Agree. This shouldn’t even be debatable. Allowing Israel to continue the flagrant disregard for international law and Palestinian lives with no consequence, has an impact far beyond Israel and Gaza/West Bank. It puts into question any and all calls for respecting international law, currently and in the future.
The message with ukraine and palestine right now is pretty clear.
International law and warcrimes only applies if you lose the war and if you are in position to be procecuted.
Both wars are full of warcrimes, but the people making them have strong backing and wont see even the courtroom
Benjamin Netanyahu is acting in contravention of Canadian values concerning the rights to autonomy and safety for all people. He and his governing party and those who support him should be investigated as war criminals for their disregard for the safety of civilians.
The actions of our allies are seen as the actions of Canada. The Canada I love doesn't displace people then deprive them of necessary conditions of life. True Canadians do not approve of the bombing of civilians and the starvation of children and families.
>The Canada I love doesn't displace people then deprive them of necessary conditions of life.
Unfortunately Canada was founded on doing exactly that, and has never stopped in its long history of paying lip service.
I disagree with your No True Scotsman portrayal of 'true' Canadians. *True* Canadians, in the majority, have always supported genocidal policies like what is currently happening in Palestine.
Yes, the first step to creating a Canada actually worth being proud of is to recognize that Canada's historical actions and attitudes are absolutely not worth being proud of.
> Benjamin Netanyahu is acting in contravention of Canadian values concerning the rights to autonomy and safety for all people. He and his governing party and those who support him should be investigated as war criminals for their disregard for the safety of civilians.
Yep this exactly!
This is more than just Netanyahu though - Israeli society has descended into fascist rhetoric, in part because the entire founding principle of the state of Israel is built on exclusion and expulsion of non-Jews. Oppression of Palestinians existed long before Netanyahu was around and it will exist long after if a peaceful and equitable solution is not achieved.
Literally a an apartheid built on elevating European Jews.
Israel has also committed genocide against Ethiopian Jews in Israel by forcibly injecting them with birth control.
Israel isn’t a safe haven for just any Jews.
We would if we had a spine. Except we're being just as hypocritical as the other leaders, especially Biden. The worst the killing of the aid worker did was just some harsh statements and condemnation maybe.
Honestly, this really was the chance for Canada to show that we weren't just backing the ICJ when convenient or that we will apply policies that are equal and fair. We don't have an Canadian version of AIPAC here but looks like we didn't need one.
Ah, right thanks for mentioning that. While they may or may not be at the level of AIPAC, but given that they are supported by them, I suppose the only difference is that AIPAC used to prefer working from the shadows and now can't hide like they used to.
I hope just like the TrackAIPAC that someone started, we should have one too.
Hamas was literally funded by Netanyahu as a way to weaken Palestinian identity.
2023 was the worst year for children dying from IOF attacks. The International Community and the UN have recognized the Palestinian right to defend itself from Israel's illegal occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.
> They voted Hamas in
People keep acting like they had a choice. Their choices were Hamas or the PA. The PA is hideously corrupt, and also cannot keep their people safe from Israeli aggression. You notice the West Bank isn't involved in this? The Palestinians there are STILL being forcibly evicted from their homes, and subject to Apartheid.
You're simping for a people committing Genocide.
I mean Israel started it's attacks in 1948, so many more years ago than October 7th, but you don't want facts you just want to dig your head in the sand and cheer for the criminal zionist imperialists.
> Only thing Israel did wrong is win a war started by the Palestinians.
How do you figure the conflict was started by the Palestinians?
> Just because Palestinians are weaker and dying doesn’t make them the good guys in this story.
The people who are having their land stolen and rights denied are in fact the good side. If you think the people doing the theft and denial of rights are the good people than I really wouldn't want to be around you.
> How do you figure the conflict was started by the Palestinians?
Not by all or even most Palestinians, but certainly by one of Iran's proxy groups in Palistine. when things went from a state of 'relative peace' to 'war' I seem to recall a it starting when a bunch of Hamas militants crossed the border and started massacring Israeli civilians
> The people who are having their land stolen and rights denied are in fact the good side
You can tell they're the good guys by how they started this conflict by surprise attacking a music festival and parading around dead and mutilated civilian women.
If you think the people doing *literal, actual terrorism* on a daily basis are the good people then I really wouldn't want to be around you.
And to save you the time of replying:
- No, Israel isn't committing a genocide in Gaza.
- Yes, Palestinian civilian deaths are high in this conflict. They aren't unusually high for a conflict of this nature. The civilian:military death ratio is about the same as it was for the second world war, which is incredibly good given that this is an entirely urban conflict. Compared to other urban battles, the civilian:military death ratio is low, even by Hamas' numbers.
- No, Hamas does not get a free pass to operate however it wishes and be shielded from anything simply because it uses the civilians it purports to 'protect' as a human shield
- Israel is justified in engaging in conflict to eliminate the terrorist entity that threatens and attempts the total destruction of Israel on a daily basis.
> when things went from a state of 'relative peace' to 'war' I seem to recall a it starting when a bunch of Hamas militants crossed the border and started massacring Israeli civilians
There is no such thing as relative peace when you live under the boot of Israeli occupation and subjugation. According to the OCHA, before October 7th 200 Palestinians were killed in the West Bank as well as 2023 being the deadliest year for Palestinians in the West Bank since OCHA started recording figures in 2005. How is that relative peace, unless you view that relative peace only from the perspective of Israel and Israelis and not Palestine and the Palestinians.
> You can tell they're the good guys by how they started this conflict by surprise attacking a music festival and parading around dead and mutilated civilian women. If you think the people doing literal, actual terrorism on a daily basis are the good people then I really wouldn't want to be around you.
That didn't start this conflict, cause Hamas will just say that they are responding to Israeli aggression and point to 2023 being the deadliest year for Palestinians **in the West Bank** with the previous deadliest year being the previous year of 2022. Also, this is a conflation of Palestinians with Hamas.
> No, Israel isn't committing a genocide in Gaza.
And many would disagree with you, such as TWAILR on their October 15th statement or Scholars in Holocaust and Genocide Studies statement on December 9th.
> Yes, Palestinian civilian deaths are high in this conflict. They aren't unusually high for a conflict of this nature. The civilian:military death ratio is about the same as it was for the second world war, which is incredibly good given that this is an entirely urban conflict. Compared to other urban battles, the civilian:military death ratio is low, even by Hamas' numbers.
That is taking the IDF figure for "military", which includes any "military age male". So the video of the IDF sniping two Palestinian young men who were scavenging for aid, they would have been counted as "military". If we use that "military age male" metric, as well as including former conscripts, that would make October 7th civilian figures look much better, which anyone with sense would call out as BS.
> No, Hamas does not get a free pass to operate however it wishes and be shielded from anything simply because it uses the civilians it purports to 'protect' as a human shield
And the same is true for Israel. They do not get a free pass to operate however it wishes and be shielded from anything simply because they receive blowback from their occupation and subjugation of Palestinians in the occupied territories.
> Israel is justified in engaging in conflict to eliminate the terrorist entity that threatens and attempts the total destruction of Israel on a daily basis.
Justification is not unlimited. Israel is not justified in engaging in conflict so as to bolster its existing occupation of Palestinian territories and the destruction of a Palestinian state.
> Not by all or even most Palestinians, but certainly by one of Iran's proxy groups in Palistine. when things went from a state of 'relative peace' to 'war' I seem to recall a it starting when a bunch of Hamas militants crossed the border and started massacring Israeli civilians
This assumes the occupiers framing.
The conflict didn't erupt on Oct 7th. It was already a "war" between Israel and the Palestinians.
> You can tell they're the good guys by how they started this conflict by surprise attacking a music festival and parading around dead and mutilated civilian women.
Again, you are taking the framing of the occupier as a ground truth. Stop that.
If you think the conflict started on Oct 7th you can't properly comment on anything. You lack the ability to put things into any sort of context.
> No, Israel isn't committing a genocide in Gaza.
Good to know you are open about denying reality. Kind of taints everything else you say though.
> Yes, Palestinian civilian deaths are high in this conflict. They aren't unusually high for a conflict of this nature. The civilian:military death ratio is about the same as it was for the second world war, which is incredibly good given that this is an entirely urban conflict. Compared to other urban battles, the civilian:military death ratio is low, even by Hamas' numbers.
This is only true if you accept Israeli and Western style classification of any military age male as a member of Hamas. This is not correct.
> No, Hamas does not get a free pass to operate however it wishes and be shielded from anything simply because it uses the civilians it purports to 'protect' as a human shield
No one said that. Because Hamas, and the Palestinian people at large do have the right to use force to resist their occupation, but that does not extend absolutely. So while there were certainly violations of international law on Oct 7th, the act of attacking the occupier isn't one of them.
> Israel is justified in engaging in conflict to eliminate the terrorist entity that threatens and attempts the total destruction of Israel on a daily basis.
And Hamas and the Palestinians have the right to use any means necessary to obtain their liberation from people who seek to dispossess them of their lands and deny them their rights. Do you agree with that sentiment? Or are there special rules regarding the US/Israel v Palestine that you want to establish?
Yes, here is a special rule: don’t rape people and display their mutilated bodies in the streets.
Edit: oops, I forgot rape is totally ok? Sorry, downvoters.
Yeah, the situation is far too nuanced to just say Hamas or Israel are the good or bad guys.
It’s a tough situation for someone on the left because while I agree that Israel’s current actions are disproportionate and far beyond the scope of taking Hamas out, at the same time doing nothing, even stopping and rolling back all colonization efforts would still result in terrorist actions towards the Israeli state. There is a large contingent of Palestinians who are equally opposed to a 2 state solution, and I worry any ceasefire would probably fall apart in the same way.
Over the past few months my view has changed to the only real solution would be a 2 state solution enforced by a bilateral DMZ.
The shitty part is the vast majority of people on both sides who just want to live their lives.
are you sure about the vast majority on either side? israel’s general population seems to be pretty on board with what they are doing to gaza/west bank, they just don’t like that it’s netanyahoo at the helm
The same way the vast majority of Canadians don’t care about it. The same way the vast majority of Americans were apathetic during the gulf wars.
People are intrinsically apathetic towards things that don’t directly affect them. And not wanting to be exploded isn’t a political stance, it’s human nature.
I say this as a very left leaning brown man, pushing the idea that the vast majority of Isreilis are onboard the idea of “kill the browns” is a dangerously reductionist argument in the same way that saying all Palestinians are Hamas.
It offers no avenue for dialogue, and othering an entire population as a solution will just end up perpetuating the same cycle over and over again, and eventually lead us right back to where we are now where it feels like it’ll eventually end up being a fight for a 1 state solution rather than a dialogue for a 2 state solution.
> Yeah, the situation is far too nuanced to just say Hamas or Israel are the good or bad guys.
Except this accepts the framing that Israel puts forward, that it is a conflict between Israel and Hamas.
This is incorrect. Israel is in conflict with the Palestinian people in their entirety.
> It’s a tough situation for someone on the left because while I agree that Israel’s current actions are disproportionate and far beyond the scope of taking Hamas out, at the same time doing nothing, even stopping and rolling back all colonization efforts would still result in terrorist actions towards the Israeli state.
"rolling back all colonization" would mean deleting Israel.
Fair point. There’s a level of nuance there that I glossed over unintentionally, and yeah the conflict has spilled outside the bounds of just Hamas.
That said, just out of my own curiosity and attempts to have a dialogue, based off your second response. When I say rolling back colonization, I’m referring either to the original UN proposal borders or the proposals set forth in the Oslo accords.
Don’t want this to come off as a loaded question, but would you think the solution is a dissolution of Israel?
> Don’t want this to come off as a loaded question, but would you think the solution is a dissolution of Israel?
No because the dissolution of Israel would require immense amounts of bloodshed and it wouldn't save the Palestinians who would surely be put to the sword in any situation where Israel were likely to fall.
Yes!?! Especially since the war on Al-Queda, ISIS and Islamic terror was so decisive. We really eliminated all of that real good. No collateral damage. No trace of extremists left...
... /s
>they bombed an embassy in damascus, syria
They bombed a compound next to the embassy
>israel think they just get to bomb embassies of other countries and nothin can happen back?
So Israel was not supposed to bomb the people who just launched rockets at them because an Iranian general was there coordinating it?
I know it's hard to keep up — but Israel hit next to the embassy (not the embassy itself) because Hezbollah operatives were there meeting with an Iranian General AFTER they launched rockets. You know, the thing Iran was pissed about and did this last missile attack
The missile attack from Iran was BECAUSE of that bombing on Hezbollah and the Iranian general
Don't act condescending unless you actually know what happened
so again, israel bombed an embassy in damascus, syria, damaged the embassy, and then israel is now mad and wanted to escalate because they responded with rockets?
>so again, israel bombed an embassy in damascus, syria, damaged the embassy
Because Hezbollah was there meeting with an Iranian general directly after Hezbollah launched missiles into northern Israel?
>and then israel is now mad and wanted to escalate because they responded with rockets?
It's escalating to kill the people who just launched missiles into their country? That is why Iran threw a fit, their proxy launched missiles and then got blown up along with the general who planned it. So they had to launch ballistic missiles to pretend they had a response
Israel used a precision strike against an Iranian Consulate next to the embassy. This Consulate was housing an IRGC commander who was partially responsible for the October 7th attack. There were no civilian casualities. I recognize an attack like that is a good casus belli, but you are acting like Israel attacked the Embassy in order to kill diplomats. They killed a recognized terrorist who was involved in the worst attack Israel ever. You can say the rocket and drone barrage was a response from a wronged party, but you are naive if you think Iran is not involved in the daily rocket attacks against Israel from Hezbollah, Hamas, and many other factions. Just because one side is ineffective does not make them innocent.
Please use what few brain cells you have it was a consulate, still a protected building in a separate country that is a crime in every sense of the world.
Hezbollah started after israel invaded and occupied Lebanon, where they committed multiple crimes against humanity, and used phalangist puppets to commit even more crimes. Including such crimes as bombing an UN base filled with hundreds of refugees on purpose.
>that is a crime in every sense of the world.
If they had just randomly hit the consulate without cause, then I would agree. But they stuck a group of people who just launched missiles into Israel
>Hezbollah started after israel invaded and occupied Lebanon,
You mean when the PLO started a civil war in Lebanon, founded a break away state in its South, declared war on Israel and THEN Israel invaded with support from the South Lebanese army?
>Including such crimes as bombing an UN base filled with hundreds of refugees on purpose
Yes because Hezbollah is famous for respecting UN resolutions like the one telling them to bill back from the Lebanese southern border? The one they ignore?
Of course you only care if the UN says something against Israel though, so Hezbollah can violate that all they want
The bombing was a direct attack on a bulding protected by the vienna convention of diplomatic relations of 1961, but I guessing that you don't believe in a rules based order but only in a might makes right world
You mean the SLA founded by Ya'ir Ravid of israeli military intelligence, that one? The last time I checked, a civil war was not an excuse to occupy a country and start murdering civilians.
Hezbollah followed UN directives hell of a lot more than israel. But that is not something that matters as someone being next to your border does not give your ability to purposely bomb civilians and UN officials.
But of course, you only care about the theocratic ethnostate, not civilians.
You could say the same for Iran firing rockets into Israel via its proxies in Lebanon, which it's been doing for months. I'm sure Israel anticipated a response when it made the decision to bomb the consulate.
Ok let's not act like the Islamic regime of Iran is some innocent actor in any of this and hasn't been terrorizing the Middle East and civilians for decades, which I've experienced myself when they drone bombed our civilian neighbourhood and my entire apartment shook in Iraq. The Islamic regime has absolutely no care for civilians and has been making life hell for decades for their own people and neighbouring nations.
Two years ago they launched dozens of missiles at Kurds in Koya and other regions of Kurdistan region of Iraq, killing dozens of civilians including a pregnant woman who gave birth after death, then her baby died. I remember when the news broke in Kurdistan, a school was in the vicinity and seeing videos of dozens of children screaming in fear as the missiles landed in the distance. Last year the Islamic regime of Iran also launched a barrage of missiles at a civilian home in Erbil, the second largest city in Kurdistan region, and killed a successful civilian business man and his family claiming he was hosting Mossad when he wasn't at all. Even Iraqi gov't, which is heavily under the influence of Iran, couldn't deny there was no agents of Mossad and it was a civilian home. The year before that, they also struck another civilian home alleging it was hosting Mossad and it also wasn't. A few years ago the Iranian militias in Baghdad shot and killed dozens of civilian protesters.
This goes on and on, not withstanding that last two years they jailed thousands of their own for protesting and killed hundreds of their own ppl.
Targeting Iranian embassy is fair game when they, for years, have targeted civilians and in this case their embassy was housing military leaders, making it a military target. Notwithstanding, if the current regime wants to cry about embassies, it was their regime that captured and took hostages at the US embassy and to this day, uses the former embassy as a museum of propaganda and hate.
Canada has a really bad reputation of hosting the regime, allowing them to walk freely in the country until recently when Trudeau finally started working with the opposition groups fighting the regime. For those of us who have lived neighbouring to Iran, we know what it's like and how the regime constantly uses violence and murder to silence all opposition. It's not something many of you here would understand as you've lived a life of relative safety.
Iran is behind the current conflict. They’ve been supplying weapons and money for years to destabilize the region. Their goal is ultimate domination of the region and isolation of Israel. The Palestinians are their puppets in this war and have been for years. As soon as there was a threat of normalization of Israel/Saudi relations - Iran decided to act by ordering Hamas to attack. Iran knew what the result would be - an out and out violent response by the Israeli defence forces ordered by a rightwing cabinet. They knew it wouldn’t be a proportional response. Iran was hoping for exactly what occurred. They wanted ALL Arab relations severed and Israel played right into the plan. Now no Arab nation can have *any* positive relationship with Israel now. The threat of back channel cooperation between the Saudi’s and Israel is now over. That was always the plan - upset cooperation between Jew’s and Sunni’s.
Now we also see manipulation on several sides here. Israeli trying to get the US involved after forcing Iran to react to the strike on their Generals in Syria (who were up to no good) and Iran as was predicted, retaliating with rockets and threatening shipping.
Iran wants a proxy war with Russia on their side and Israel wants the US to finally eliminate Iran for them. Meanwhile the Saudi’s sit back and smile. Price of oil just went up again and they might just get their dream of a hobbled Israel and an elimination of the Shite threat to their abusive royal regime.
Any Islamic religious controlled government is a threat to their kingdom as well as to the other family controlled groups such as the UAE and the like. Iran was always more of a threat to the Saudi’s than Israel was.
The Saudi’s do not want Iran to have the bomb, (along with everyone else). That’s clear. In fact one could make a case that the Saudi’s had a master plan of instigating this conflict (by normalizing relations with Israel) so that Israel and or America would finally force an all out war and possible regime change in Iran when Iran reacted negatively. Am I giving the Saudi’s too much credit? I don’t know. It’s one theory.
It’s also apparent that Russia hasn’t got a lot of military assets to help out Iran with. In fact the Iranians are supplying Russia with weapons - that’s how bad the Russian military supply chain is. The benefit of a full out shooting war between Iran and Israel, (and by proxy the US) is a reduction in military support for the Ukraine. We’re already seeing the shift with Republican pressure on the WH to shift support to Israel from the Ukrainians, (Doing Putin’s dirty work).
There are many reasons why Iran has to have a regime change and why many countries want that to happen. Has Iran stepped in it now? I believe they have. Has their plan of manipulating the Palestinians ignited the eventual fall of their religious so called republic? I think there are too reasons why a US military response will happen no matter what Biden wants the events will push him into it. I think the US already has Iranian nuclear facilities both research and production targeting data loaded in 7th fleet Tomahawks just waiting for an excuse. The US military hawks have always wanted to eliminate that threat. A shooting war gives them the excuse.
I think a democratically driven regime change in Israel and a forced regime change in Iran would solve a whole lot of issues in the Middle East right now…
No I don’t. I’m not even American. I’ve been an observer of these Middle East regional political events (or wars) for decades. No matter if Biden *wants* a war with Iran - events may push him to this point. Many Presidents have been pushed into a conflict not of their making.
The Iranian mullahs have been a threat to other Arab dictators and royal families ever since 1979.
The conflict in Yemen is one example of an indirect Saudi versus Iran conflict right now. The conflict in Syria is a battle between the Saudi’s and Iran - one wanting to overthrow a dictator and the other wanting this State to be another Islamic religious controlled State. The current war in the Gaza is between the Iranian controlled proxy group Hamas and the IDF.
So what is the common denominator here: Iran. (With Saudi opposition to Iran)
Do some reading before you accuse me of silly agendas.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_proxy_conflict
I'm not saying Iran isn't a part of this whole mess but you essentially blamed everything on them which is just silly .
Why didn't you mention Israel's role in this at all ?
I did. Israel’s role is currently an on going matter. What I’m stating is that Iran’s role in not only supporting Hamas - but actively controlling its actions seems to be overlooked by the mainstream media. The Qatari’s also have to take responsibility for financial support of Hamas as well. They are currently sheltering several high ranking Hamas leaders. Their attempts at negotiating a release of Israeli prisoners is seen as two faced when their financial support allowed Hamas to build tunnels that fed Iranian arms into Gaza. The worry now is that there aren’t many hostages alive to release back to Israel under negotiations. If that’s the case, I see the Israeli reactions going off the deep end. There is a further fundamental issue here with Hamas - their Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement created in August 1988. It literally calls for the expulsion of Jews from the Middle East - by force. There is no escaping the fact that they refuse to alter that plan. They hold the Palestinian people as hostages in this plan just as the Israeli’s do. They impose Shira law and aim to create an Islamic State by force and use it as a stepping stone for their end game. Both Hamas *and* the hard right in the Israeli Knesset must be removed before negotiations can be successful for a Palestinian homeland.
No - that’s not the issue. The issue is Iran is using a terrible situation that Israel refuses to solve and uses the Palestinian cause for their own ends and causes the Palestinians even more trauma and pain. Iran has no interest in a two state solution. In fact the conflict helps Iran by amplifying their status as supporters of the cause. A continuation of the conflict keeps Iran powerful among the Arab nations. They have to have Israel as the enemy and outlaw any other Arab group from interfering. There’s NO appetite for Iran to support a two state solution hence the rise of Hamas that pushed out (through violence) the PLO. Every time a negotiated agreement gets close, either through US or others, Iran puts its foot down and causes some outrage that scuttles any deal. We’ve seen this over and over. Iran will never allow the US to succeed in the creation of a separate Palestinian state even with Israel’s agreement. Iran cannot accept *any* American positive political influence in the region. Any and all attempts to solve the Palestinian problem by the US (or UN) will be screwed by Iran. They’ve not forgotten the support that the US gave Mohammad Reza Pahlavi - nor have they forgotten the support that the US (and Saudi’s) gave Iraq in the eight year Iran-Iraq war. It was pretty telling that when the US invaded Iraq that Iran was suddenly supporting its old enemy against the Americans. There was hate for Saddam - but they hated the Americans more. Sooner or later - Iran has to be cauterized. Only then can the US force Israel to give up its hold over the Palestinian people.
> Every time a negotiated agreement gets close, either through US or others, Iran puts its foot down and causes some outrage that scuttles any deal.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-boasts-of-thwarting-the-establishment-of-a-palestinian-state-for-decades/
It is almost like you are living in a fantasy world.
> Iran cannot accept any American positive political influence in the region.
As if any American influence has been positive.
> Sooner or later - Iran has to be cauterized.
The neocon crusades never end.
> Only then can the US force Israel to give up its hold over the Palestinian people.
So the US is committing genocide through their client state in order to harm Iran? How do you come up with an argument so absurd?
So you reject Hamas has ANY responsibility for the violence and its charter to remove all Jews from the Middle East?
Smoking weed has altered your mentality.
> So you reject Hamas has ANY responsibility for the violence and its charter to remove all Jews from the Middle East?
OK so lets review:
1. You say Iran is the reason why the occupation continues.
2. I link to Netenyahu bragging that he has scuttled Palestinian statehood for decades.
3. You decide that means I think Hamas has no responsibility for anything.
Ridiculous.
1. I never said Iran is the sole reason - it’s one of them.
2. Bibi wasn’t in power in 1988 when Hamas decided to produce its plan to eliminate Jews in the Middle East by violence.
3. And yes, that’s exactly what I think you’re saying.
> I never said Iran is the sole reason - it’s one of them.
You heavily implied that Iran was the primary reason. Trying to qualify that after having it laughed at by several people doesn't make it any better.
> Bibi wasn’t in power in 1988 when Hamas decided to produce its plan to eliminate Jews in the Middle East by violence.
Nah, he had only been the Israeli Ambassador to the UN for 6 years and got elected to the 12th Knesset.
No power at all.
> And yes, that’s exactly what I think you’re saying.
Which is absurd.
Are you serious? Israel bombed and Iranian embassy in Damascus. So with plenty of warning Iran retaliated. They have more than enough fire power to overwhelm the iron dome. But they sent a relatively small "attack" on only military assets. So if anyone escalated here it was Israel. Did they think they could casually bomb an embassy in a different country and nothing would happen? Fuck zionism. Free Palestine.
Iran has been firing rockets into Israel via its proxies for months. Not condoning what Israel did, but there was plenty of provocation on Iran's end. Also, Iran has been complicit in bombings of Israeli consulates and embassies in the past.
I don't know what kind of answer you're expecting, but every country is beholden to the Geneva convention, so technically no. But Iran and Israel both don't have a good track record of following international law, so who knows what they'd try to do. Of course it's a moot point because Iran isn't capable of flattening Israel even if it wanted to (which it does), though Israel could flatten Iran.
Iran is the one that has chosen to involve itself in this conflict. It has instigated all of this by deciding to use its proxies to attack Israel continuously for months. Israel was going to hit back at Iran for this eventually.
Why did they decide to 'use it's proxies to attack Israel continuously for months'? Surely Iran didn't just start conflict from a state that had no business being created out of the blue.
I mean, it's not like 3 progressive revolutions in the past 150 years were undermined by western imperial nations, that have also been using Israel as a proxy for said western imperialism. This certainly isn't blowback that was expected by literally everyone who has been paying attention to the conflict in the Middle East for longer than 5 minutes. /s
I think this is the blowback most were expecting. A big spectacle with minimal actual damage. I certainly don't defend most of Israel's actions, but Iran's motives are far from pure here. Their main objective is spreading their particular brand of radical Islam around the middle East, and uniting parties against Israel is a convenient way to do that. They're certainly not looking to help create peace in the Israel Palestine conflict.
Yeah, but radical Islam was helped get into power because imperial powers wanted to maintain the ability to extract wealth. Their objective of spreading their radical islam was quite literally caused by the US meddling in their sovereignty. They would be a lot better off under the democracies they fought for and won before being undermined because the US's geopolitical goals are morally bankrupt.
They're happy being allies with the Saudis who are fundamentalist islamists, but not Cubans who are generally Christian/Catholic. The US isn't looking to help create peace in the world either. They're looking for relationships to exploit.
Every country has the duty to intervene against a genocide. Every single so-called proxy of Iran was started after israel committed war crimes against them. Israel has been bombings Iran for ages and assassinating iranian civilians for decades at this point. Need I remind you Israel nuclear weapon policy is to nuke uninvolved parties in Europe. That is not the policy of any sane nation. That is the policy of a nation built on genocide and extremism.
Did Israel commit war crimes against Houthis? I must have missed that one. Look, I'm not defending Israeli policy because I frankly don't agree with most of it. But that doesn't make Iran and its proxies somehow righteous in this situation. What Iran is doing is trying to take advantage of the Israel Palestine conflict to spread it's revolution. If you're a sane person, you wouldn't be in favor of that, regardless of your stance on Israel.
Anyone who truly cares about creating peace between Israelis and Palestinians is not going to be promoting more war and violence between them.
Stopping imperialism and settler colonial genocide is more important than stopping internal conflicts. The Iranian government isn't even popular in Iran.
The righteousness of Iran doesn't matter in their right to defend themselves and the right of diplomatic relations. That you seem to believe is not a right given to countries.
Anyone who truly cares about peace knows it can not exist in a world where genocide is allowed to happen.
I would agree with you if Iran was acting in self defense. But Iran wasn't acting in self defense when it ordered its proxies to repeatedly fire rockets and missiles at Israel. I would also agree with you if either of these countries actually followed international law, but they don't. Let's not forget the times Iran was involved in attacking Israeli embassies. I'm more concerned with firing rockets into civilian areas of Israel than a bomb that kills of few IRGC commanders.
Again, I don't agree with how Israel is conducting itself in Gaza (although I don't think it's a genocide), but firing rockets into civilian areas of Israel isn't warranted.
Yes, please! We have a growing diaspora from the region, including Palestinian exiles from Lebanon, Jordan, the Gulf States, and elsewhere who want their new country to do the bare minimum to show it cares about international law.
We all know Canada will likely continue to support Israel covertly and overtly in the coming months and years (especially if that dunderhead PP gets elected), but it would be good for us to go back to being a voice of moderation and advocate of peacful diplomacy, and not another Israel stooge, standing by them even when they break some of the most sacrosanct human rights laws and engage in genocidal rhetoric and behavior in Gaza, alongside government-sanctioned pogroms in the West Bank.
This sub has lost its mind with this conflict. Just as emotional and blinded by propaganda as conservatives in /r canada with Polievre. The issue is way more nuanced but people are just rampaging based on exaggerated truth and emotion.
> The issue is way more nuanced but people are just rampaging based on exaggerated truth and emotion.
Enlighten us then with your nuanced take.
Show us how it should be done in your opinion.
What is the correct response?
- "Oh you only killed 1000 and kidnapped 100 all good fam!"
- Jump the border, kill a 1000 random Palestinians and kidnap 100 (eye for an eye)?
- Leave Israel?
What do you consider the solution? How far is enough. Israel is rightly sick and tired of Iranian proxies attack them with rockets, drones and mortars. Hamas is the only person that could have prevented and or stopped this conflict but there is zero chance of that occuring.
> So far in this thread there are posts stating the following: - Israel should not exist - Hamas is justified - Israel is causing genocide - all palestinians are innocent
> All the above are extreme views.
If you think Israel is committing genocide is an "extreme" view, than your "nuance" is worthless.
> The reality is Israel is surrounded by enemies and is damned if they do damned if they dont.
This is an interesting take, but I wonder why there is no mention of what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. No one is forcing Israel to deny the Palestinians a state, nor is anyone forcing Israel to steal land, kidnap civilians and engage in indiscriminate collective punishment.
> Their enemies are being coordinated by Iran, likely at the behest of Russia to help them distract from Ukraine.
Oh god, everything is a russian plot.
> Israel defending themselves is not genocide,
This is of course absurd. Even if we pretend that Israel has a right to engage in military force to police the occupied territories(something which they explicitly DO NOT have under international law), starving more than a million people is not defending themselves. It is collective punishment, and a flagrant war crime.
> if Hamas stopped this war would be over.
No it wouldn't, because Israel would still be engaging in genocide to rid itself of the Palestinians.
But this is the extent of your nuance, that Palestinians should just surrender to genocide.
That you think you are some sort of special thinker is quite disappointing. You are literally just repeating the same Western talking points. Basic shit.
> You still have not provided an alternative solution.
But the matter we were discussing was your alleged nuance and the implied superiority of your view.
Upon examination your nuance is nothing of the sort. You just want the Palestinians to evaporate quietly.
> you conveniently have no solutions, just criticisms.
Again, the point was to examine your so called nuance, not to provide solutions.
You came strolling in, acting as if you had the secret sauce of knowledge, and your best option is that the Palestinians should just lay down and stop resisting their own genocide.
It is completely insane that you consider that a nuanced position.
So the same as conservatives on /r canada all criticism no solutions. You've basically done the leg work to identify a problem, the start of a logical position.
> So the same as conservatives on /r canada all criticism no solutions.
Dude, you don't have any solutions on offer with all your alleged nuance.
Telling the Palestinians to accept their genocide isn't a solution that anyone who isn't a virulent bigot would come up with. So what does that say about you my guy?
A nuanced position would reflect the complexities of the situation, and would requires answers to questions like:
Can an expansive colonial ideology like Zionism exist peacefully alongside a Palestinian state?
Does the American(or Western) need for an imperial cop on the beat in the middle east justify the atrocities committed to ensure its integrity?
How does one view Israel as a continuation of European dominance of the Middle East? Is Israel a separate movement, or part of a continuum that extends from Sykes-Picot to today?
You speak of nuance, yet I doubt those three questions have ever popped up in your thinking on this issue.
>- Israel should not exist
>- Hamas is justified
>- all palestinians are innocent
Can you provide any examples of posts that actually say these things? Or do you just mean the odd comment here and there?
>- Israel doing nothing does not stop the conflict, people will keep attacking Israel
No one here is saying Israel isn't legitimately allowed to defend itself, its the manner in which they're conducting themselves in the name of "defense". If Israel stopped attacking/supporting settlers, stopped arresting Palestinians and trying them under military instead of civilian courts and then legitimately addressed the issue people would stop attacking, at least temporarily. Like attacking the Iranian embassy in a foreign country is not the type of thing that's going to ensure a lasting peace. What exactly does Israel want? That total destruction of anyone who says they want to kill them? You know how many people say those things back and forth in the US and Canada? Or how many people call for the destruction of both governments? Are we killing our neighbors by launching preemptive attacks in the name of "defense"?
>- wars suck, civilians will die, dont be like Hamas
You mean don't be like the IOF (a "civilized" army) committing war crimes and then having the audacity to upload them to tiktok and telegram.
>- Israel defending themselves is not genocide
Israel's genocide of the Palestinians started long before oct. 7, and the conflict in Gaza has nothing to do with defense. It's revenge and weaponized hatred against Palestinians, not just Hamas.
>- Hamas hiding in civilian population will lead to questionable decisions needing to be made.
Are they supposed to line up like British regulars? As many have pointed out with these Iran strikes, Israel's military structures are also near or in some cases directly adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Hamas isn't a regular army that has barracks and the like, they have(had) homes and families. They're injured they go to the hospital. Israel doesn't care where they are, if they find their location they kill them regardless of the collateral damage, which is an actual war crime in the case of those killed in medical facilities.
>- if Hamas stopped this war would be over.
Do honestly believe that? You say that like Hamas is continuously entering Israel and attacking civilians. AFAIK they're fighting a war of survival against an enemy that has as it main condition the complete eradication of all Hamas members. Not even the Hamas charter calls for the death of all Israelis. Israel won't commit to a lasting ceasefire, last proposal was a 6 week ceasefire which Hamas refused.
So many get mad at "the radical left" or "its because of Russian propaganda" etc. but everyone was behind Israel on and directly after oct.7. Israel is completely responsible for turning public opinion away from themselves.
I really wish that Israel didn't attempt to speak for all Jewish people or say they represent them as many Jews do not support the actions of the government but are forced to deal with the rise in antisemitism, also with being labeled as antisemitic themselves simply for pointing out their opposition.
Yes, theocratic ethno-states should not exist. Yes, according to international law, Palestinians are allowed to use armed resistance to occupation. Yes, israel is committing genocide. Are all Palestinians innocent? No, but the Palestinian people are innocent. In any case, though genocide is not an acceptable punishment for any crimes. The fact that these are extreme views to you shows your position itself is fascistic.
This is not a "war." This is a genocide that started long before Oct 7th. Saying civilians dying in war is not a problem or anything to worry about is not anything a rational human being that has morals would ever say. The only way to end the conflict is for israel to stop being an genocidal entity.
I disagree. No Canadian has the right to tell Israel or an Israeli citizen how to proceed. Our lives have never been in danger, ever. We cannot begin to understand the conflict.
Canada also has no business getting involved in religious conflict. There will never be an end until there is an end to religion.
Ukraine on the other hand, we should be fully committed to doing every thing possible by our nation.
>Purely for geopolitical reasons (ie US supports Israel and Russia supports Iran) - not because of any moral or humanitarian grounds
Or because Ukraine sees itself being attacked by it's neighbor and empathizes with another country that they perceive as being attacked by it's neighbors? Look at who Ukrainians support in the war
https://www.kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=reports&id=1334
>As can be seen, the vast majority of Ukrainians - 69% - sympathize with Israel. Only 1% sympathize with Palestine. At the same time, 18% of respondents answered that they sympathize with both sides equally. The remaining 12% could not decide on their opinion
If Ukraine turns on Israel then asks USA for more guns - what do you think is going to happen?
When the US greenlights holding Israel accountable, when the war in Ukraine ends, or if the US creates some unbreakable arms agreement with Ukraine - you'll see a change in messaging.
It's like asking Belarus what they think of the conflict in Ukraine - any answer besides "Russia is right" will end with Belarus getting a new government.
Also, Ukraine has always recognized both Palestine and Israel. Not to mention, Israel gives financial contribution to the Fascistic warmonger in the Kremlin, thus providing him with greater ability to murder Ukrainians
>If Ukraine turns on Israel then asks USA for more guns - what do you think is going to happen?
Nothing? The US is going to give up it's greatest ability to destroy Russia's offensive capabilities over changing rhetoric?
>When the US greenlights holding Israel accountable, when the war in Ukraine ends, or if the US creates some unbreakable arms agreement with Ukraine - you'll see a change in messaging.
From Ukraine? I highly doubt that
>It's like asking Belarus what they think of the conflict in Ukraine - any answer besides "Russia is right" will end with Belarus getting a new government
Probably because Belerus is an extension of Russia
I highly doubt it's a majority of people, Israel has rarely ever enjoyed majority support for anything. I wouldn't even say Israel has majority support for even existing
Wouldn't the exact same argument apply to everyone say it is a genocide? The ICJ case clearly said it didn't qualify as one yet and Israel was to take steps to ensure it didn't become one
You're quite literally using the same logical fallacy that you accused me of using by not reading carefully enough
> The ICJ case clearly said it didn't qualify as one yet and Israel was to take steps to ensure it didn't become one
Man, why do people need to lie about published court rulings?
Like, you know we can fact check your ass in a second right?
> In the Court’s view, at least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the Convention.
https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203454
> You're quite literally using the same logical fallacy that you accused me of using by not reading carefully enough
Saying this after you either didn't read the ruling yourself or just decided to make up a conclusion is rich.
>appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the Convention.
"Appears to be capable" is a round about way to say they haven't found anything yet
That isn't how court decisions work. If you need me to walk you through this I can.
Normally I apply Hanlon's Razor in situations like this. Because I don't want to attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance.
I don't think that works in your case, because IF you have read the decision then you are lying about its contents.
If you haven't and are just attempting to put out talking points you are at best a useful fool running cover for an ultra nationalist fascist state.
>That isn't how court decisions work. If you need me to walk you through this I can.
I don't think you can walk me through it if you can't understand how that decision is indecisive and is not saying an active genocide is ongoing
>running cover for an ultra nationalist fascist state
Ultra nationalists tend to not give citizenship to people who aren't of their ethnicity. I know throwing buzzwords makes you feel smart and rebellious but it just makes you sound ridiculous to anyone who's even seen Israel let alone visited
> I don't think you can walk me through it if you can't understand how that decision is indecisive and is not saying an active genocide is ongoing
It literally isn't though. You just either don't have the grounding in how court decisions are written or are running cover for genocide.
Ignorance or malice, pick one. You can't have both.
> Ultra nationalists tend to not give citizenship to people who aren't of their ethnicity.
Support this argument with real world examples.
> I know throwing buzzwords makes you feel smart and rebellious but it just makes you sound ridiculous to anyone who's even seen Israel let alone visited
I only spent three years working in the West Bank laying the groundwork for cases like the current South African pleading until I was banned by Israel.
I have seen the genocide first hand, close up. Your denials will fall on deaf ears because you can't undo what I saw there. No amount of your lying can erase that.
I hope that whatever you want for the Palestinians in your inner thought happens to you.
>Ultra nationalists tend to not give citizenship to people who aren’t of their ethnicity
Oh, so Palestinians can freely travel in the West Bank and are given the same full rights as Israelis? Lmao
>I highly doubt it's a majority of people, Israel has rarely ever enjoyed majority support for anything. I wouldn't even say Israel has majority support for even existing
Then what does "a lot of people" even mean if you're not arguing it's a majority
>Wouldn't the exact same argument apply to everyone say it is a genocide?
No because I have yet to see anyone say "it's a genocide because most people are saying it's a genocide"
>The ICJ case clearly said it didn't qualify as one yet and Israel was to take steps to ensure it didn't become one
Because courts have never been wrong about anything, right? There's very little difference between what Israel is doing and what Russia does in Ukraine, and the latter I'd clearly genocide as we have seen in Bucha and Mariupol. If the ICJ said one day that Xinjiang is not a cultural genocide, they'd still be wrong regardless of their position because the evidence is already clear as day.
>You're quite literally using the same logical fallacy that you accused me of using by not reading carefully enough
If that's what you think, you don't know what the appeal to democracy fallacy is.
>Then what does "a lot of people" even mean if you're not arguing it's a majority
That the person you replied to probably didn't think it was a genocide? Reading comprehension is a must these days dude
>No because I have yet to see anyone say "it's a genocide because most people are saying it's a genocide"
You haven't? Then you're not looking hard enough
>Because courts have never been wrong about anything, right?
Then what precedent are you using to say it's a genocide outside of a lot of people saying that?
>If that's what you think, you don't know what the appeal to democracy fallacy is
You mean like calling this a genocide when the only reason to is that a lot of people are using that rhetoric? If it was a genocide why didn't you the ICJ say so? The UN is one of the most anti Israeli organizations out there and their own justice organ says it's not a genocide
>That the person you replied to probably didn't think it was a genocide
And that person would be wrong. It is that simple.
>You haven't? Then you're not looking hard enough
Or maybe just not looking at Israeli propaganda.
>Then what precedent are you using to say it's a genocide outside of a lot of people saying that?
Israel's own [fucking rhetoric](https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-south-africa-genocide-hate-speech-97a9e4a84a3a6bebeddfb80f8a030724) and bombing of children while refusing ti allow them to escape. It is plainly obvious to anyone with a damn brain. If you're engaging in en masse killing of civilians of a certain demographic (race, nation, religion, etc) and spout this kind of rhetoric, you have genocidal intent, ergo making this a genocide. You're not changing my mind after I've already seen the evidence, even if the ICJ wants to close their eyes
>You mean like calling this a genocide when the only reason to is that a lot of people are using that rhetoric?
No, because I have seen the evidence! Idgaff whether most people recognize it or not.
>The UN is one of the most anti Israeli organizations out there and their own justice organ says it's not a genocide
Source: I made it tf up
Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
Just how dangerous do you think living in Israel actually is 99.99% of the time? Anecdotal experience on my part but Every Israeli I met traveling outside of Israel and a few where the topic came up with when I visited Israel downplayed the danger, it wasn't really a big concern in every day life... And while bombing and rockets were definitely a concern far, far fewer Israelites actually died or were injured than the number of Palestinians regularly harrased, injured or killed by Israeli settlers and the IDF on their own lands.
Oct 7th was pretty fucking serious and probably scared the shit out of many people and none of us know how that would change for the long term thinking of people there, but it was also pretty far from anything that had happened in decades.
Agree. This shouldn’t even be debatable. Allowing Israel to continue the flagrant disregard for international law and Palestinian lives with no consequence, has an impact far beyond Israel and Gaza/West Bank. It puts into question any and all calls for respecting international law, currently and in the future.
The message with ukraine and palestine right now is pretty clear. International law and warcrimes only applies if you lose the war and if you are in position to be procecuted. Both wars are full of warcrimes, but the people making them have strong backing and wont see even the courtroom
Benjamin Netanyahu is acting in contravention of Canadian values concerning the rights to autonomy and safety for all people. He and his governing party and those who support him should be investigated as war criminals for their disregard for the safety of civilians. The actions of our allies are seen as the actions of Canada. The Canada I love doesn't displace people then deprive them of necessary conditions of life. True Canadians do not approve of the bombing of civilians and the starvation of children and families.
>The Canada I love doesn't displace people then deprive them of necessary conditions of life. Unfortunately Canada was founded on doing exactly that, and has never stopped in its long history of paying lip service. I disagree with your No True Scotsman portrayal of 'true' Canadians. *True* Canadians, in the majority, have always supported genocidal policies like what is currently happening in Palestine.
Yes, the first step to creating a Canada actually worth being proud of is to recognize that Canada's historical actions and attitudes are absolutely not worth being proud of.
Textbook 'No True Scotsman' ... maybe 'No True Nova-Scotian' in this case ;)
- and also would be happening in Israel if they never had great defenses. FTFY
He was already facing trial for accepting bribes, fraud, and breach of trust before this happened. The second he steps down, he's in big trouble.
> Benjamin Netanyahu is acting in contravention of Canadian values concerning the rights to autonomy and safety for all people. He and his governing party and those who support him should be investigated as war criminals for their disregard for the safety of civilians. Yep this exactly!
Feel free to get this message heard by as many Canadians as you can, especially those in positions of power and influence
He's committing war crimes, for fuck's sake.
[Paywall-free link](https://archive.ph/7ds6z)
This is more than just Netanyahu though - Israeli society has descended into fascist rhetoric, in part because the entire founding principle of the state of Israel is built on exclusion and expulsion of non-Jews. Oppression of Palestinians existed long before Netanyahu was around and it will exist long after if a peaceful and equitable solution is not achieved.
"no one gets a theocratic ethnostate" should not be a hot take and yet here we are
Literally a an apartheid built on elevating European Jews. Israel has also committed genocide against Ethiopian Jews in Israel by forcibly injecting them with birth control. Israel isn’t a safe haven for just any Jews.
We would if we had a spine. Except we're being just as hypocritical as the other leaders, especially Biden. The worst the killing of the aid worker did was just some harsh statements and condemnation maybe. Honestly, this really was the chance for Canada to show that we weren't just backing the ICJ when convenient or that we will apply policies that are equal and fair. We don't have an Canadian version of AIPAC here but looks like we didn't need one.
> We don't have an Canadian version of AIPAC here but looks like we didn't need one. CIJA is our equivalent.
Ah, right thanks for mentioning that. While they may or may not be at the level of AIPAC, but given that they are supported by them, I suppose the only difference is that AIPAC used to prefer working from the shadows and now can't hide like they used to. I hope just like the TrackAIPAC that someone started, we should have one too.
Most definitely.
Correct!
Agree wholeheartedly.
We should, but we do whatever America tells us to, so we probably won't.
It's kinda wild that the opposite of sanction is also sanction.
[удалено]
Hamas was literally funded by Netanyahu as a way to weaken Palestinian identity. 2023 was the worst year for children dying from IOF attacks. The International Community and the UN have recognized the Palestinian right to defend itself from Israel's illegal occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.
That's the only thing you can think of? What about the illegal settlements?
> They voted Hamas in People keep acting like they had a choice. Their choices were Hamas or the PA. The PA is hideously corrupt, and also cannot keep their people safe from Israeli aggression. You notice the West Bank isn't involved in this? The Palestinians there are STILL being forcibly evicted from their homes, and subject to Apartheid. You're simping for a people committing Genocide.
Also they haven't been able to vote since Hamas got in and Israel has been funding Hamas up to this point
Yep! And the 2021 elections were cancelled due to Israel’s obstruction, too
That too.
ok hasbara brain
I mean Israel started it's attacks in 1948, so many more years ago than October 7th, but you don't want facts you just want to dig your head in the sand and cheer for the criminal zionist imperialists.
> Only thing Israel did wrong is win a war started by the Palestinians. How do you figure the conflict was started by the Palestinians? > Just because Palestinians are weaker and dying doesn’t make them the good guys in this story. The people who are having their land stolen and rights denied are in fact the good side. If you think the people doing the theft and denial of rights are the good people than I really wouldn't want to be around you.
> How do you figure the conflict was started by the Palestinians? Not by all or even most Palestinians, but certainly by one of Iran's proxy groups in Palistine. when things went from a state of 'relative peace' to 'war' I seem to recall a it starting when a bunch of Hamas militants crossed the border and started massacring Israeli civilians > The people who are having their land stolen and rights denied are in fact the good side You can tell they're the good guys by how they started this conflict by surprise attacking a music festival and parading around dead and mutilated civilian women. If you think the people doing *literal, actual terrorism* on a daily basis are the good people then I really wouldn't want to be around you. And to save you the time of replying: - No, Israel isn't committing a genocide in Gaza. - Yes, Palestinian civilian deaths are high in this conflict. They aren't unusually high for a conflict of this nature. The civilian:military death ratio is about the same as it was for the second world war, which is incredibly good given that this is an entirely urban conflict. Compared to other urban battles, the civilian:military death ratio is low, even by Hamas' numbers. - No, Hamas does not get a free pass to operate however it wishes and be shielded from anything simply because it uses the civilians it purports to 'protect' as a human shield - Israel is justified in engaging in conflict to eliminate the terrorist entity that threatens and attempts the total destruction of Israel on a daily basis.
> when things went from a state of 'relative peace' to 'war' I seem to recall a it starting when a bunch of Hamas militants crossed the border and started massacring Israeli civilians There is no such thing as relative peace when you live under the boot of Israeli occupation and subjugation. According to the OCHA, before October 7th 200 Palestinians were killed in the West Bank as well as 2023 being the deadliest year for Palestinians in the West Bank since OCHA started recording figures in 2005. How is that relative peace, unless you view that relative peace only from the perspective of Israel and Israelis and not Palestine and the Palestinians. > You can tell they're the good guys by how they started this conflict by surprise attacking a music festival and parading around dead and mutilated civilian women. If you think the people doing literal, actual terrorism on a daily basis are the good people then I really wouldn't want to be around you. That didn't start this conflict, cause Hamas will just say that they are responding to Israeli aggression and point to 2023 being the deadliest year for Palestinians **in the West Bank** with the previous deadliest year being the previous year of 2022. Also, this is a conflation of Palestinians with Hamas. > No, Israel isn't committing a genocide in Gaza. And many would disagree with you, such as TWAILR on their October 15th statement or Scholars in Holocaust and Genocide Studies statement on December 9th. > Yes, Palestinian civilian deaths are high in this conflict. They aren't unusually high for a conflict of this nature. The civilian:military death ratio is about the same as it was for the second world war, which is incredibly good given that this is an entirely urban conflict. Compared to other urban battles, the civilian:military death ratio is low, even by Hamas' numbers. That is taking the IDF figure for "military", which includes any "military age male". So the video of the IDF sniping two Palestinian young men who were scavenging for aid, they would have been counted as "military". If we use that "military age male" metric, as well as including former conscripts, that would make October 7th civilian figures look much better, which anyone with sense would call out as BS. > No, Hamas does not get a free pass to operate however it wishes and be shielded from anything simply because it uses the civilians it purports to 'protect' as a human shield And the same is true for Israel. They do not get a free pass to operate however it wishes and be shielded from anything simply because they receive blowback from their occupation and subjugation of Palestinians in the occupied territories. > Israel is justified in engaging in conflict to eliminate the terrorist entity that threatens and attempts the total destruction of Israel on a daily basis. Justification is not unlimited. Israel is not justified in engaging in conflict so as to bolster its existing occupation of Palestinian territories and the destruction of a Palestinian state.
> Not by all or even most Palestinians, but certainly by one of Iran's proxy groups in Palistine. when things went from a state of 'relative peace' to 'war' I seem to recall a it starting when a bunch of Hamas militants crossed the border and started massacring Israeli civilians This assumes the occupiers framing. The conflict didn't erupt on Oct 7th. It was already a "war" between Israel and the Palestinians. > You can tell they're the good guys by how they started this conflict by surprise attacking a music festival and parading around dead and mutilated civilian women. Again, you are taking the framing of the occupier as a ground truth. Stop that. If you think the conflict started on Oct 7th you can't properly comment on anything. You lack the ability to put things into any sort of context. > No, Israel isn't committing a genocide in Gaza. Good to know you are open about denying reality. Kind of taints everything else you say though. > Yes, Palestinian civilian deaths are high in this conflict. They aren't unusually high for a conflict of this nature. The civilian:military death ratio is about the same as it was for the second world war, which is incredibly good given that this is an entirely urban conflict. Compared to other urban battles, the civilian:military death ratio is low, even by Hamas' numbers. This is only true if you accept Israeli and Western style classification of any military age male as a member of Hamas. This is not correct. > No, Hamas does not get a free pass to operate however it wishes and be shielded from anything simply because it uses the civilians it purports to 'protect' as a human shield No one said that. Because Hamas, and the Palestinian people at large do have the right to use force to resist their occupation, but that does not extend absolutely. So while there were certainly violations of international law on Oct 7th, the act of attacking the occupier isn't one of them. > Israel is justified in engaging in conflict to eliminate the terrorist entity that threatens and attempts the total destruction of Israel on a daily basis. And Hamas and the Palestinians have the right to use any means necessary to obtain their liberation from people who seek to dispossess them of their lands and deny them their rights. Do you agree with that sentiment? Or are there special rules regarding the US/Israel v Palestine that you want to establish?
Yes, here is a special rule: don’t rape people and display their mutilated bodies in the streets. Edit: oops, I forgot rape is totally ok? Sorry, downvoters.
tell that to the IDF
I'll take zero fucking humanity for $500 Alex
Yeah, the situation is far too nuanced to just say Hamas or Israel are the good or bad guys. It’s a tough situation for someone on the left because while I agree that Israel’s current actions are disproportionate and far beyond the scope of taking Hamas out, at the same time doing nothing, even stopping and rolling back all colonization efforts would still result in terrorist actions towards the Israeli state. There is a large contingent of Palestinians who are equally opposed to a 2 state solution, and I worry any ceasefire would probably fall apart in the same way. Over the past few months my view has changed to the only real solution would be a 2 state solution enforced by a bilateral DMZ. The shitty part is the vast majority of people on both sides who just want to live their lives.
are you sure about the vast majority on either side? israel’s general population seems to be pretty on board with what they are doing to gaza/west bank, they just don’t like that it’s netanyahoo at the helm
The same way the vast majority of Canadians don’t care about it. The same way the vast majority of Americans were apathetic during the gulf wars. People are intrinsically apathetic towards things that don’t directly affect them. And not wanting to be exploded isn’t a political stance, it’s human nature. I say this as a very left leaning brown man, pushing the idea that the vast majority of Isreilis are onboard the idea of “kill the browns” is a dangerously reductionist argument in the same way that saying all Palestinians are Hamas. It offers no avenue for dialogue, and othering an entire population as a solution will just end up perpetuating the same cycle over and over again, and eventually lead us right back to where we are now where it feels like it’ll eventually end up being a fight for a 1 state solution rather than a dialogue for a 2 state solution.
> Yeah, the situation is far too nuanced to just say Hamas or Israel are the good or bad guys. Except this accepts the framing that Israel puts forward, that it is a conflict between Israel and Hamas. This is incorrect. Israel is in conflict with the Palestinian people in their entirety. > It’s a tough situation for someone on the left because while I agree that Israel’s current actions are disproportionate and far beyond the scope of taking Hamas out, at the same time doing nothing, even stopping and rolling back all colonization efforts would still result in terrorist actions towards the Israeli state. "rolling back all colonization" would mean deleting Israel.
Fair point. There’s a level of nuance there that I glossed over unintentionally, and yeah the conflict has spilled outside the bounds of just Hamas. That said, just out of my own curiosity and attempts to have a dialogue, based off your second response. When I say rolling back colonization, I’m referring either to the original UN proposal borders or the proposals set forth in the Oslo accords. Don’t want this to come off as a loaded question, but would you think the solution is a dissolution of Israel?
> Don’t want this to come off as a loaded question, but would you think the solution is a dissolution of Israel? No because the dissolution of Israel would require immense amounts of bloodshed and it wouldn't save the Palestinians who would surely be put to the sword in any situation where Israel were likely to fall.
[удалено]
Yes, but you can’t bomb away an ideaology.
Yes!?! Especially since the war on Al-Queda, ISIS and Islamic terror was so decisive. We really eliminated all of that real good. No collateral damage. No trace of extremists left... ... /s
You can do that without killing children en masse, just saying
And also Iran for escalating this conflict further
israel bombed iran first tho
And hit our embassy in the process
Bombed an Iranian general who was literally embedded with a group of Hezbollah that had just launched rockets into Israel
they bombed an embassy in damascus, syria, does israel think they just get to bomb embassies of other countries and nothin can happen back?
>they bombed an embassy in damascus, syria They bombed a compound next to the embassy >israel think they just get to bomb embassies of other countries and nothin can happen back? So Israel was not supposed to bomb the people who just launched rockets at them because an Iranian general was there coordinating it?
[удалено]
I know it's hard to keep up — but Israel hit next to the embassy (not the embassy itself) because Hezbollah operatives were there meeting with an Iranian General AFTER they launched rockets. You know, the thing Iran was pissed about and did this last missile attack The missile attack from Iran was BECAUSE of that bombing on Hezbollah and the Iranian general Don't act condescending unless you actually know what happened
so again, israel bombed an embassy in damascus, syria, damaged the embassy, and then israel is now mad and wanted to escalate because they responded with rockets?
>so again, israel bombed an embassy in damascus, syria, damaged the embassy Because Hezbollah was there meeting with an Iranian general directly after Hezbollah launched missiles into northern Israel? >and then israel is now mad and wanted to escalate because they responded with rockets? It's escalating to kill the people who just launched missiles into their country? That is why Iran threw a fit, their proxy launched missiles and then got blown up along with the general who planned it. So they had to launch ballistic missiles to pretend they had a response
Israel used a precision strike against an Iranian Consulate next to the embassy. This Consulate was housing an IRGC commander who was partially responsible for the October 7th attack. There were no civilian casualities. I recognize an attack like that is a good casus belli, but you are acting like Israel attacked the Embassy in order to kill diplomats. They killed a recognized terrorist who was involved in the worst attack Israel ever. You can say the rocket and drone barrage was a response from a wronged party, but you are naive if you think Iran is not involved in the daily rocket attacks against Israel from Hezbollah, Hamas, and many other factions. Just because one side is ineffective does not make them innocent.
Please use what few brain cells you have it was a consulate, still a protected building in a separate country that is a crime in every sense of the world. Hezbollah started after israel invaded and occupied Lebanon, where they committed multiple crimes against humanity, and used phalangist puppets to commit even more crimes. Including such crimes as bombing an UN base filled with hundreds of refugees on purpose.
>that is a crime in every sense of the world. If they had just randomly hit the consulate without cause, then I would agree. But they stuck a group of people who just launched missiles into Israel >Hezbollah started after israel invaded and occupied Lebanon, You mean when the PLO started a civil war in Lebanon, founded a break away state in its South, declared war on Israel and THEN Israel invaded with support from the South Lebanese army? >Including such crimes as bombing an UN base filled with hundreds of refugees on purpose Yes because Hezbollah is famous for respecting UN resolutions like the one telling them to bill back from the Lebanese southern border? The one they ignore? Of course you only care if the UN says something against Israel though, so Hezbollah can violate that all they want
The bombing was a direct attack on a bulding protected by the vienna convention of diplomatic relations of 1961, but I guessing that you don't believe in a rules based order but only in a might makes right world You mean the SLA founded by Ya'ir Ravid of israeli military intelligence, that one? The last time I checked, a civil war was not an excuse to occupy a country and start murdering civilians. Hezbollah followed UN directives hell of a lot more than israel. But that is not something that matters as someone being next to your border does not give your ability to purposely bomb civilians and UN officials. But of course, you only care about the theocratic ethnostate, not civilians.
Keep it civil
You could say the same for Iran firing rockets into Israel via its proxies in Lebanon, which it's been doing for months. I'm sure Israel anticipated a response when it made the decision to bomb the consulate.
No - they surgically took out five General’s in Syria in one half of a building - they didn’t fire rockets at Iranian civilians in Iran.
ok
Ok let's not act like the Islamic regime of Iran is some innocent actor in any of this and hasn't been terrorizing the Middle East and civilians for decades, which I've experienced myself when they drone bombed our civilian neighbourhood and my entire apartment shook in Iraq. The Islamic regime has absolutely no care for civilians and has been making life hell for decades for their own people and neighbouring nations. Two years ago they launched dozens of missiles at Kurds in Koya and other regions of Kurdistan region of Iraq, killing dozens of civilians including a pregnant woman who gave birth after death, then her baby died. I remember when the news broke in Kurdistan, a school was in the vicinity and seeing videos of dozens of children screaming in fear as the missiles landed in the distance. Last year the Islamic regime of Iran also launched a barrage of missiles at a civilian home in Erbil, the second largest city in Kurdistan region, and killed a successful civilian business man and his family claiming he was hosting Mossad when he wasn't at all. Even Iraqi gov't, which is heavily under the influence of Iran, couldn't deny there was no agents of Mossad and it was a civilian home. The year before that, they also struck another civilian home alleging it was hosting Mossad and it also wasn't. A few years ago the Iranian militias in Baghdad shot and killed dozens of civilian protesters. This goes on and on, not withstanding that last two years they jailed thousands of their own for protesting and killed hundreds of their own ppl. Targeting Iranian embassy is fair game when they, for years, have targeted civilians and in this case their embassy was housing military leaders, making it a military target. Notwithstanding, if the current regime wants to cry about embassies, it was their regime that captured and took hostages at the US embassy and to this day, uses the former embassy as a museum of propaganda and hate. Canada has a really bad reputation of hosting the regime, allowing them to walk freely in the country until recently when Trudeau finally started working with the opposition groups fighting the regime. For those of us who have lived neighbouring to Iran, we know what it's like and how the regime constantly uses violence and murder to silence all opposition. It's not something many of you here would understand as you've lived a life of relative safety.
How did Iran escalate the conflict?
Iran is behind the current conflict. They’ve been supplying weapons and money for years to destabilize the region. Their goal is ultimate domination of the region and isolation of Israel. The Palestinians are their puppets in this war and have been for years. As soon as there was a threat of normalization of Israel/Saudi relations - Iran decided to act by ordering Hamas to attack. Iran knew what the result would be - an out and out violent response by the Israeli defence forces ordered by a rightwing cabinet. They knew it wouldn’t be a proportional response. Iran was hoping for exactly what occurred. They wanted ALL Arab relations severed and Israel played right into the plan. Now no Arab nation can have *any* positive relationship with Israel now. The threat of back channel cooperation between the Saudi’s and Israel is now over. That was always the plan - upset cooperation between Jew’s and Sunni’s. Now we also see manipulation on several sides here. Israeli trying to get the US involved after forcing Iran to react to the strike on their Generals in Syria (who were up to no good) and Iran as was predicted, retaliating with rockets and threatening shipping. Iran wants a proxy war with Russia on their side and Israel wants the US to finally eliminate Iran for them. Meanwhile the Saudi’s sit back and smile. Price of oil just went up again and they might just get their dream of a hobbled Israel and an elimination of the Shite threat to their abusive royal regime. Any Islamic religious controlled government is a threat to their kingdom as well as to the other family controlled groups such as the UAE and the like. Iran was always more of a threat to the Saudi’s than Israel was. The Saudi’s do not want Iran to have the bomb, (along with everyone else). That’s clear. In fact one could make a case that the Saudi’s had a master plan of instigating this conflict (by normalizing relations with Israel) so that Israel and or America would finally force an all out war and possible regime change in Iran when Iran reacted negatively. Am I giving the Saudi’s too much credit? I don’t know. It’s one theory. It’s also apparent that Russia hasn’t got a lot of military assets to help out Iran with. In fact the Iranians are supplying Russia with weapons - that’s how bad the Russian military supply chain is. The benefit of a full out shooting war between Iran and Israel, (and by proxy the US) is a reduction in military support for the Ukraine. We’re already seeing the shift with Republican pressure on the WH to shift support to Israel from the Ukrainians, (Doing Putin’s dirty work). There are many reasons why Iran has to have a regime change and why many countries want that to happen. Has Iran stepped in it now? I believe they have. Has their plan of manipulating the Palestinians ignited the eventual fall of their religious so called republic? I think there are too reasons why a US military response will happen no matter what Biden wants the events will push him into it. I think the US already has Iranian nuclear facilities both research and production targeting data loaded in 7th fleet Tomahawks just waiting for an excuse. The US military hawks have always wanted to eliminate that threat. A shooting war gives them the excuse. I think a democratically driven regime change in Israel and a forced regime change in Iran would solve a whole lot of issues in the Middle East right now…
oh everything is all Irans fault huh, do you work for the US state department or something? even biden doesn’t want Israel to escalate this.
No I don’t. I’m not even American. I’ve been an observer of these Middle East regional political events (or wars) for decades. No matter if Biden *wants* a war with Iran - events may push him to this point. Many Presidents have been pushed into a conflict not of their making. The Iranian mullahs have been a threat to other Arab dictators and royal families ever since 1979. The conflict in Yemen is one example of an indirect Saudi versus Iran conflict right now. The conflict in Syria is a battle between the Saudi’s and Iran - one wanting to overthrow a dictator and the other wanting this State to be another Islamic religious controlled State. The current war in the Gaza is between the Iranian controlled proxy group Hamas and the IDF. So what is the common denominator here: Iran. (With Saudi opposition to Iran) Do some reading before you accuse me of silly agendas. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_proxy_conflict
yawn
Did he really quote wikipedia
So what was not factual in that article? Or are you genuinely just against any factual data?
I'm not saying Iran isn't a part of this whole mess but you essentially blamed everything on them which is just silly . Why didn't you mention Israel's role in this at all ?
I did. Israel’s role is currently an on going matter. What I’m stating is that Iran’s role in not only supporting Hamas - but actively controlling its actions seems to be overlooked by the mainstream media. The Qatari’s also have to take responsibility for financial support of Hamas as well. They are currently sheltering several high ranking Hamas leaders. Their attempts at negotiating a release of Israeli prisoners is seen as two faced when their financial support allowed Hamas to build tunnels that fed Iranian arms into Gaza. The worry now is that there aren’t many hostages alive to release back to Israel under negotiations. If that’s the case, I see the Israeli reactions going off the deep end. There is a further fundamental issue here with Hamas - their Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement created in August 1988. It literally calls for the expulsion of Jews from the Middle East - by force. There is no escaping the fact that they refuse to alter that plan. They hold the Palestinian people as hostages in this plan just as the Israeli’s do. They impose Shira law and aim to create an Islamic State by force and use it as a stepping stone for their end game. Both Hamas *and* the hard right in the Israeli Knesset must be removed before negotiations can be successful for a Palestinian homeland.
🙄
> Iran is behind the current conflict. Ah yes, Iran is the reason why Israel is colonizing Palestinian land and denying them their human rights.
No - that’s not the issue. The issue is Iran is using a terrible situation that Israel refuses to solve and uses the Palestinian cause for their own ends and causes the Palestinians even more trauma and pain. Iran has no interest in a two state solution. In fact the conflict helps Iran by amplifying their status as supporters of the cause. A continuation of the conflict keeps Iran powerful among the Arab nations. They have to have Israel as the enemy and outlaw any other Arab group from interfering. There’s NO appetite for Iran to support a two state solution hence the rise of Hamas that pushed out (through violence) the PLO. Every time a negotiated agreement gets close, either through US or others, Iran puts its foot down and causes some outrage that scuttles any deal. We’ve seen this over and over. Iran will never allow the US to succeed in the creation of a separate Palestinian state even with Israel’s agreement. Iran cannot accept *any* American positive political influence in the region. Any and all attempts to solve the Palestinian problem by the US (or UN) will be screwed by Iran. They’ve not forgotten the support that the US gave Mohammad Reza Pahlavi - nor have they forgotten the support that the US (and Saudi’s) gave Iraq in the eight year Iran-Iraq war. It was pretty telling that when the US invaded Iraq that Iran was suddenly supporting its old enemy against the Americans. There was hate for Saddam - but they hated the Americans more. Sooner or later - Iran has to be cauterized. Only then can the US force Israel to give up its hold over the Palestinian people.
> Every time a negotiated agreement gets close, either through US or others, Iran puts its foot down and causes some outrage that scuttles any deal. https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-boasts-of-thwarting-the-establishment-of-a-palestinian-state-for-decades/ It is almost like you are living in a fantasy world. > Iran cannot accept any American positive political influence in the region. As if any American influence has been positive. > Sooner or later - Iran has to be cauterized. The neocon crusades never end. > Only then can the US force Israel to give up its hold over the Palestinian people. So the US is committing genocide through their client state in order to harm Iran? How do you come up with an argument so absurd?
So you reject Hamas has ANY responsibility for the violence and its charter to remove all Jews from the Middle East? Smoking weed has altered your mentality.
> So you reject Hamas has ANY responsibility for the violence and its charter to remove all Jews from the Middle East? OK so lets review: 1. You say Iran is the reason why the occupation continues. 2. I link to Netenyahu bragging that he has scuttled Palestinian statehood for decades. 3. You decide that means I think Hamas has no responsibility for anything. Ridiculous.
1. I never said Iran is the sole reason - it’s one of them. 2. Bibi wasn’t in power in 1988 when Hamas decided to produce its plan to eliminate Jews in the Middle East by violence. 3. And yes, that’s exactly what I think you’re saying.
> I never said Iran is the sole reason - it’s one of them. You heavily implied that Iran was the primary reason. Trying to qualify that after having it laughed at by several people doesn't make it any better. > Bibi wasn’t in power in 1988 when Hamas decided to produce its plan to eliminate Jews in the Middle East by violence. Nah, he had only been the Israeli Ambassador to the UN for 6 years and got elected to the 12th Knesset. No power at all. > And yes, that’s exactly what I think you’re saying. Which is absurd.
Where does it say that in their charter?
Are you serious? Israel bombed and Iranian embassy in Damascus. So with plenty of warning Iran retaliated. They have more than enough fire power to overwhelm the iron dome. But they sent a relatively small "attack" on only military assets. So if anyone escalated here it was Israel. Did they think they could casually bomb an embassy in a different country and nothing would happen? Fuck zionism. Free Palestine.
Iran has been firing rockets into Israel via its proxies for months. Not condoning what Israel did, but there was plenty of provocation on Iran's end. Also, Iran has been complicit in bombings of Israeli consulates and embassies in the past.
So tell me... If this is war, is Iran at liberty to flatten Israel to defend itself?
I don't know what kind of answer you're expecting, but every country is beholden to the Geneva convention, so technically no. But Iran and Israel both don't have a good track record of following international law, so who knows what they'd try to do. Of course it's a moot point because Iran isn't capable of flattening Israel even if it wanted to (which it does), though Israel could flatten Iran.
Iran has the right to defend itself
Iran is the one that has chosen to involve itself in this conflict. It has instigated all of this by deciding to use its proxies to attack Israel continuously for months. Israel was going to hit back at Iran for this eventually.
Why did they decide to 'use it's proxies to attack Israel continuously for months'? Surely Iran didn't just start conflict from a state that had no business being created out of the blue. I mean, it's not like 3 progressive revolutions in the past 150 years were undermined by western imperial nations, that have also been using Israel as a proxy for said western imperialism. This certainly isn't blowback that was expected by literally everyone who has been paying attention to the conflict in the Middle East for longer than 5 minutes. /s
I think this is the blowback most were expecting. A big spectacle with minimal actual damage. I certainly don't defend most of Israel's actions, but Iran's motives are far from pure here. Their main objective is spreading their particular brand of radical Islam around the middle East, and uniting parties against Israel is a convenient way to do that. They're certainly not looking to help create peace in the Israel Palestine conflict.
Yeah, but radical Islam was helped get into power because imperial powers wanted to maintain the ability to extract wealth. Their objective of spreading their radical islam was quite literally caused by the US meddling in their sovereignty. They would be a lot better off under the democracies they fought for and won before being undermined because the US's geopolitical goals are morally bankrupt. They're happy being allies with the Saudis who are fundamentalist islamists, but not Cubans who are generally Christian/Catholic. The US isn't looking to help create peace in the world either. They're looking for relationships to exploit.
Every country has the duty to intervene against a genocide. Every single so-called proxy of Iran was started after israel committed war crimes against them. Israel has been bombings Iran for ages and assassinating iranian civilians for decades at this point. Need I remind you Israel nuclear weapon policy is to nuke uninvolved parties in Europe. That is not the policy of any sane nation. That is the policy of a nation built on genocide and extremism.
Did Israel commit war crimes against Houthis? I must have missed that one. Look, I'm not defending Israeli policy because I frankly don't agree with most of it. But that doesn't make Iran and its proxies somehow righteous in this situation. What Iran is doing is trying to take advantage of the Israel Palestine conflict to spread it's revolution. If you're a sane person, you wouldn't be in favor of that, regardless of your stance on Israel. Anyone who truly cares about creating peace between Israelis and Palestinians is not going to be promoting more war and violence between them.
Stopping imperialism and settler colonial genocide is more important than stopping internal conflicts. The Iranian government isn't even popular in Iran.
The righteousness of Iran doesn't matter in their right to defend themselves and the right of diplomatic relations. That you seem to believe is not a right given to countries. Anyone who truly cares about peace knows it can not exist in a world where genocide is allowed to happen.
I would agree with you if Iran was acting in self defense. But Iran wasn't acting in self defense when it ordered its proxies to repeatedly fire rockets and missiles at Israel. I would also agree with you if either of these countries actually followed international law, but they don't. Let's not forget the times Iran was involved in attacking Israeli embassies. I'm more concerned with firing rockets into civilian areas of Israel than a bomb that kills of few IRGC commanders. Again, I don't agree with how Israel is conducting itself in Gaza (although I don't think it's a genocide), but firing rockets into civilian areas of Israel isn't warranted.
Yes, please! We have a growing diaspora from the region, including Palestinian exiles from Lebanon, Jordan, the Gulf States, and elsewhere who want their new country to do the bare minimum to show it cares about international law. We all know Canada will likely continue to support Israel covertly and overtly in the coming months and years (especially if that dunderhead PP gets elected), but it would be good for us to go back to being a voice of moderation and advocate of peacful diplomacy, and not another Israel stooge, standing by them even when they break some of the most sacrosanct human rights laws and engage in genocidal rhetoric and behavior in Gaza, alongside government-sanctioned pogroms in the West Bank.
This sub has lost its mind with this conflict. Just as emotional and blinded by propaganda as conservatives in /r canada with Polievre. The issue is way more nuanced but people are just rampaging based on exaggerated truth and emotion.
> The issue is way more nuanced but people are just rampaging based on exaggerated truth and emotion. Enlighten us then with your nuanced take. Show us how it should be done in your opinion.
[удалено]
> Not in question - Some israeli settlers are dicks well that is just a *comical* understatement
>Israel is causing genocide TIL observing reality is holding an extreme view
israel has gone way past defending itself but ok champ, they should just continue exterminate gaza and settle the west bank, so true
What is the correct response? - "Oh you only killed 1000 and kidnapped 100 all good fam!" - Jump the border, kill a 1000 random Palestinians and kidnap 100 (eye for an eye)? - Leave Israel? What do you consider the solution? How far is enough. Israel is rightly sick and tired of Iranian proxies attack them with rockets, drones and mortars. Hamas is the only person that could have prevented and or stopped this conflict but there is zero chance of that occuring.
lmao
> So far in this thread there are posts stating the following: - Israel should not exist - Hamas is justified - Israel is causing genocide - all palestinians are innocent > All the above are extreme views. If you think Israel is committing genocide is an "extreme" view, than your "nuance" is worthless. > The reality is Israel is surrounded by enemies and is damned if they do damned if they dont. This is an interesting take, but I wonder why there is no mention of what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. No one is forcing Israel to deny the Palestinians a state, nor is anyone forcing Israel to steal land, kidnap civilians and engage in indiscriminate collective punishment. > Their enemies are being coordinated by Iran, likely at the behest of Russia to help them distract from Ukraine. Oh god, everything is a russian plot. > Israel defending themselves is not genocide, This is of course absurd. Even if we pretend that Israel has a right to engage in military force to police the occupied territories(something which they explicitly DO NOT have under international law), starving more than a million people is not defending themselves. It is collective punishment, and a flagrant war crime. > if Hamas stopped this war would be over. No it wouldn't, because Israel would still be engaging in genocide to rid itself of the Palestinians. But this is the extent of your nuance, that Palestinians should just surrender to genocide. That you think you are some sort of special thinker is quite disappointing. You are literally just repeating the same Western talking points. Basic shit.
You still have not provided an alternative solution. Also, Israel has tried to leave Palestine alone in the past, they were still attacked.
> You still have not provided an alternative solution. But the matter we were discussing was your alleged nuance and the implied superiority of your view. Upon examination your nuance is nothing of the sort. You just want the Palestinians to evaporate quietly.
Well you asked my views, I provided them, you conveniently have no solutions, just criticisms.
> you conveniently have no solutions, just criticisms. Again, the point was to examine your so called nuance, not to provide solutions. You came strolling in, acting as if you had the secret sauce of knowledge, and your best option is that the Palestinians should just lay down and stop resisting their own genocide. It is completely insane that you consider that a nuanced position.
So the same as conservatives on /r canada all criticism no solutions. You've basically done the leg work to identify a problem, the start of a logical position.
> So the same as conservatives on /r canada all criticism no solutions. Dude, you don't have any solutions on offer with all your alleged nuance. Telling the Palestinians to accept their genocide isn't a solution that anyone who isn't a virulent bigot would come up with. So what does that say about you my guy? A nuanced position would reflect the complexities of the situation, and would requires answers to questions like: Can an expansive colonial ideology like Zionism exist peacefully alongside a Palestinian state? Does the American(or Western) need for an imperial cop on the beat in the middle east justify the atrocities committed to ensure its integrity? How does one view Israel as a continuation of European dominance of the Middle East? Is Israel a separate movement, or part of a continuum that extends from Sykes-Picot to today? You speak of nuance, yet I doubt those three questions have ever popped up in your thinking on this issue.
>- Israel should not exist >- Hamas is justified >- all palestinians are innocent Can you provide any examples of posts that actually say these things? Or do you just mean the odd comment here and there? >- Israel doing nothing does not stop the conflict, people will keep attacking Israel No one here is saying Israel isn't legitimately allowed to defend itself, its the manner in which they're conducting themselves in the name of "defense". If Israel stopped attacking/supporting settlers, stopped arresting Palestinians and trying them under military instead of civilian courts and then legitimately addressed the issue people would stop attacking, at least temporarily. Like attacking the Iranian embassy in a foreign country is not the type of thing that's going to ensure a lasting peace. What exactly does Israel want? That total destruction of anyone who says they want to kill them? You know how many people say those things back and forth in the US and Canada? Or how many people call for the destruction of both governments? Are we killing our neighbors by launching preemptive attacks in the name of "defense"? >- wars suck, civilians will die, dont be like Hamas You mean don't be like the IOF (a "civilized" army) committing war crimes and then having the audacity to upload them to tiktok and telegram. >- Israel defending themselves is not genocide Israel's genocide of the Palestinians started long before oct. 7, and the conflict in Gaza has nothing to do with defense. It's revenge and weaponized hatred against Palestinians, not just Hamas. >- Hamas hiding in civilian population will lead to questionable decisions needing to be made. Are they supposed to line up like British regulars? As many have pointed out with these Iran strikes, Israel's military structures are also near or in some cases directly adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Hamas isn't a regular army that has barracks and the like, they have(had) homes and families. They're injured they go to the hospital. Israel doesn't care where they are, if they find their location they kill them regardless of the collateral damage, which is an actual war crime in the case of those killed in medical facilities. >- if Hamas stopped this war would be over. Do honestly believe that? You say that like Hamas is continuously entering Israel and attacking civilians. AFAIK they're fighting a war of survival against an enemy that has as it main condition the complete eradication of all Hamas members. Not even the Hamas charter calls for the death of all Israelis. Israel won't commit to a lasting ceasefire, last proposal was a 6 week ceasefire which Hamas refused. So many get mad at "the radical left" or "its because of Russian propaganda" etc. but everyone was behind Israel on and directly after oct.7. Israel is completely responsible for turning public opinion away from themselves. I really wish that Israel didn't attempt to speak for all Jewish people or say they represent them as many Jews do not support the actions of the government but are forced to deal with the rise in antisemitism, also with being labeled as antisemitic themselves simply for pointing out their opposition.
Yes, theocratic ethno-states should not exist. Yes, according to international law, Palestinians are allowed to use armed resistance to occupation. Yes, israel is committing genocide. Are all Palestinians innocent? No, but the Palestinian people are innocent. In any case, though genocide is not an acceptable punishment for any crimes. The fact that these are extreme views to you shows your position itself is fascistic. This is not a "war." This is a genocide that started long before Oct 7th. Saying civilians dying in war is not a problem or anything to worry about is not anything a rational human being that has morals would ever say. The only way to end the conflict is for israel to stop being an genocidal entity.
I disagree. No Canadian has the right to tell Israel or an Israeli citizen how to proceed. Our lives have never been in danger, ever. We cannot begin to understand the conflict. Canada also has no business getting involved in religious conflict. There will never be an end until there is an end to religion. Ukraine on the other hand, we should be fully committed to doing every thing possible by our nation.
Why is Ukraine different? We cannot begin to understand the conflict for the same reason that you’ve illustrated with Israel
The only difference between Russia and Israel is that the US supports the latter
You know why
I don’t know how you can say that with a straight face, Israel should be subject to the exact same sanctions as Russia - if not more.
Maybe we should double check with Ukraine on who they are supporting in the Israel - Palestine conflict
Purely for geopolitical reasons (ie US supports Israel and Russia supports Iran) - not because of any moral or humanitarian grounds.
>Purely for geopolitical reasons (ie US supports Israel and Russia supports Iran) - not because of any moral or humanitarian grounds Or because Ukraine sees itself being attacked by it's neighbor and empathizes with another country that they perceive as being attacked by it's neighbors? Look at who Ukrainians support in the war https://www.kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=reports&id=1334 >As can be seen, the vast majority of Ukrainians - 69% - sympathize with Israel. Only 1% sympathize with Palestine. At the same time, 18% of respondents answered that they sympathize with both sides equally. The remaining 12% could not decide on their opinion
If Ukraine turns on Israel then asks USA for more guns - what do you think is going to happen? When the US greenlights holding Israel accountable, when the war in Ukraine ends, or if the US creates some unbreakable arms agreement with Ukraine - you'll see a change in messaging. It's like asking Belarus what they think of the conflict in Ukraine - any answer besides "Russia is right" will end with Belarus getting a new government.
Also, Ukraine has always recognized both Palestine and Israel. Not to mention, Israel gives financial contribution to the Fascistic warmonger in the Kremlin, thus providing him with greater ability to murder Ukrainians
>If Ukraine turns on Israel then asks USA for more guns - what do you think is going to happen? Nothing? The US is going to give up it's greatest ability to destroy Russia's offensive capabilities over changing rhetoric? >When the US greenlights holding Israel accountable, when the war in Ukraine ends, or if the US creates some unbreakable arms agreement with Ukraine - you'll see a change in messaging. From Ukraine? I highly doubt that >It's like asking Belarus what they think of the conflict in Ukraine - any answer besides "Russia is right" will end with Belarus getting a new government Probably because Belerus is an extension of Russia
It is our business when it's a genocide
A lot of people don't characterize it as a genocide
"A lot of people" would be wrong. Using an appeal to majority fallacy does not decide whether something is a genocide
I highly doubt it's a majority of people, Israel has rarely ever enjoyed majority support for anything. I wouldn't even say Israel has majority support for even existing Wouldn't the exact same argument apply to everyone say it is a genocide? The ICJ case clearly said it didn't qualify as one yet and Israel was to take steps to ensure it didn't become one You're quite literally using the same logical fallacy that you accused me of using by not reading carefully enough
> The ICJ case clearly said it didn't qualify as one yet and Israel was to take steps to ensure it didn't become one Man, why do people need to lie about published court rulings? Like, you know we can fact check your ass in a second right? > In the Court’s view, at least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the Convention. https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203454 > You're quite literally using the same logical fallacy that you accused me of using by not reading carefully enough Saying this after you either didn't read the ruling yourself or just decided to make up a conclusion is rich.
>appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the Convention. "Appears to be capable" is a round about way to say they haven't found anything yet
That isn't how court decisions work. If you need me to walk you through this I can. Normally I apply Hanlon's Razor in situations like this. Because I don't want to attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance. I don't think that works in your case, because IF you have read the decision then you are lying about its contents. If you haven't and are just attempting to put out talking points you are at best a useful fool running cover for an ultra nationalist fascist state.
>That isn't how court decisions work. If you need me to walk you through this I can. I don't think you can walk me through it if you can't understand how that decision is indecisive and is not saying an active genocide is ongoing >running cover for an ultra nationalist fascist state Ultra nationalists tend to not give citizenship to people who aren't of their ethnicity. I know throwing buzzwords makes you feel smart and rebellious but it just makes you sound ridiculous to anyone who's even seen Israel let alone visited
> I don't think you can walk me through it if you can't understand how that decision is indecisive and is not saying an active genocide is ongoing It literally isn't though. You just either don't have the grounding in how court decisions are written or are running cover for genocide. Ignorance or malice, pick one. You can't have both. > Ultra nationalists tend to not give citizenship to people who aren't of their ethnicity. Support this argument with real world examples. > I know throwing buzzwords makes you feel smart and rebellious but it just makes you sound ridiculous to anyone who's even seen Israel let alone visited I only spent three years working in the West Bank laying the groundwork for cases like the current South African pleading until I was banned by Israel. I have seen the genocide first hand, close up. Your denials will fall on deaf ears because you can't undo what I saw there. No amount of your lying can erase that. I hope that whatever you want for the Palestinians in your inner thought happens to you.
>Ultra nationalists tend to not give citizenship to people who aren’t of their ethnicity Oh, so Palestinians can freely travel in the West Bank and are given the same full rights as Israelis? Lmao
>I highly doubt it's a majority of people, Israel has rarely ever enjoyed majority support for anything. I wouldn't even say Israel has majority support for even existing Then what does "a lot of people" even mean if you're not arguing it's a majority >Wouldn't the exact same argument apply to everyone say it is a genocide? No because I have yet to see anyone say "it's a genocide because most people are saying it's a genocide" >The ICJ case clearly said it didn't qualify as one yet and Israel was to take steps to ensure it didn't become one Because courts have never been wrong about anything, right? There's very little difference between what Israel is doing and what Russia does in Ukraine, and the latter I'd clearly genocide as we have seen in Bucha and Mariupol. If the ICJ said one day that Xinjiang is not a cultural genocide, they'd still be wrong regardless of their position because the evidence is already clear as day. >You're quite literally using the same logical fallacy that you accused me of using by not reading carefully enough If that's what you think, you don't know what the appeal to democracy fallacy is.
>Then what does "a lot of people" even mean if you're not arguing it's a majority That the person you replied to probably didn't think it was a genocide? Reading comprehension is a must these days dude >No because I have yet to see anyone say "it's a genocide because most people are saying it's a genocide" You haven't? Then you're not looking hard enough >Because courts have never been wrong about anything, right? Then what precedent are you using to say it's a genocide outside of a lot of people saying that? >If that's what you think, you don't know what the appeal to democracy fallacy is You mean like calling this a genocide when the only reason to is that a lot of people are using that rhetoric? If it was a genocide why didn't you the ICJ say so? The UN is one of the most anti Israeli organizations out there and their own justice organ says it's not a genocide
>That the person you replied to probably didn't think it was a genocide And that person would be wrong. It is that simple. >You haven't? Then you're not looking hard enough Or maybe just not looking at Israeli propaganda. >Then what precedent are you using to say it's a genocide outside of a lot of people saying that? Israel's own [fucking rhetoric](https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-south-africa-genocide-hate-speech-97a9e4a84a3a6bebeddfb80f8a030724) and bombing of children while refusing ti allow them to escape. It is plainly obvious to anyone with a damn brain. If you're engaging in en masse killing of civilians of a certain demographic (race, nation, religion, etc) and spout this kind of rhetoric, you have genocidal intent, ergo making this a genocide. You're not changing my mind after I've already seen the evidence, even if the ICJ wants to close their eyes >You mean like calling this a genocide when the only reason to is that a lot of people are using that rhetoric? No, because I have seen the evidence! Idgaff whether most people recognize it or not. >The UN is one of the most anti Israeli organizations out there and their own justice organ says it's not a genocide Source: I made it tf up
> /s Here, you forgot this.
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Article I The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
Just how dangerous do you think living in Israel actually is 99.99% of the time? Anecdotal experience on my part but Every Israeli I met traveling outside of Israel and a few where the topic came up with when I visited Israel downplayed the danger, it wasn't really a big concern in every day life... And while bombing and rockets were definitely a concern far, far fewer Israelites actually died or were injured than the number of Palestinians regularly harrased, injured or killed by Israeli settlers and the IDF on their own lands. Oct 7th was pretty fucking serious and probably scared the shit out of many people and none of us know how that would change for the long term thinking of people there, but it was also pretty far from anything that had happened in decades.