The White House on Tuesday said it had its own intelligence that Hamas was using Gaza's largest hospital Al Shifa to run its military operations, and probably to store weapons, saying those actions constituted a war crime.
What if they bomb you first? Is violence justified in response to violence?
My opinion is that pacifist opinions on violence should be held at the start of conflict and go no further when it comes to the ethics of force progression. It’s just an opinion but don’t expect too much support for your opinion when you are flatly against all war regardless of justification. Hitler loved folks like you.
Ironically, the rocket attacks are not inherently a war crime in the context of the current conflict. It is debatable if they serve a military purpose but literally nobody is focusing on that right now. They are focusing on the blatant attack on over a thousand civilians of multiple nationalities in a face to face fashion and taking of civilian hostages. That is the justification for the current conflict. Prior to that, the conflict was largely contained in spite of the constant and indiscriminate rocket attacks with no military purpose.
Israel left the occupation and Hamas was shortly thereafter elected despite significantly improving living and political conditions. How perverse these incentives and narratives are.
That is the justification for the current conflict. Prior to that, the conflict was largely contained in spite of the constant and indiscriminate rocket attacks with no military purpose.
The conflict was “contained” in the sense that Israelis typically weren’t getting killed. It was not contained in any meaningful way for Palestinians. This is an article where an expert talks about your particular misunderstanding of the conflict.
TLDR: Israeli aggression has been a persistent reality in Gaza for the past 18 years, and that in and of itself is violent. Hamas and Gazans didn’t respond to peace with violence; the status quo they find themselves in is itself violent.
Israel left the occupation and Hamas was shortly thereafter elected despite significantly improving living and political conditions. How perverse these incentives and narratives are.
You mean when Israel started blockading Gaza (which started in 2005, not 2007), killing its economy, and withheld PA taxes for more than a year?
You’ve certainly provided the single most biased source on this topic consistently from the past twenty years. Do you get all your news from there or just this conflict?
You mean the opposite, right? If so then yeah the fact that Egypt is cooperating with Israel’s blockade is beyond disgusting. That said, I’m not sure how it’s relevant when we’re talking about Israel.
WRONG. you see Hamas has previously attacked Egypt on multiple occasions, stealing aid and supplies, smuggling weapons, and even attempting a coup of their entire government! :3
Egypt has opened up its border again to accept refugees, but it’s a very slow process because they keep finding terrorists pretending to be refugees.
What if they bomb you first? Is violence justified in response to violence?
My opinion is that pacifist opinions on violence should be held at the start of conflict and go no further when it comes to the ethics of force progression. It’s just an opinion but don’t expect too much support for your opinion when you are flatly against all war regardless of justification. Hitler loved folks like you.
deleted by creator
Yes, which is why Israel is being bombed. Israel started the violence by its occupation of Palestine in 1967.
Ironically, the rocket attacks are not inherently a war crime in the context of the current conflict. It is debatable if they serve a military purpose but literally nobody is focusing on that right now. They are focusing on the blatant attack on over a thousand civilians of multiple nationalities in a face to face fashion and taking of civilian hostages. That is the justification for the current conflict. Prior to that, the conflict was largely contained in spite of the constant and indiscriminate rocket attacks with no military purpose.
Israel left the occupation and Hamas was shortly thereafter elected despite significantly improving living and political conditions. How perverse these incentives and narratives are.
The conflict was “contained” in the sense that Israelis typically weren’t getting killed. It was not contained in any meaningful way for Palestinians. This is an article where an expert talks about your particular misunderstanding of the conflict.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/11/shibley-telhami-israel-palestine-gaza-biden-netanyahu-hamas-settlements/
TLDR: Israeli aggression has been a persistent reality in Gaza for the past 18 years, and that in and of itself is violent. Hamas and Gazans didn’t respond to peace with violence; the status quo they find themselves in is itself violent.
You mean when Israel started blockading Gaza (which started in 2005, not 2007), killing its economy, and withheld PA taxes for more than a year?
You’ve certainly provided the single most biased source on this topic consistently from the past twenty years. Do you get all your news from there or just this conflict?
Maybe actually counter the points in the article?
hiiii! X3
why are you not including Gaza’s treatment of Egypt in any of this? :3
You mean the opposite, right? If so then yeah the fact that Egypt is cooperating with Israel’s blockade is beyond disgusting. That said, I’m not sure how it’s relevant when we’re talking about Israel.
ehehe~ that’s silly! where are those people gonna go? they can’t go to israel. they can only go to egypt!
but egypt isn’t too keen on more refugees. why’s that?
Actually disgusting.
WRONG. you see Hamas has previously attacked Egypt on multiple occasions, stealing aid and supplies, smuggling weapons, and even attempting a coup of their entire government! :3
Egypt has opened up its border again to accept refugees, but it’s a very slow process because they keep finding terrorists pretending to be refugees.