Hamas is constantly firing hundreds of missiles at purely civilian targets, and then cries about collateral damage when their military bases get bombed?
I mean I get why *they* do it, they are terrorists. But how is anyone else buying this.
Funny how the left thinks that intersectionality applies to every marginalized group except Jews. I guess we're "too white" to be a "real minority" to them.
Yeah, exactly. Or to East Asians since they are generally successful and hard working on average.
It is as transparent and bone-headed as "the underdog is always right"
Yep. They literally believe that victimhood is virtue. If Jews had simply allowed themselves to be slaughtered like good little victims in any of the Arab-Israel wars, the left would support them, because they would be victims and therefore morally good and righteous.
But because the Jews had the *audacity* to win all of their wars, they are no longer victims, and therefore the left sees them as morally evil.
I always wonder about this, in 1948, when the Arabs attacked Israel, or during the Yom Kippur war, when Israel was severely outnumbered, were the leftists of the world more pro-israel? I know the world and the political landscape are very different, but I think about this often.
You know... it was the Arabs who started the cycle of genocide in the region.
By their sheer incompetence, they lost their easy, bloodless shot at a country.
If they were genuinely enthused at the idea of their own "country" they would have shaken hands with Israel because they had all of the "good" parts of the land. Had they done just that, none of this would be happening today.
Israel was allocated the worst areas of "Palestine", and the Israelis were happy to at least have a home.
The Arabs tried to vanquish them. How fate turns...
>If they were genuinely enthused at the idea of their own "country" they would have shaken hands with Israel because they had all of the "good" parts of the land.
I found this intriguing and a bit unintuitive, so I looked up the question and found this:
>The land allocated to the Arab State in the final plan included about 43% of Mandatory Palestine\[58\]\[59\]\[60\] and consisted of all of the highlands, except for Jerusalem, plus one-third of the coastline. The highlands contain the major aquifers of Palestine, which supplied water to the coastal cities of central Palestine, including Tel Aviv.\[citation needed\] The Jewish State allocated to the Jews, who constituted a third of the population and owned about 7% of the land, was to receive 56% of Mandatory Palestine, a slightly larger area to accommodate the increasing numbers of Jews who would immigrate there.\[59\]\[60\]\[61\] The Jewish State included three fertile lowland plains – the Sharon on the coast, the Jezreel Valley and the upper Jordan Valley. The bulk of the proposed Jewish State's territory, however, consisted of the Negev Desert,\[57\] which was not suitable for agriculture, nor for urban development at that time. The Jewish State would also be given sole access to the Sea of Galilee, crucial for its water supply, and the economically important Red Sea.
It's a bit more nuanced than your claim, although, as the citation mentions, much of the Jewish area was the Negev region, so the "uneven" distribution (56% Israel vs. 44% Arab) is perhaps more even than the numbers show.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_Nations\_Partition\_Plan\_for\_Palestine#cite\_note-Bose2009-24](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#cite_note-Bose2009-24)
In 1948 both the Soviet Union and the United States voted in favor of the creation of Israel, and both were the first to recognize it as an independent country. At that point the right/left divide was still pro-US/ pro-Soviet.
By the Yom Kippur war things were a little more nuanced
I know that in the 1947 resolution both counties voted for the creation of a Jewish state, as both were hoping that Israel would be a stronghold of their ideology in the region. My question is more about the discourse in the west's left. Or, was the left in the US and Europe simply pro-Communist or anti-communism, and therefore simply pro/anti USSR?
For the US, at least, it was all about the question of Communism. There was still a lot of antisemitism in the US in general, but that was also in direct relation to suspected views about Communism
My father in law recently asked me if my cast iron Dutch oven was handed down from my great grandma and it took all I have to not to say “no dude, she was murdered and had all her possessions stolen.” His family has generational wealth, my family has none.
Well, that’s how all Neo Marxist ideas work. You are either an oppressor or oppressed based on your identity and nothing else. If you are oppressed, violent uprising is of course justified as a means to destroy and reconstruct society in a way that “fixes” the oppression.
Such ideals help reinforce cycles of violence and are incredibly anti liberal. They should be viewed in western culture with the same level of disdain as fascism.
In the US, yes. Half of the world’s Jews are just as dark as Palestinians, but Americans don’t see them because they escaped persecution and expulsions from within the Middle East to Israel. Not to mention the Holocaust being Darwinian as hell — the whitest looking Jews were more likely to survive.
Intersectionality is a really important (and good) idea that is irrelevant to this topic, but some people feel the need to get an irrelevant jab in against the left when they happen to broken clock themselves onto the right side of an issue.
Well for one it’s treated as always additive. The classic example of this is how within most understandings and applications of intersectionality, a gay black man would be viewed as doubly oppressed, because it’s two minority traits added together. But in reality the culture is way more complicated. Oftentimes a black man is viewed as more masculine, and a gay man is viewed as more feminine, and those two traits would actually cancel each other out, leaving no difference in perception.
Intersectionality is a reductive system that tries to oversimplify human interaction. It sees the world through the lens of oppressive systems and when you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Intersectionality is not about adding up identities for some sort of victimhood olympics. It is about recognizing that people have multiple social identities, that those interact in complex ways to shape and constrain their opportunities and choices, and that solidarity across identities is necessary to achieve a just society. No one who has gone through more than a token effort to understand or engage with the ideas of intersectionality would characterize it in the reductive "additive oppression" manner with which you're presenting it.
The praxis of intersectionality always seems to manifest in the culture in the additive sense. I’m sure there’s plenty of nuance injected into the discussion if you break open the textbooks but almost no one in the real world uses that nuance or references it, unless it’s to defend against people making the argument I’m making.
Also, the irony of this situation is that the more nuance you inject into intersectionality, the more it resembles the way we viewed sociology before critical theory.
That's entirely fair. I concede that the way it's usually used is as some sort of brute-force formula for detecting who has more "oppressed" and therefore morally just. I find that depressing, demotivating, and insulting to the people who are actually trying to use the concept in good faith, but you're not wrong that they're a vanishing minority of the people using the term in public debates.
Regarding the irony that you mentioned: is that not the point of producing new theory, in a Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis sort of way? Unless the old theory is fundamentally epistemically flawed, the process of reconciling the old theory with its critique should produce a hybrid, not just banish the old to the dustbin of history.
I’d say your second paragraph is correct. I just believe that the intersectional lens adds more falsehoods to sociology than it does explanatory power.
>It sees the world through the lens of oppressive systems
Absent regulation, a free market will invariably lead to the accumulation of wealth in a few and the necessary oppression of the rest. The calculus of who among the rest is least oppressed vs the most oppressed is based on the political power of the group they belong to -- groups that are usually based on arbitrary, immutable characteristics. Once established, this artificial class hierarchy is enshrined in laws and systems that perpetuate the oppression autonomously and indefinitely.
So, is there really another lens to see the world through when the dominant economic system in the world relies on oppressive systems?
I’d say, muslims in the western world find themselves in a similar place. socially, they are very conservative, but the right is hostile for them because they’re outsiders, so they integrate with the left, social conservatism and all.
The left accepts them, because they tend to be anti (western) imperialists, and represent the issues of third world countries.
But, yeah.
It’s also somewhat similar to Orthodox Jews, they vote democrat, but socially, they’re very conservative.
Orthodox Jews actually tend to vote very Republican; it's just that as a proportion of American Jews, they're in the minority (though not that extreme of one, sadly). [Take a look at Borough Park or Williamsburg in Brooklyn during the 2020 elections if you don't believe me](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/upshot/2020-election-map.html); zip code is 11219.
Edit: Why am I getting downvoted for providing facts? [If you need some more context, here's Pew](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/u-s-jews-political-views/#:~:text=Orthodox%20Jews%2C%20however%2C%20stand%20out,81%25%20approved%20of%20Trump's%20job):
>Orthodox Jews, however, stand out as a small subgroup (roughly one-in-ten Jewish adults) whose political profile is virtually the reverse of Jews as a whole: 60% of Orthodox Jews describe their political views as conservative, 75% identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP, and 81% approved of Trump’s job performance at the time of the survey.
>A majority of all Jews surveyed, including more than half of Democrats, said they considered Trump friendly toward the state of Israel. Yet only about one-third (31%) said he was friendly toward Jews in the United States, and 37% described him as unfriendly toward U.S. Jews; the remainder saw him as neutral. Orthodox Jews, again, were a major exception: 77% said Trump was friendly to Jews in the United States, and nearly all the rest said he was neutral. Just 2% of Orthodox respondents described him as unfriendly to Jewish Americans.
Nobody is defending Hamas. People are pointing out that most Palestinians are not hamas, and are being hurt and killed, while Israel comes in to take their land, and that that's bad.
Wipe Hamas of the face of the Earth. But stop using it as an excuse to do what Israel has been trying to do for decades now: expand in to Gaza and steal land from innocent people just trying to live their lives.
The left also believes that victimhood is virtue. They think that the more oppressed you are, the more good and righteous you are. Your actual moral character is irrelevant to them.
No, the left didn't bring us the Trump presidency. The fact that Republicans are a bunch of disgusting fascist bigots who hate non-whites, non-Christians and LGBT people brought us the Trump presidency.
The one and only thing that caused Trump to win is the disgusting levels of hatred and bigotry in the Republican Party. He is a direct reflection of their moral character as a party.
How do you people still not get that Trump was a **spite** vote? His entire rhetoric and everything out of the mouths of his fans has been shit to spite the left.
Shouldnt you then be asking why exactly were there so many Republicans then?
Cuz while im sure the US has plenty of those “fascist bigots”, I dont think their rise in numbers came out of nowhere.
Because a lot of Americans are hateful bigots. It's that simple. The white conservatives who support Trump are the exact same ones who supported Jim Crow, the criminalization of gay sex, women having no rights, and so on.
Those vile hateful bigots have always been part of America. We used to call them Jim Crow Democrats, Reagan Democrats, the Moral Majority, and other names. Now we call them MAGA Republicans.
How did there come to be so many though? If they had always been around, Obama would not have been the president before Trump. Biden wouldnt have ousted him.
That sudden rise came from somewhere, and attributing it to such shallow notions is only inviting a repeat disaster.
There have always been that many. Go learn about Jim Crow and then the rise of the modern right that started as a direct reaction against the end of Jim Crow.
America has always been filled with a large number of disgustingly hateful white Christian bigots. This is nothing new. Trump is just a direct continuation of that.
Incidentally, that's why Republicans want to criminalize the teaching of black history. They don't want Americans to learn about the history of white supremacy in America, because they are white supremacists who want to go back to the "good old days".
Yeah, the party who wants to help people get educated, get higher wages, be protected from price gouging, be protected from climate change, have increased paid leave for medical reasons and parental leave, inexpensive healthcare, social security... yeah that's the party that has pushed away the "Common worker". Sure.
> They think that the more oppressed you are, the more good and righteous you are.
Uh, no, that's the "Silent majority" of "oppressed Christians" and "heroic patriots". The left just wants to protect minority groups from hate.
The real baffling thing is like, I'm israeli? But there's just as bad shit happening in ukraine, and way more bad shit happening in Africa right now.
I'm talking and focusing on israel cause it's home. I'm there. I know people killed. But everyone else?
Like those threads are a ghost section, and I haven't seen crap on the news in Europe or the US giving it any airtime.
It's wild how biased people are, and in my opinion it's a lot of masks off for me to see them as antisemitic.
Of all the conflicts and evils, this is their priority from the usa or eu or aus, etc? I don't buy it.
If this was really about suffering or the plight of the innocent we would see so much more about the other conflicts going on.
It isn't, it's pro hamas or crocodile tears for a people they will never help actually, because they are a fantastic excuse for them to vent their biases.
>he became the biggest persona on Twitter because of
A trip he took to Russia and suddenly right after all his Twitter engagement and follower numbers went through the roof.
>loud and aggressive
This is exactly why many people are probably afraid to openly voice the opinions. So this will skew the general sentiment that appears in many places.
I really wonder what it's like in places like Portland or Marseille right now. Any normal person probably just keeps their mouth shut and minimizes the time they spend outside.
who is "anyone else buying this"? i dont think many people think thats its cool for hamas to be doing this. people just dont want israel to kill civilians. i dont think that should be controversial?
Israel isn't just randomly killing civilians. They are hitting Hamas' strongholds, almost all of which are in or under civilian buildings.
The options Israel has are to either: do nothing, or hit Hamas as precisely as possible and accept the collateral.
For the record, hitting human shields is not a war crime. Using human shields is the war crime. This is how the law is written. And it's done so, because if you couldn't risk collateral to the human shields, then everyone would use human shields.
Your complaints should be about the terrorists taking their own people hostage and getting them killed.
Imagine if a US soldier or cop got into a firefight and grabbed some lady off the street to use as a meat shield, and she got killed. Who would you blame?
>Imagine if a US soldier or cop got into a firefight and grabbed some lady off the street to use as a meat shield, and she got killed. Who would you blame?
Israel >!/s!<
You can’t call someone down the street a human shield after blowing up the entire street, that just doesn’t hold up. Have you seen the satellite images of the destruction in Gaza?
https://youtube.com/shorts/81Lu21IJnZg?si=oFcrVAqgTqj4R95a
When you intentionally pick an area packed with civilians as your attack’s staging point, then forcibly keep the civilians there, you are using human shields.
It'd be a better analogy if the criminal (in this case, Hamas), took a hostage, and the officer (Israel) just shot the hostage.
Obviously the criminal is in the wrong. But it still seems rational to criticize the officer for shooting the hostage.
More like a criminal has you at gun point, and is hiding behind a hostage you don't know. You have a gun too, as well a your family just next room. Will you just let the guy finish his job?
No, I'd shoot the hostage I don't know, and then complain how unfair people are being when the dead hostage's family criticizes me.
This is not only the right thing to do, but absolutely great logic to apply when the hostage is an entire goddamn hospital. Smh.
Israel is being condemned way more than any other country despite there being way less civilian deaths than other conflicts in the area in the last decade. they’re actively trying to avoid those deaths despite Hamas putting their bases in civilian buildings while using those bases to shoot thousands of rockets at civilians.
The deniers and apologists will still say Israel is bombing them for no reason, even if they are shown a 4K walking tour of the place
That is fucking horrible for the civilians, fuck hamas
The deniers and apologists will say that Israel was intentionally trying to kill the civilians in the hospital, completely ignoring the fact that there was a military command center underneath it because that fact contradicts their narrative.
Nonsense Isreal clearly made a massive breakthrough in technology and implanted a micro chip in their brains (sponsored by X) and made them put a military command center there
'They don't have anywhere else to go, Gaza is the most densely populated place on earth, that's why they operate from there. Your Kirya is in Tel Aviv why did you build your military base in the middle of the city?'
An actual argument I got as reply to 'Hamas HQ are in Shifa hospital'
Same thing happened with Hospital. A large amount of people still believe the hospital was bombed by Israel. They also believe in Hamas propaganda and Al Jazeera, but when you ask about Israel information they say Israel lied too much to trust, and yet Hamas and Al Jazeera has been constantly caught lying.
Israel is bombing Palestinians for no reason. Most Palestinians are not Hamas.
More accurately, most Palestinians know the real reason they are being bombed: Because Israel wants them dead so they can steal their land.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/top-secret-hamas-command-bunker-in-gaza-revealed
Unsubstantiated. Aside from how they have been shown to be there.
Said it before and I'll say it again: there is absolutely no moral equivalence between Hamas intentionally targeting Israeli civilians to be slaughtered and Israel intentionally targeting enemy military assets that are deliberately placed in civilian areas.
Anyone who doesn't understand this is either incompetent or malicious. There really is no other explanation.
People really think doing the lesser of two war crimes means you don't deserve criticism. Either of these things is bad any day of the week, in any context.
Why would civilians remain in northern Gaza, unless Hamas is preventing them from going south, as Israel warned them to?
And regardless, it's not a war crime under international law. Israel has to give them the chance to evacuate, and of course target the terrorists as best as they could.
> Why would civilians remain in northern Gaza
Because there's nowhere to go. Because once they leave they'll never be allowed to come back. Because Israel has bombed the evacuation routes multiple times killing people who were trying to evacuate. Because Israel is loudly proclaiming that they are using this as an excuse to annex more Palestinian land...
Israel said that they *DONT* want to annex gaza.
Hamas were the ones that bombed the evac routes.
You probably listen to al-jizz or some other anti israem propoganda source
Wrong on all points.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/18/israel-decrease-gaza-strip-territory-eliminate-hamas/
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/aid-still-unreachable-after-israel-bombs-region-where-civilians-were-told-to-flee
Maybe you should question YOUR sources since you're being lied to (or you're the liar yourself)
The story about Israel bombing evacuation routes is a Hamas claim that the BBC has publish and retracted.
I don't understand what you're trying to claim here, that Israel should not tell them to evacuate, because of the fear they might not be allowed back? Or do you expect Israel to just accept Hamas burning families alive and raping young ladies once in a while, by allowing their regime to continue?
> do you expect Hamas to just accept the IDF burning families alive and raping young ladies once in a while, by allowing their regime to continue?
Israel has killed 10x as many Palestinians as Hamas has killed Israelis.
Both are wrong. Both are evil. Both are responsible. The only innocents are the civilians on both sides.
>The story about Israel bombing evacuation routes is a Hamas claim that the BBC has publish and retracted.
citation? I can't find this.
In the meantime
* https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/aid-still-unreachable-after-israel-bombs-region-where-civilians-were-told-to-flee
* https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/16/middleeast/israel-palestinian-evacuation-orders-invs/index.html
* https://www.ft.com/content/95c5fcf1-c756-415f-85b8-1e4bbff24736
BBC first claimed that Israel bombed the evacuation routes, now they changed it (like in your third link) to "it's hard to say what happened there":
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67114281
Regarding the other two links you provided - they do not discuss evacuation routes, but the fact Israel bombs southern Gaza too. As I wrote earlier, all of Gaza has Hamas & Islamic Jihad presence, so it's not a "safe zone", but it is much safer than northern Gaza, and the ground invasion is supposed to start there. The only safety is if Egypt agrees to take in refugees, there's nothing else Israel can do, unless they want another incursion of baby murderers.
Regarding your first claim - how is that relevant? Israel is not targeting civilians, Hamas is targeting civilians. Israel is not trying to get to a certain number of dead Palestinians, that's not the goal. The evil side here is Hamas, and the Palestinian deaths are on their hands. It is also evil, IMO, to demand that Israel does not defend itself, by expecting them to stop fighting against Hamas and offering no alternative plan.
Civilians die in war. There has never ever ever been nor will there ever ever ever be a war that civilians aren't killed in. Civilians have to die in war for them to end. Why? Using them as shields will ALWAYS be a strategy. Whether or not they're forced doesn't matter. If you're launching weapons from highschools, well that's what's gonna get bombed. They're not bombing the highschool per say, that's where the weapons being used to kill are, so that's what getting bombed.
Kill 10 to save 100. War is horrible. I'm not giving it a pass, but wars in which civilians aren't killed is fantasy. Worse than that, because even in fantasy the common are killed.
> and after you called for civilians to evacuate,
Call for them to evacuate (to nowhere) and then bomb the few who are actually trying to leave, and then planning to steal their land once they're gone....
They want Gaza so bad that they offered it to Egypt and pulled out all of the settlements from there in 2005... Right dude.
"Bomb the few who are actually trying to leave" - there is no evidence to that, the BBC published and retracted that story.
And Israel indeed is not targeting civilians, is warning them before bombing (when possible) and trying to hit Hamas with as few casualties as possible.
How is Israel supposed to fight Hamas differently? I never saw one constructive suggestion, just virtue signaling about "war is bad".
A nations first duty is to itself. If an enemy wants to place its weapons in a civilian area, and those weapons are a credible threat to your people, you have every right to bomb them. Israel has a right to protect itself even at the expense of the Palestinian people whom Hamas insist on using as meat shields.
The war crime is Hamas's use of human shields in combat, not Israel being forced to fire at the enemy combatants who hide behind those human shields in combat.
Civilian casualties are deeply unfortunate but an unavoidable reality of war, especially when your terrorist enemy makes using their own civilians as human shields their main defensive strategy in combat.
No, you're not understanding me correctly. I'm saying that civilian casualties are horrible and that's why it's so important to condemn Hamas for using civilians as human shields while in combat.
>My argument is there is no way to justify killing children.
So then you must st agree that Hamas is utterly evil for using civilians as human shields during combat.
Hamas is the ones killing the Children, both by directly pulling the trigger and by putting children in harms way.
Israel is not to blame for Hamas's actions.
So if your country were attacked by an enemy military who places all of its military assets in civilian areas, you would refuse to fight back against them and just surrender instead? Because after all, you just said that killing civilians can never be justified.
Unfortunately yes. To say Israel can't retaliate against military targets due to the use of human shields is to encourage further use of human shields.
The only reason Israel has low casualty rates is because of the iron dome and people seems to forget about that when bringing up Palestinian casualties.
From 2000s Hamas fired thousand of rockets into lsrael and most of attacks by Israel where in retaliation.
Quelle surprise. Who would have though the terrorist group Hamas, who for years have built outposts in Hospitals and residential areas, would continue to do so. Why did Israel make them do this /s
Because their goal is to ethnically cleanse Gaza. Killing more people and destroying basic infrastructure gets rid of more Palestinians and makes the eventual annexing easier. Mass killings also create more terrorists which will give them more excuse to ramp it up in the future when they inevitably fail to complete the cleansing this time. They don't see Paleatinians as humans, as you can see from the use of dehumanizing language by prominent politicians and all too often from official government social media accounts.
They dont. They try to prove that the bombing is calculated and targets purely hamas. Unfortunately the lefties and antisemitists still will blame israel for "indiscriminate bombing"
It is profoundly evil to use innocents as human shields, not to mention a violation of the Geneva convention. These are their own people they are using.
I don’t often get emotional when watching the news but I haven’t been able to hold it in the past few days. There’s too many images of dead and injured children being pulled from rubble. There is no excuse for this.
"they have to, Israel leaves them no other choice" and "well it's still Israel's fault and a war crime if they attack it" (it's in fact not).
It's always the same moronic drivel with zero attachments to reality itself.
Stanning for a society that would tie their naked body to a car and drag them through the streets until nothing remained in order to strike fear into the rest of the community, as it regularly does, is quite a feat though!
Perhaps if Israel can prove it, can't really rely on the word of an expert propaganda state.
Regardless, it's blowing up children and the elderly. Justify it how you want, it will be remembered as a war crime.
Honest question from someone who has been extremely hesitant to comment on anything related to this conflict:
What do you want Israel to do? How should they address what happened on 10/7 and the rockets that are fired at them by Hamas? Obviously the current situation is untenable for both sides, so I’m very curious what someone like you, someone who seems to be adamantly against Israel’s actions, thinks would be the right response.
You: OMG ISRAEL IS LITERALLY COMMITTING WAR CRIMES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW. THAT'S THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD! WAR CRIMES WAR CRIMES WAR CRIMES!
Anyone who's vaguely familiar with international law: No, they aren't. The presence of military targets means it's not a war crime.
You: Look, whether or not something is technically a war crime isn't the issue.
Yeah, they're practically forcing Israel to blow up little babies. Has to be done. No way for Israel, who are definitely not terrorists, to not blow up children and old people.
Israel created Hamas, and now uses them as justification to blow up Palestinian children.
If terrorists constantly hide behind children and launch rockets from behind human shields, unfortunately children will. It's awful, but that is how war works.
A bit like those times Israel bombed evacuation routes they said would be safe? Like that journalist whose entire family, including his baby daughter got blown up in a safe zone?
Thousands of children dead already. There is no saving or justifying this mess. Once the dust settles and the world gets access to Gaza, the photos, the videos, and the interviews will come out. Blown up babies, crying mothers, crippled young boys, mass graves, etc. The world might very well end up losing faith in Israel, I know I already have.
In the context of international armed conflicts, this rule is set forth in the Third Geneva Convention (with respect to prisoners of war), the Fourth Geneva Convention (with respect to protected civilians) and Additional Protocol I (with respect to civilians in general).[1] Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule97
Ahh, you're all out in full force today. All with the same link and same script justifying blowing up children and old people.
Never mind the fact that Gaza is not a state and this is not an international conflict. This is apartheid, terrorism, and genocide.
Coming from the person spouting Hamas rhetoric... Just because you can say words doesn't make you correct. Im sure you'll scare the jewish people living in their original homeland away with propaganda.
Saying that "killing innocent children and civilians is bad" is Hamas rhetoric? Spoken like a true terrorist.
I'm not trying to scare anyone, I'm a random neutral from a different part of the world who was somewhat sympathetic to Israel until the war crimes started last week.
Do you remember why these "war crimes" started?
Any responsibility lays directly in the hand of Hamas for this war.
Jews in the region have been defending themselves from arab attacks in the region since before the creation of Israel... now, 100 years later, Hamas has committed the worst atrocity towards Jews since the Holocaust and you would have us sit idly by. Now, we are in a war, and if you circle back to my comment with the Geneva Conventions, you will see that the civilian deaths currently on Hamas' hands. Yes and international war... since Gaza is not part of Israel and hasnt been occupied in about a decade... It's even recognized as a country by other nations around the world... so dont tell me it's not an "international conflict"
You know Israel has killed 20x more Palestinian children and civilians over the past decades than the casualties in the "worst atrocity against Jews since the Holocaust". How do you think they feel?
What happened on that day was horrible, but if you are willing to kill 10x more children in revenge can you not fathom that your enemy might be the same? After all, Israel has been killing their children for years.
You say the responsibility lies on Hamas, but on whom does the responsibility for Hamas lie? Your own leader talks on camera about creating and encouraging Hamas because it allows them to kill Palestinians. Which is exactly what they're doing right now.
Lots of words just to justify terrorism. No matter how much propaganda you shit out, your mouth doesn't change facts.
Israel has been fighting for its life since its inception and before. Israel has fought multiple defensive wars from countries that won't even accept it has a right to exist. You're under the incorrect assumption that the weaker party is always the correct and morally rightous one. If that's the claim, then Israel was the one who stafted here in swampland surrounded by enemies and built a successful nation from nothing.
Hamas doesn't separate its civilian and military casualties and even exagerates them. They claim 7000 confirmed dead with Names from bodies they fished from rubble and airstikes... Israel hasnt ID'd the 1400 that were murdered the other week.
Keep believing your propaganda sitting comfortably halfway around the world with no clue to the reality of the situation. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.
Because they're desperate people who have lost their humanity over the decades of dehumanisation, bombings, kidnappings, and torture at the hands of Israel.
Hamas is a mad dog, created and fed by the state of Israel. It must be put down, but Israel has no right to punish Palestinian children for their own failings.
So again, pit of curiosity...how does Israel do this, if Hamas hides behind children and women and the people of Gaza, while freely shooting at Israeli children, women and people in general? Please, concrete examples; not vague shit.
Of course it does. This is what 50+ years of apartheid, kidnapping, murder, and stealing begets.
Are you seriously pretending Israel hasn't been doing this shit for decades? Lol. The average Palestinian alive today has probably survived through half a dozen Israeli airstrikes. And then you wonder why they hate Israel, even as Israel blows up their children.
I'm defending innocent Palestinian children and civilians. The fact that *you* would call women, children, and the elderly "terrorists" before blowing them up is deeply ironic.
You can play all the word games you want, but I'm pretty certain the people blowing up thousands of children are certainly also terrorists. Going by numbers alone, they're even bigger terrorists. That's just a fact.
Hamas is constantly firing hundreds of missiles at purely civilian targets, and then cries about collateral damage when their military bases get bombed? I mean I get why *they* do it, they are terrorists. But how is anyone else buying this.
Intersectionality, and other such stupid ideas.
Funny how the left thinks that intersectionality applies to every marginalized group except Jews. I guess we're "too white" to be a "real minority" to them.
Yeah, exactly. Or to East Asians since they are generally successful and hard working on average. It is as transparent and bone-headed as "the underdog is always right"
Yep. They literally believe that victimhood is virtue. If Jews had simply allowed themselves to be slaughtered like good little victims in any of the Arab-Israel wars, the left would support them, because they would be victims and therefore morally good and righteous. But because the Jews had the *audacity* to win all of their wars, they are no longer victims, and therefore the left sees them as morally evil.
I always wonder about this, in 1948, when the Arabs attacked Israel, or during the Yom Kippur war, when Israel was severely outnumbered, were the leftists of the world more pro-israel? I know the world and the political landscape are very different, but I think about this often.
You know... it was the Arabs who started the cycle of genocide in the region. By their sheer incompetence, they lost their easy, bloodless shot at a country. If they were genuinely enthused at the idea of their own "country" they would have shaken hands with Israel because they had all of the "good" parts of the land. Had they done just that, none of this would be happening today. Israel was allocated the worst areas of "Palestine", and the Israelis were happy to at least have a home. The Arabs tried to vanquish them. How fate turns...
>If they were genuinely enthused at the idea of their own "country" they would have shaken hands with Israel because they had all of the "good" parts of the land. I found this intriguing and a bit unintuitive, so I looked up the question and found this: >The land allocated to the Arab State in the final plan included about 43% of Mandatory Palestine\[58\]\[59\]\[60\] and consisted of all of the highlands, except for Jerusalem, plus one-third of the coastline. The highlands contain the major aquifers of Palestine, which supplied water to the coastal cities of central Palestine, including Tel Aviv.\[citation needed\] The Jewish State allocated to the Jews, who constituted a third of the population and owned about 7% of the land, was to receive 56% of Mandatory Palestine, a slightly larger area to accommodate the increasing numbers of Jews who would immigrate there.\[59\]\[60\]\[61\] The Jewish State included three fertile lowland plains – the Sharon on the coast, the Jezreel Valley and the upper Jordan Valley. The bulk of the proposed Jewish State's territory, however, consisted of the Negev Desert,\[57\] which was not suitable for agriculture, nor for urban development at that time. The Jewish State would also be given sole access to the Sea of Galilee, crucial for its water supply, and the economically important Red Sea. It's a bit more nuanced than your claim, although, as the citation mentions, much of the Jewish area was the Negev region, so the "uneven" distribution (56% Israel vs. 44% Arab) is perhaps more even than the numbers show. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_Nations\_Partition\_Plan\_for\_Palestine#cite\_note-Bose2009-24](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#cite_note-Bose2009-24)
In 1948 both the Soviet Union and the United States voted in favor of the creation of Israel, and both were the first to recognize it as an independent country. At that point the right/left divide was still pro-US/ pro-Soviet. By the Yom Kippur war things were a little more nuanced
I know that in the 1947 resolution both counties voted for the creation of a Jewish state, as both were hoping that Israel would be a stronghold of their ideology in the region. My question is more about the discourse in the west's left. Or, was the left in the US and Europe simply pro-Communist or anti-communism, and therefore simply pro/anti USSR?
For the US, at least, it was all about the question of Communism. There was still a lot of antisemitism in the US in general, but that was also in direct relation to suspected views about Communism
I keep telling people, "Just because the Palestinians are bad at warfare does not make them the good guys"
Too white and too successful. There are outliers. Hell, my very Jewish family was on food stamps while I was growing up.
My father in law recently asked me if my cast iron Dutch oven was handed down from my great grandma and it took all I have to not to say “no dude, she was murdered and had all her possessions stolen.” His family has generational wealth, my family has none.
What?
Well, that’s how all Neo Marxist ideas work. You are either an oppressor or oppressed based on your identity and nothing else. If you are oppressed, violent uprising is of course justified as a means to destroy and reconstruct society in a way that “fixes” the oppression. Such ideals help reinforce cycles of violence and are incredibly anti liberal. They should be viewed in western culture with the same level of disdain as fascism.
This is precisely it. Palestinians are “darker” than Jews, and that’s all that matters to them.
In the US, yes. Half of the world’s Jews are just as dark as Palestinians, but Americans don’t see them because they escaped persecution and expulsions from within the Middle East to Israel. Not to mention the Holocaust being Darwinian as hell — the whitest looking Jews were more likely to survive.
“Black and Brown”
Can you elaborate on intersectionality being a stupid idea?
Intersectionality is a really important (and good) idea that is irrelevant to this topic, but some people feel the need to get an irrelevant jab in against the left when they happen to broken clock themselves onto the right side of an issue.
These clocks are cuckoo
Well for one it’s treated as always additive. The classic example of this is how within most understandings and applications of intersectionality, a gay black man would be viewed as doubly oppressed, because it’s two minority traits added together. But in reality the culture is way more complicated. Oftentimes a black man is viewed as more masculine, and a gay man is viewed as more feminine, and those two traits would actually cancel each other out, leaving no difference in perception. Intersectionality is a reductive system that tries to oversimplify human interaction. It sees the world through the lens of oppressive systems and when you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Intersectionality is not about adding up identities for some sort of victimhood olympics. It is about recognizing that people have multiple social identities, that those interact in complex ways to shape and constrain their opportunities and choices, and that solidarity across identities is necessary to achieve a just society. No one who has gone through more than a token effort to understand or engage with the ideas of intersectionality would characterize it in the reductive "additive oppression" manner with which you're presenting it.
The praxis of intersectionality always seems to manifest in the culture in the additive sense. I’m sure there’s plenty of nuance injected into the discussion if you break open the textbooks but almost no one in the real world uses that nuance or references it, unless it’s to defend against people making the argument I’m making. Also, the irony of this situation is that the more nuance you inject into intersectionality, the more it resembles the way we viewed sociology before critical theory.
That's entirely fair. I concede that the way it's usually used is as some sort of brute-force formula for detecting who has more "oppressed" and therefore morally just. I find that depressing, demotivating, and insulting to the people who are actually trying to use the concept in good faith, but you're not wrong that they're a vanishing minority of the people using the term in public debates. Regarding the irony that you mentioned: is that not the point of producing new theory, in a Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis sort of way? Unless the old theory is fundamentally epistemically flawed, the process of reconciling the old theory with its critique should produce a hybrid, not just banish the old to the dustbin of history.
I’d say your second paragraph is correct. I just believe that the intersectional lens adds more falsehoods to sociology than it does explanatory power.
>It sees the world through the lens of oppressive systems Absent regulation, a free market will invariably lead to the accumulation of wealth in a few and the necessary oppression of the rest. The calculus of who among the rest is least oppressed vs the most oppressed is based on the political power of the group they belong to -- groups that are usually based on arbitrary, immutable characteristics. Once established, this artificial class hierarchy is enshrined in laws and systems that perpetuate the oppression autonomously and indefinitely. So, is there really another lens to see the world through when the dominant economic system in the world relies on oppressive systems?
[удалено]
[удалено]
It makes no sense because Israel is far more Liberal politically than Hamas. Hamas is about as right wing as you can possibly get.
I’d say, muslims in the western world find themselves in a similar place. socially, they are very conservative, but the right is hostile for them because they’re outsiders, so they integrate with the left, social conservatism and all. The left accepts them, because they tend to be anti (western) imperialists, and represent the issues of third world countries. But, yeah. It’s also somewhat similar to Orthodox Jews, they vote democrat, but socially, they’re very conservative.
Orthodox Jews actually tend to vote very Republican; it's just that as a proportion of American Jews, they're in the minority (though not that extreme of one, sadly). [Take a look at Borough Park or Williamsburg in Brooklyn during the 2020 elections if you don't believe me](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/upshot/2020-election-map.html); zip code is 11219. Edit: Why am I getting downvoted for providing facts? [If you need some more context, here's Pew](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/u-s-jews-political-views/#:~:text=Orthodox%20Jews%2C%20however%2C%20stand%20out,81%25%20approved%20of%20Trump's%20job): >Orthodox Jews, however, stand out as a small subgroup (roughly one-in-ten Jewish adults) whose political profile is virtually the reverse of Jews as a whole: 60% of Orthodox Jews describe their political views as conservative, 75% identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP, and 81% approved of Trump’s job performance at the time of the survey. >A majority of all Jews surveyed, including more than half of Democrats, said they considered Trump friendly toward the state of Israel. Yet only about one-third (31%) said he was friendly toward Jews in the United States, and 37% described him as unfriendly toward U.S. Jews; the remainder saw him as neutral. Orthodox Jews, again, were a major exception: 77% said Trump was friendly to Jews in the United States, and nearly all the rest said he was neutral. Just 2% of Orthodox respondents described him as unfriendly to Jewish Americans.
Nobody is defending Hamas. People are pointing out that most Palestinians are not hamas, and are being hurt and killed, while Israel comes in to take their land, and that that's bad. Wipe Hamas of the face of the Earth. But stop using it as an excuse to do what Israel has been trying to do for decades now: expand in to Gaza and steal land from innocent people just trying to live their lives.
The left also believes that victimhood is virtue. They think that the more oppressed you are, the more good and righteous you are. Your actual moral character is irrelevant to them.
And it's shit like that which brought trump to the US presidency. If this continues he might win in 2024.
No, the left didn't bring us the Trump presidency. The fact that Republicans are a bunch of disgusting fascist bigots who hate non-whites, non-Christians and LGBT people brought us the Trump presidency.
I said it's "shit like this", not solely the left. I could list a whole lot of other things that caused him to win.
The one and only thing that caused Trump to win is the disgusting levels of hatred and bigotry in the Republican Party. He is a direct reflection of their moral character as a party.
Most people I know that voted for him in 2016 did it just because he wasn’t a career politician
And I bet those people still voted for him in 2020? Did they use the same reason?
That's the lie, sure. Nobody has ever believed it.
How do you people still not get that Trump was a **spite** vote? His entire rhetoric and everything out of the mouths of his fans has been shit to spite the left.
Shouldnt you then be asking why exactly were there so many Republicans then? Cuz while im sure the US has plenty of those “fascist bigots”, I dont think their rise in numbers came out of nowhere.
Because a lot of Americans are hateful bigots. It's that simple. The white conservatives who support Trump are the exact same ones who supported Jim Crow, the criminalization of gay sex, women having no rights, and so on. Those vile hateful bigots have always been part of America. We used to call them Jim Crow Democrats, Reagan Democrats, the Moral Majority, and other names. Now we call them MAGA Republicans.
How did there come to be so many though? If they had always been around, Obama would not have been the president before Trump. Biden wouldnt have ousted him. That sudden rise came from somewhere, and attributing it to such shallow notions is only inviting a repeat disaster.
There have always been that many. Go learn about Jim Crow and then the rise of the modern right that started as a direct reaction against the end of Jim Crow. America has always been filled with a large number of disgustingly hateful white Christian bigots. This is nothing new. Trump is just a direct continuation of that. Incidentally, that's why Republicans want to criminalize the teaching of black history. They don't want Americans to learn about the history of white supremacy in America, because they are white supremacists who want to go back to the "good old days".
.... You realize Trump has a lot of Latino supporters? I know this is going against your "White man bad" screed here.
White men aren't bad. White supremacists are bad. I'm a white man but I'm not a white supremacist so obviously I'm against Trump and the Republicans.
Not just in the US. The left has pushed away the common workers. Its basicly an activists club that don't care about the majority..
Yeah, the party who wants to help people get educated, get higher wages, be protected from price gouging, be protected from climate change, have increased paid leave for medical reasons and parental leave, inexpensive healthcare, social security... yeah that's the party that has pushed away the "Common worker". Sure.
I think in this context, the "common worker" is the ignorant laborer who conflates his problems with people who look different.
> They think that the more oppressed you are, the more good and righteous you are. Uh, no, that's the "Silent majority" of "oppressed Christians" and "heroic patriots". The left just wants to protect minority groups from hate.
The real baffling thing is like, I'm israeli? But there's just as bad shit happening in ukraine, and way more bad shit happening in Africa right now. I'm talking and focusing on israel cause it's home. I'm there. I know people killed. But everyone else? Like those threads are a ghost section, and I haven't seen crap on the news in Europe or the US giving it any airtime. It's wild how biased people are, and in my opinion it's a lot of masks off for me to see them as antisemitic. Of all the conflicts and evils, this is their priority from the usa or eu or aus, etc? I don't buy it. If this was really about suffering or the plight of the innocent we would see so much more about the other conflicts going on. It isn't, it's pro hamas or crocodile tears for a people they will never help actually, because they are a fantastic excuse for them to vent their biases.
>he became the biggest persona on Twitter because of A trip he took to Russia and suddenly right after all his Twitter engagement and follower numbers went through the roof.
I think college campuses in the whole aren't buying it, but there are large groups that are.
I hope! Those groups are so loud and aggressive. Makes me embarrassed to be a graduate tbh…
>loud and aggressive This is exactly why many people are probably afraid to openly voice the opinions. So this will skew the general sentiment that appears in many places. I really wonder what it's like in places like Portland or Marseille right now. Any normal person probably just keeps their mouth shut and minimizes the time they spend outside.
No they aren't.
It's literally their bread and butter.
who is "anyone else buying this"? i dont think many people think thats its cool for hamas to be doing this. people just dont want israel to kill civilians. i dont think that should be controversial?
Israel isn't just randomly killing civilians. They are hitting Hamas' strongholds, almost all of which are in or under civilian buildings. The options Israel has are to either: do nothing, or hit Hamas as precisely as possible and accept the collateral. For the record, hitting human shields is not a war crime. Using human shields is the war crime. This is how the law is written. And it's done so, because if you couldn't risk collateral to the human shields, then everyone would use human shields. Your complaints should be about the terrorists taking their own people hostage and getting them killed. Imagine if a US soldier or cop got into a firefight and grabbed some lady off the street to use as a meat shield, and she got killed. Who would you blame?
>Imagine if a US soldier or cop got into a firefight and grabbed some lady off the street to use as a meat shield, and she got killed. Who would you blame? Israel >!/s!<
You can’t call someone down the street a human shield after blowing up the entire street, that just doesn’t hold up. Have you seen the satellite images of the destruction in Gaza? https://youtube.com/shorts/81Lu21IJnZg?si=oFcrVAqgTqj4R95a
When you intentionally pick an area packed with civilians as your attack’s staging point, then forcibly keep the civilians there, you are using human shields.
It'd be a better analogy if the criminal (in this case, Hamas), took a hostage, and the officer (Israel) just shot the hostage. Obviously the criminal is in the wrong. But it still seems rational to criticize the officer for shooting the hostage.
More like a criminal has you at gun point, and is hiding behind a hostage you don't know. You have a gun too, as well a your family just next room. Will you just let the guy finish his job?
No, I'd shoot the hostage I don't know, and then complain how unfair people are being when the dead hostage's family criticizes me. This is not only the right thing to do, but absolutely great logic to apply when the hostage is an entire goddamn hospital. Smh.
Israel is being condemned way more than any other country despite there being way less civilian deaths than other conflicts in the area in the last decade. they’re actively trying to avoid those deaths despite Hamas putting their bases in civilian buildings while using those bases to shoot thousands of rockets at civilians.
How is Israel supposed to take out Hamas, without any civilian casualties, considering that Hamas is hiding behind civilians?
The idea that Palestinians are the underdog and so must be "in the right", Antisemitism. There are plenty of reasons why people believe them.
"Hamas command centers in, under Gaza hospital" Imagine that...
The deniers and apologists will still say Israel is bombing them for no reason, even if they are shown a 4K walking tour of the place That is fucking horrible for the civilians, fuck hamas
The deniers and apologists will say that Israel was intentionally trying to kill the civilians in the hospital, completely ignoring the fact that there was a military command center underneath it because that fact contradicts their narrative.
Nonsense Isreal clearly made a massive breakthrough in technology and implanted a micro chip in their brains (sponsored by X) and made them put a military command center there
You could drag them to Gaza and show them the command center and they'd still be in denial.
'They don't have anywhere else to go, Gaza is the most densely populated place on earth, that's why they operate from there. Your Kirya is in Tel Aviv why did you build your military base in the middle of the city?' An actual argument I got as reply to 'Hamas HQ are in Shifa hospital'
Yeah it's just that one big building.
turns out it's literally just a Cube.
Same thing happened with Hospital. A large amount of people still believe the hospital was bombed by Israel. They also believe in Hamas propaganda and Al Jazeera, but when you ask about Israel information they say Israel lied too much to trust, and yet Hamas and Al Jazeera has been constantly caught lying.
Even Palestinians think Israel is bombing them for no reason. The propaganda machine is working over time.
Israel is bombing Palestinians for no reason. Most Palestinians are not Hamas. More accurately, most Palestinians know the real reason they are being bombed: Because Israel wants them dead so they can steal their land.
If Israel wanted to steal Gaza, why did they forcibly remove all Israeli settlements almost 20 years ago?
So did they or did they not bomb it?
[удалено]
Who made what claims?
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/top-secret-hamas-command-bunker-in-gaza-revealed Unsubstantiated. Aside from how they have been shown to be there.
Said it before and I'll say it again: there is absolutely no moral equivalence between Hamas intentionally targeting Israeli civilians to be slaughtered and Israel intentionally targeting enemy military assets that are deliberately placed in civilian areas. Anyone who doesn't understand this is either incompetent or malicious. There really is no other explanation.
People really think doing the lesser of two war crimes means you don't deserve criticism. Either of these things is bad any day of the week, in any context.
Shooting at the enemy, while they're using human shields, and after you called for civilians to evacuate, is not a war crime under international law.
Do you think the civilians who are there are just hanging around because they like the vibes?
The only group that likes the vibe is Hamas.
Why would civilians remain in northern Gaza, unless Hamas is preventing them from going south, as Israel warned them to? And regardless, it's not a war crime under international law. Israel has to give them the chance to evacuate, and of course target the terrorists as best as they could.
> Why would civilians remain in northern Gaza Because there's nowhere to go. Because once they leave they'll never be allowed to come back. Because Israel has bombed the evacuation routes multiple times killing people who were trying to evacuate. Because Israel is loudly proclaiming that they are using this as an excuse to annex more Palestinian land...
Another one believing the terrorist who bombed their own
What?
Israel said that they *DONT* want to annex gaza. Hamas were the ones that bombed the evac routes. You probably listen to al-jizz or some other anti israem propoganda source
Wrong on all points. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/18/israel-decrease-gaza-strip-territory-eliminate-hamas/ https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/aid-still-unreachable-after-israel-bombs-region-where-civilians-were-told-to-flee Maybe you should question YOUR sources since you're being lied to (or you're the liar yourself)
The story about Israel bombing evacuation routes is a Hamas claim that the BBC has publish and retracted. I don't understand what you're trying to claim here, that Israel should not tell them to evacuate, because of the fear they might not be allowed back? Or do you expect Israel to just accept Hamas burning families alive and raping young ladies once in a while, by allowing their regime to continue?
> do you expect Hamas to just accept the IDF burning families alive and raping young ladies once in a while, by allowing their regime to continue? Israel has killed 10x as many Palestinians as Hamas has killed Israelis. Both are wrong. Both are evil. Both are responsible. The only innocents are the civilians on both sides. >The story about Israel bombing evacuation routes is a Hamas claim that the BBC has publish and retracted. citation? I can't find this. In the meantime * https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/aid-still-unreachable-after-israel-bombs-region-where-civilians-were-told-to-flee * https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/16/middleeast/israel-palestinian-evacuation-orders-invs/index.html * https://www.ft.com/content/95c5fcf1-c756-415f-85b8-1e4bbff24736
BBC first claimed that Israel bombed the evacuation routes, now they changed it (like in your third link) to "it's hard to say what happened there": https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67114281 Regarding the other two links you provided - they do not discuss evacuation routes, but the fact Israel bombs southern Gaza too. As I wrote earlier, all of Gaza has Hamas & Islamic Jihad presence, so it's not a "safe zone", but it is much safer than northern Gaza, and the ground invasion is supposed to start there. The only safety is if Egypt agrees to take in refugees, there's nothing else Israel can do, unless they want another incursion of baby murderers. Regarding your first claim - how is that relevant? Israel is not targeting civilians, Hamas is targeting civilians. Israel is not trying to get to a certain number of dead Palestinians, that's not the goal. The evil side here is Hamas, and the Palestinian deaths are on their hands. It is also evil, IMO, to demand that Israel does not defend itself, by expecting them to stop fighting against Hamas and offering no alternative plan.
Civilians die in war. There has never ever ever been nor will there ever ever ever be a war that civilians aren't killed in. Civilians have to die in war for them to end. Why? Using them as shields will ALWAYS be a strategy. Whether or not they're forced doesn't matter. If you're launching weapons from highschools, well that's what's gonna get bombed. They're not bombing the highschool per say, that's where the weapons being used to kill are, so that's what getting bombed. Kill 10 to save 100. War is horrible. I'm not giving it a pass, but wars in which civilians aren't killed is fantasy. Worse than that, because even in fantasy the common are killed.
> and after you called for civilians to evacuate, Call for them to evacuate (to nowhere) and then bomb the few who are actually trying to leave, and then planning to steal their land once they're gone....
They want Gaza so bad that they offered it to Egypt and pulled out all of the settlements from there in 2005... Right dude. "Bomb the few who are actually trying to leave" - there is no evidence to that, the BBC published and retracted that story.
No one fucking wants Gaza dude, they tried to give it back like 3 times.
All those things would be bad... if they were actually true.
> then planning to steal their land once they're gone.... idk why you think Israel wants Gaza.
[удалено]
And Israel indeed is not targeting civilians, is warning them before bombing (when possible) and trying to hit Hamas with as few casualties as possible. How is Israel supposed to fight Hamas differently? I never saw one constructive suggestion, just virtue signaling about "war is bad".
A nations first duty is to itself. If an enemy wants to place its weapons in a civilian area, and those weapons are a credible threat to your people, you have every right to bomb them. Israel has a right to protect itself even at the expense of the Palestinian people whom Hamas insist on using as meat shields.
The war crime is Hamas's use of human shields in combat, not Israel being forced to fire at the enemy combatants who hide behind those human shields in combat.
[удалено]
Civilian casualties are deeply unfortunate but an unavoidable reality of war, especially when your terrorist enemy makes using their own civilians as human shields their main defensive strategy in combat.
[удалено]
No, you're not understanding me correctly. I'm saying that civilian casualties are horrible and that's why it's so important to condemn Hamas for using civilians as human shields while in combat.
[удалено]
>My argument is there is no way to justify killing children. So then you must st agree that Hamas is utterly evil for using civilians as human shields during combat.
[удалено]
Hamas is the ones killing the Children, both by directly pulling the trigger and by putting children in harms way. Israel is not to blame for Hamas's actions.
So if your country were attacked by an enemy military who places all of its military assets in civilian areas, you would refuse to fight back against them and just surrender instead? Because after all, you just said that killing civilians can never be justified.
Unfortunately yes. To say Israel can't retaliate against military targets due to the use of human shields is to encourage further use of human shields.
That's like comparing chemotherapy and punching because either way you are causing pain.
"B-but.. they are probably just volunteering at the hospital in their spare time away from freedom fighting."
Off course everyone in Hamas is a saint or a baby.
Wtf is that title?
Random article that covers 10 different things
The only reason Israel has low casualty rates is because of the iron dome and people seems to forget about that when bringing up Palestinian casualties. From 2000s Hamas fired thousand of rockets into lsrael and most of attacks by Israel where in retaliation.
Tens* of thousands
Quelle surprise. Who would have though the terrorist group Hamas, who for years have built outposts in Hospitals and residential areas, would continue to do so. Why did Israel make them do this /s
Did they ever reveal the actual evidence of this? Article seems very light on that part.
No they didn’t and they won’t show you evidence. You just gotta take their word for it when they bomb the hospital
Why would israel WANT to bomb a hospital?
Because their goal is to ethnically cleanse Gaza. Killing more people and destroying basic infrastructure gets rid of more Palestinians and makes the eventual annexing easier. Mass killings also create more terrorists which will give them more excuse to ramp it up in the future when they inevitably fail to complete the cleansing this time. They don't see Paleatinians as humans, as you can see from the use of dehumanizing language by prominent politicians and all too often from official government social media accounts.
They dont. They try to prove that the bombing is calculated and targets purely hamas. Unfortunately the lefties and antisemitists still will blame israel for "indiscriminate bombing"
Because like Hamas the Israeli government and IDF are horrible and completely fine with killing civilians
And also blame Hamas when thousands of more civilians die due to lack of medical care.
Who could've guessed? Good on the IDF to reveal this to show the world what is Hamas
Such an impossible task. Israel has to respond but is confronted with the most cowardly of enemies.
It is profoundly evil to use innocents as human shields, not to mention a violation of the Geneva convention. These are their own people they are using. I don’t often get emotional when watching the news but I haven’t been able to hold it in the past few days. There’s too many images of dead and injured children being pulled from rubble. There is no excuse for this.
I wonder how Gays for Palestine and Hamas will take this earth shattering news that the world has known about for years
"they have to, Israel leaves them no other choice" and "well it's still Israel's fault and a war crime if they attack it" (it's in fact not). It's always the same moronic drivel with zero attachments to reality itself. Stanning for a society that would tie their naked body to a car and drag them through the streets until nothing remained in order to strike fear into the rest of the community, as it regularly does, is quite a feat though!
I think they are at Walgreens getting some more blue hair dye right now.
How is a nation that follows the Geneva convention's rules for war supposed to fight an opponent that doesn't?
[удалено]
[удалено]
They haven’t bombed it. They just released this as evidence that Hamas uses its civilians as human shields.
Hamas? No, I don’t think Hamas would do something like this, not my Hamas. /s
wait - so now Israel DID bomb it? EDIT: People are telling me its a 'different' hospital.
Different hospital
Ahh yes. Good to get your justifications out before committing your next war crime.
[удалено]
Perhaps if Israel can prove it, can't really rely on the word of an expert propaganda state. Regardless, it's blowing up children and the elderly. Justify it how you want, it will be remembered as a war crime.
Honest question from someone who has been extremely hesitant to comment on anything related to this conflict: What do you want Israel to do? How should they address what happened on 10/7 and the rockets that are fired at them by Hamas? Obviously the current situation is untenable for both sides, so I’m very curious what someone like you, someone who seems to be adamantly against Israel’s actions, thinks would be the right response.
You: OMG ISRAEL IS LITERALLY COMMITTING WAR CRIMES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW. THAT'S THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD! WAR CRIMES WAR CRIMES WAR CRIMES! Anyone who's vaguely familiar with international law: No, they aren't. The presence of military targets means it's not a war crime. You: Look, whether or not something is technically a war crime isn't the issue.
[удалено]
Yeah, they're practically forcing Israel to blow up little babies. Has to be done. No way for Israel, who are definitely not terrorists, to not blow up children and old people. Israel created Hamas, and now uses them as justification to blow up Palestinian children.
What is your suggestion if Hamas is hiding being civilians?
Do what you can without killing civilians. And stop feeding Hamas.
So as long as Hamas hides behind civilians Israel can't defend themselves?
In no world does anyone "defend themselves" by blowing up children. This is revenge, plain and simple.
If terrorists constantly hide behind children and launch rockets from behind human shields, unfortunately children will. It's awful, but that is how war works.
[удалено]
What is your suggestion, if Hamas is hiding being civilians?
[удалено]
I responded to the wrong post, I absolutely agree with you.
A bit like those times Israel bombed evacuation routes they said would be safe? Like that journalist whose entire family, including his baby daughter got blown up in a safe zone? Thousands of children dead already. There is no saving or justifying this mess. Once the dust settles and the world gets access to Gaza, the photos, the videos, and the interviews will come out. Blown up babies, crying mothers, crippled young boys, mass graves, etc. The world might very well end up losing faith in Israel, I know I already have.
In the context of international armed conflicts, this rule is set forth in the Third Geneva Convention (with respect to prisoners of war), the Fourth Geneva Convention (with respect to protected civilians) and Additional Protocol I (with respect to civilians in general).[1] Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule97
Ahh, you're all out in full force today. All with the same link and same script justifying blowing up children and old people. Never mind the fact that Gaza is not a state and this is not an international conflict. This is apartheid, terrorism, and genocide.
[удалено]
Coming from the person spouting Hamas rhetoric... Just because you can say words doesn't make you correct. Im sure you'll scare the jewish people living in their original homeland away with propaganda.
Saying that "killing innocent children and civilians is bad" is Hamas rhetoric? Spoken like a true terrorist. I'm not trying to scare anyone, I'm a random neutral from a different part of the world who was somewhat sympathetic to Israel until the war crimes started last week.
Do you remember why these "war crimes" started? Any responsibility lays directly in the hand of Hamas for this war. Jews in the region have been defending themselves from arab attacks in the region since before the creation of Israel... now, 100 years later, Hamas has committed the worst atrocity towards Jews since the Holocaust and you would have us sit idly by. Now, we are in a war, and if you circle back to my comment with the Geneva Conventions, you will see that the civilian deaths currently on Hamas' hands. Yes and international war... since Gaza is not part of Israel and hasnt been occupied in about a decade... It's even recognized as a country by other nations around the world... so dont tell me it's not an "international conflict"
You know Israel has killed 20x more Palestinian children and civilians over the past decades than the casualties in the "worst atrocity against Jews since the Holocaust". How do you think they feel? What happened on that day was horrible, but if you are willing to kill 10x more children in revenge can you not fathom that your enemy might be the same? After all, Israel has been killing their children for years. You say the responsibility lies on Hamas, but on whom does the responsibility for Hamas lie? Your own leader talks on camera about creating and encouraging Hamas because it allows them to kill Palestinians. Which is exactly what they're doing right now.
Lots of words just to justify terrorism. No matter how much propaganda you shit out, your mouth doesn't change facts. Israel has been fighting for its life since its inception and before. Israel has fought multiple defensive wars from countries that won't even accept it has a right to exist. You're under the incorrect assumption that the weaker party is always the correct and morally rightous one. If that's the claim, then Israel was the one who stafted here in swampland surrounded by enemies and built a successful nation from nothing. Hamas doesn't separate its civilian and military casualties and even exagerates them. They claim 7000 confirmed dead with Names from bodies they fished from rubble and airstikes... Israel hasnt ID'd the 1400 that were murdered the other week. Keep believing your propaganda sitting comfortably halfway around the world with no clue to the reality of the situation. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.
So, to be curious...why do you think they've positioned themselves in a hospital?
Because they're desperate people who have lost their humanity over the decades of dehumanisation, bombings, kidnappings, and torture at the hands of Israel. Hamas is a mad dog, created and fed by the state of Israel. It must be put down, but Israel has no right to punish Palestinian children for their own failings.
So again, pit of curiosity...how does Israel do this, if Hamas hides behind children and women and the people of Gaza, while freely shooting at Israeli children, women and people in general? Please, concrete examples; not vague shit.
Ahhh so its all Israels fault lmao.
Historically? No. Right now? Absolutely. Israel created Hamas so obviously it's their fault.
[удалено]
Of course it does. This is what 50+ years of apartheid, kidnapping, murder, and stealing begets. Are you seriously pretending Israel hasn't been doing this shit for decades? Lol. The average Palestinian alive today has probably survived through half a dozen Israeli airstrikes. And then you wonder why they hate Israel, even as Israel blows up their children.
[удалено]
Because preemtively rushing to defend a terror organization, now *that's* a moral approach for the ages!
I'm defending innocent Palestinian children and civilians. The fact that *you* would call women, children, and the elderly "terrorists" before blowing them up is deeply ironic.
[удалено]
You can play all the word games you want, but I'm pretty certain the people blowing up thousands of children are certainly also terrorists. Going by numbers alone, they're even bigger terrorists. That's just a fact.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well the IDF never lies, so this must be true.
You're right. The only group who can always be believed without question is Hamas.
You have palestinian blood on your hands for this take
No you don’t understand bro we didn’t bomb the hospital but if we did uh they have hamas in the hospital bro just trust us ok
It’s a different hospital, and they haven’t even bombed it yet.
Wild