- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer seemed at a lost of words at the justification being used to bomb a refugee camp in Gaza.
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer seemed at a lost of words at the justification being used to bomb a refugee camp in Gaza.
If they intended to maximize civilian deaths they aren’t going about it very well, they are still calling people before strikes and doing “door-knocker” strikes in rooftops before the real ones. This is war, where many civilians die, not systemic eradication, where every civilian dies.
It’s also worth noting that 20% if Israeli citizens with full rights are Palestinian/Arab and live mostly peacefully. Gaza is being attacked because they are a belligerent in a war, not because of eugenics or a Nazi-style “final solution.”
They aren’t doing roofknocking during this war, and that’s such a thin justification to obliterate peoples homes I’m shocked you’re repeating it.
Why are there pogroms and settlers being armed in the west bank? There is no Hamas there, it isn’t Gaza. What gives?
They literally blasted a whole ass refugee camp killing hundreds yesterday to kill one guy (aledgedly), and are fully blasting all civilian infrastructure. You’re either blind, misinformed, or a disingenuous hack.
Sounds like they still do it sometimes but not often, thanks for the correction.
Where did I say roofknocking justified bombings? I’m pointing out that Israel is not behaving in a way that supports characterizing their actions in Gaza as Nazi-like, their intention is not to eradicate Arabs. I suspect their intention is to clear North Gaza and annex it down to the Gaza river but that’s just my personal take.
Allegedly there was a network of tunnels under the area as well.
I’m curious, what would you do if you were in Israel’s shoes, if your city just had thousands of people murdered and kidnapped then fled into a densely populated hostile territory? What do you think the right move is here?
Because someone couldn’t also be informed and simply disagree with you?
If you want the hostages, you negotiate, not bomb where the hostages are. You also don’t wait 2 days to secure the area while immediately hitting the “bomb gaza” button. The conflict makes so much more sense when you realize Israel cares more about killing and displacing Palestinians than saving their own people. (Hannibal doctrine)
If I’m in Israel’s shoes, I wouldn’t be demonizing and dehumanizing an entire people I’ve stolen land from.
Let’s say I magically became ruler on Oct 7th. There’s only two ways out of the conflict for good, full scale genocide and ethnic cleansing or reparations and a one state secular solution. Obviously I choose the latter.
The issue is what kicked this round of genocide off.
Hamas broke out of the open air prison and attacked Israeli civilians as well as foreign citizens in truly barbaric ways. Murder, rape, defiling corpses, all that stuff. (Allegedly?) recorded on go pros and other cameras provided by Hamas.
And, like it or not, Hamas are the de facto government of Gaza. And I think they “won” the last election they allowed to happen?
An Israeli government that immediately follows up with “Hey, lets give the country that just attacked us and are still holding our people hostage a lot of land, money, and resources” would see themselves facing a coup almost immediately. The US infamously went scorched earth on Jimmy Carter because he wasn’t “hard on terrorism” (and it didn’t help that republicans were actively sabotaging him in the process…). And that was a few randos on the other side of the country. Not the still warm and mutilated bodies of nieces and nephews.
And, as can be seen with the periodic attacks from terror groups in other nearby nations, Israel still needs to be “strong” for political and defense reasons. If the narrative becomes “Just rape a few Israeli bitches and then you get whatever you want” then… yeah.
The moment Hamas attacked Israeli, German, UK, and other citizens: There was no way this ended peacefully. A two state solution is more or less forever off the table (see the issues that have plagued Yemen) so long as Hamas exists at all.
And a one state solution and reparations cannot happen until, again, Hamas does not exist. The hostages are ancillary to “ensuring this can never happen again”.
The only way this would have ended with minimal bloodshed would be if good faith negotiations for hostages had immediately begun… and Mossad and the IDF were able to assassinate basically all of Hamas leadership in surgical strikes while pretending to negotiate. Because anything else is the usual issue with guerilla warfare where the weaker power uses civilians as human shields. And when those shields die, their family and friend become radicalized against the killers.
And this also ignores Hamas leadership allegedly (?) publicly stating they will continue to commit horrifying acts of terror against anyone who is unfortunate enough to be within a few miles of them.
Israel wants Hamas to exist, Netenyahu said it himself in a closed door meeting, and they fund Hamas through Qatar.
Why? Manufacture consent against the exact kind of barbaric enemy Israel propped up.
Human shields is the dumbest fucking talking point. Even if it were true, does that justify all the collateral damage to literal children? Half of Gaza is under 18.
Hamas won because, the United States forced an election the people said they werent ready for. Moderates split the vote, and a failed western backed coup solidified their power. That also happened 16 years ago, long before many of those Gazans were even alive let alone old enough to vote.
So riddle me this, would you be OK with Hamas having guided rockets to take out Israeli targets? If so, what’s the ratio of civilian to militant do you think is alright? Think hard before you make a double standard for yourself.
Reparations can and should happen, however I don’t think that a one-state solution is viable presently. Each side is still launching bloody attacks against the other; maybe there will be a remote possibility of this after a few generations of peace. If both sides secular and wanted secular government it would certainly provide a lot of common ground.
Only one party has the power to make that a reality, and it isn’t the Palestinians.
How so? That doesn’t fit with my information. Israel has always been willing to negotiate for peace but as they hold all the cards when it comes to the military and realpolitik situation it needs to be on their terms. Palestine has been unwilling to surrender and make viable peace terms since 1948, despite losing every war. In fact, Hamas has it in their original charter that:
This is why things have gotten so bad for them, a refusal to pacify and make concessions. This is a prerequisite to any one-state solution. The Peel commission found that a one-state solution wasn’t viable in the 30’s because animosity was so high after the Arab revolt and I suspect not much has changed since then. However, I’d love to be proven wrong. It seems like a bad idea to try and compromise and form a stable government with enemies who actively want to genocide you, like Hamas does.
As for a secular government, neither party has one but Israel seems a hell of a lot more secular than Gaza, whose government appears to be enforcing something like Sharia Law on the people there:
Islam is very intolerant to those who wish to become secular/leave the religion, as per their rules regarding apostates:
Jews are comparatively very tolerant of secularists/atheists among them.
There’s no Hamas in the west bank. Why is Israel killing and driving them out? Performing pogroms and all that.
Also why should they be peaceful after the literal Nakba? Israel are the ones on stolen land dude.
I’m not sure what incidents you’re referring to, can you refer me to any articles?
Gaza (Hamas) is being treated very differently than the West Bank (PA) by Israel presently.
That’s exactly the sort of thinking that led to Gaza’s current situation, it completely ignores the realpolitik of their situation and will lead to predictable reprisals from a superior force. “Why should I stop poking the bear, it’s in my cave!” Well, here we are, another predictable and preventable mauling.