Somewhere in Western newsrooms and political backrooms, there must be an instruction manual or playbook entitled “How to make accusations of antisemitism with hardly any facts.” I imagine that Steve Paikin got hold of it and employed it to write his latest column. I am afraid that the piece is seriously lacking in intellectual honesty.
  • @DarthJon
    -2•1 month ago

    Really? Does every country have this “right”? Or just Israel? Cause it sounds to me like you granted all of Israel’s enemies the right to go to war against Israel.> Do I really have to walk you through this? Israel has the right to go to war because it was attacked first and has lived with genocidal enemies on its borders for decades.

    The responsibility of the consequences of a bullet being fired or a bomb being dropped rests with the person who pulls the trigger. This is true even when those actions are justified. Israel still has agency, and therefore moral responsibility. Nothing you said even brings to refute this.> None of those deaths would have happened if not for the attack on 10/7 that started the war. While the proximal responsibility lies with the people who pull the trigger, the moral responsibility ultimately lies with the organization that carried out the attack knowing full well that Israel would respond and civilians would die.

    Says the guy trying so hard to justify the murder of children lol. Just a few thousand more bruh, that’ll make Israel safe.> Deaths that occur during military actions are not murder. That’s why the concept of collateral damage was articulated. This is basic stuff here.

    Your movement is defined not by your words by the actions taken in its name. The moral bankruptcy of those actions speaks for itself .> Actions are being taken to defend the existence of the Jewish homeland, and any other nation would do the same. I’m sorry you find the idea of Jews defending themselves from annihilation “morally bankrupt.”