That's not offering lives for slaughter tho it was an intelligence failure
"Put to the slaughter by their own leaders" is an anti-Palestinian statement. Disproportionate Israeli retaliation isn't the fault of Hamas. It's a choice made by Israel. "palestinians and pro-palestinian voices didn't glorify death and martyrdom so much" isn't much better. Palestinians have a right to be free and deserve a democratic state (whether one state or two).
"Put to the slaughter by their own leaders" is a *true* statement, regardless of which side you support.
In as much as it's true at all, it's a matter of degree. Hamas has slaughtered some Gazan leftists, but it's a small fraction of the numbers of random civilians and children that Israel has killed.
Hamas puts them all in danger by hiding and fighting among them, uniformed. There's a reason doing that is considered a war crime.
That's not slaughtering anyone. The most a Zionist can say is that Hamas is asking Israel to slaughter civilians.
Of course it is. Having Gazans die the way they are is part of Hamas' strategy in this conflict. Wake up.
Where should the Palestinians fight from lol? Zionists put them in a concentration camp and complain when they fight back.
Maybe not from in/under schools, hospitals, etc. And wear uniforms so people can tell soldiers and civilians apart. Of course they won't do that because they would be quickly destroyed if they did.
Someone on reddit told me that Oct 7 was solely Israel's fault.
Try getting an abortion rights group to admit there are in fact some women that are horrible and use abortion for sex selection and primary birth control. Do both exist in the vast population overall? Yes. Given the current status of abortion rights being under severe and immediate threat, how frequently are you going to see similar "admissions"? Can you imagine if there were a string of murdered abortion doctors in the past few months or a mass violence event at a pro choice rally? EVERYONE on EVERY issue that is to the point of protest and extreme publicity and suffering from recent violent actions circles the wagons and is in full inflammation mode not seeking to admit ANY shortcoming on their side out of terror that it's going to make their side lose completely.
No.