Yeah, this is the problem I’m having with people picking sides. It’s a giant crap-pile of the worst of humanity. People act like there’s a good side. Nah, everything’s a mess of generational hatred and I hate it all.
There needs to be a cease-fire. Hamas needs to release all hostages and then be permanently removed from power in Gaza, and Israel needs to help the Palestinians rebuild what has been destroyed, burry their dead with dignity and respect, and heavily compensate the families of those who have died.
That may be so, but Israel clearly has the upper hand right now. It’s within their power to put the breaks on. I understand the depth of their rage after what Hamas did, but they shouldn’t soothe their sorrow with the blood of innocents
True, but it doesn’t require killing civilians to accomplish. Just assassinate the Hammas leadership until there’s no one left who wants to risk it. Mossad is pretty good at tracking people down.
Cut off the head and the body will die.
But, that’s pretending that Israel just wants to protect itself instead of looking for an excuse to genocide.
OOOoh now I understand! Just kill Hamas, it’s easy! Wish we’d thought of that sooner. Wow, war must be a breeze. No innocents ever die in wars!
If we wanted a genocide it would have happened a hell of a lot quicker. Bombing the places where the refugees are gathered, for example, instead of telling them to get out of harm’s way.
The whole situation is fucked, and war is fucked. There are no easy answers.
Finally someone that gets it… People think fighting those terrorists is just like a computer game, where the objective is simple and doable. Just stroll on and kill all of the Hamas leaders, which are conveniently located in the same room. Cue the ‘boss fight’ music!
I mean they sometimes literally march civilians in front of their troops in active combat. It doesn’t help that their fighters are sometimes dressed as civilians, either.
The IDF also has to guard those humanitarian corridors themselves otherwise Hamas would shoot down all those trying to evacuate.
If Israel didn’t care about civilian deaths the war would be over on October 8th.
If we wanted a genocide it would have happened a hell of a lot quicker
In one month and a half, Israel has killed 1 out of every 200 Gazans. For comparison, the death toll in Gaza is about 11000 civilians, while the death toll in Ukraine is 9700 (in 19 months). Isn’t that quick enough to you?
Bombing the places where the refugees are gathered
If we wanted a genocide it would have happened a hell of a lot quicker
In one month and a half, Israel has … [many examples of less than total war]
Your examples are clearly designed to create outrage, but you haven’t invalidated their point with your statistics or articles. Israel could have killed everyone in Gaza immediately were they so inclined. They are a nuclear power. They have access to many munitions and tactics they haven’t used and probably will never use.
IDF has been clear that they will attack legitimate Hamas targets anywhere. Yes, even under refugee camps. Yes, even in the south.
Jalabia was in the evacuation zone. IDF has warned that anyone remaining will be considered potential enemy targets, and according to them there was a tunnel network with valid military targets underneath it.
According to your link, the only source for the attack on Al-Maghazi refugee camp is Hamas, which is not credible. It has not been verified by 3rd parties.
So, we have to be grateful that Israel hasn’t dropped a fucking nuke, how magnanimous! Not to mention the little detail that nuclear fallout doesn’t care about borders. A nuke in Gaza would kill hundreds of thousands in Israel.
The previous comment tried to argue that Israel wasn’t committing genocide because they didn’t bomb refugee camps and because they evacuated the population, and I showed that both of the claims are false. The rest is you moving the goalposts.
The government of Israel is at least somewhat democratic. That makes removing it a bit more thorny than removing an organization like Hamas, because one either has to effectively just force an election there, which carries the risk that the same people (or people with the same ideology, if you forbid the specific people currently in power) might just win it and keep things the same, or replace the entire system with something that isn’t democratic, which is generally viewed as a bad thing in itself. It’s also move salvageable though for the same reason: there’s little chance that someone wanting peace and resolution will somehow take over Hamas, it would be antithetical to what their organization even is, but the policies of a government like Isreal’s at least have the potential to dramatically shift if people wanting those things take hold of it.
Sure that can change, too. I don’t live there, so it didn’t come to mind. My desires mean nothing to anyone by me- but I want the violence to stop.
I can’t imagine that the Israeli people so close to the border are just totally fine with what happened to the civilians and likely would want their government overhauled- but again, I don’t live there. I only know what the media as told me, and I acknowledge that all that could even be a lie.
Indeed it is messy. But “removing” Hamas from power is about as easy as “removing” Bibi and his cabal from power. They feed off each other, and blame each other just enough to sway their populace into letting them stay in power.
The problem isn’t as easily fixed as “just take Hamas… and put it over there”.
Bibi can be removed via an election. There literally does not exist a method of removing Hamas other than violence, either from the people of Gaza or an external force.
There’s an infinite spectrum between “not shooting children” and “letting the other guy shoot yours”
Also, this “oh we’re so much better and civilized” act really falls short when it has to be explained to you why shooting children is still bad even when you do it.
As are you? If they don’t take out the military targets, kids die. It’s essentially lose lose for the civilans, but one course of action leads to bot prolonging child murder.
Nope. Preemptive killing is not justifiable. No children are saved by the killing of these children.
In fact all that is being done is assuring the next generation of terrorists.
Wouldn’t proportionality be a thing here? Reprisals would be acceptable if they did not result in a disproportionate loss of innocent civilians. Unfortunately it seems like Palestinian children’s lives are much cheaper than Israeli lives. I hate saying it because I think all children deserve protection regardless of the actions of the people in power, be it hamas or idf.
Also the comparision isnt Palestinian children vs Israeli children. It is Palestinian children vs. grown armed men and women aka Soldiers.
Israel could have worked with insurgencies to target Hamas specifically, without having to bomb everything to rubble. That would have risked more soldiers lives though.
So they are weighting their soldiers lifes at a rate of about 200 Palestinains of which 80 are children.
For comparision. In WW2 about 4 Ally soldiers died for one civillian death in the Axis and about 6 Ally civillians, mostly Chinese, Polish, Ukranian and Russian, died for every Axis soldier. So the war of total annhilation, with death squads eradicating entire villages and concentration camps for mass murder still had a much lower rate of civillian to military deaths.
But they’re not. Unless you’re claiming all Palestinian kids are Hamas, and then if you are, or if your ready to punish an entire people for the actions of an extremist group, you’re committing war crimes and are well on your way to Genocide.
So maybe a more tactical approach would be better for everyone.
Hamas barely has any power against Israel and two wrongs don’t make a right. Killing children is off limits period. Dosen’t matter who is hiding behind them. Also the children are not Hamas’s kids. If you decide to shoot a innocent child you deserve go to hell there is no buts.
Indeed. It would be nice if they would acknowledge the reality of their situation. Maybe they would release the hostages, lay down arms, and sue for peace, if they acknowledged as you do that they don’t have any hope against winning against Israel with violence.
the children are not Hamas’s kids.
The children that they hide behind are Palestinian children. Hamas is the government of Gaza and every citizen there is under their jurisdiction and control until they are deposed; i.e., “theirs.”
two wrongs don’t make a right
War is always ethically shitty, but I see no other option for Israel at this point. If they don’t meet violence with violence and achieve meaningful objectives to keep themselves safe in response to Hamas’ mass slaughter, it’s just begging for more of the same in the future. War is what happens when deterrence fails, perhaps this will serve as an example to those who would consider attacking Israel next time of the consequences.
If you decide to shoot a innocent child you deserve go to hell there is no buts.
Israel’s intention is not to shoot children being used as shields. It is to neutralize the one shooting from behind them, even if there’s significant risk of hitting a human shield. This devalues the strategy and discourages such people from using human shields in the future. It’s the same reason one does not negotiate for hostages, it encourages future hostage taking. You let this be a viable strategy that deters reprisal, expect more of it.
I don’t want to flame but I am just going to put this here: A person was faced with the choice to kill a innocent child or not do anything. They chose to kill a innocent child. Doesn’t matter who is behind them you still shot to kill the child. They deserve to burn.
I mean this is demonstrably untrue considering the attack where they killed and kidnapped hundreds of innocents.
That doesn’t make Israel’s response even remotely justifiable of course. But Hamas is not some plucky rebel group throwing pebbles. They’re dangerous and need to be removed from power in a method that doesn’t kill babies.
Yes? What kind of question is that? If you answer no to that you’re saying I’m no better than them, and if you’re ok with that then what is your moral high ground here?
How good of you to put words in my mouth. I would not kill your children if you killed mine. You’re fair game but I’m not gonna shoot your children and any other children nearby to get to you. This is not a tricky moral question.
I don’t know how to explain to you that it’s wrong to kill their kids even if they’ve killed your kids. Especially when you seem determined to misconstrue anything I write.
Your still don’t get to kill kids! I don’t know what’s so hard for you to understand about that or why you want so badly for it to be mostly justifiable to kill kids. You’re saying that because of how morally heinous it is to kill kids you should be allowed to kill their kids. Do you not see that?
You quote me and then you attribute meanings I don’t profess. I do not say you let them keep murdering, I say you do not get to murder children to stop them and frankly again why the fuck do you want to?
i don’t see that because that is not what i said. you should learn to read.
i said i will do anything to protect my kids, even if it means killing yours. i will not protect your kids at the expense of mine. if there is a way not to kill anyone, great. if not, well, bad news for you - you probably shouldn’t have commited terrorism and then hide behind your kids.
I do not say you let them keep murdering
x
I say you do not get to murder children to stop them
Would you let them keep doing it while insisting that reprisals are off limits?
Yes
Nice of you to value their citizens’ lives above your own. I doubt that will be much of a consolation for your countrymen that you’re willing to sacrifice to violence. Expect more human shields in the future now that you’ve proven the tactic so effective.
What kind of question is that?
A moral dilemma.
If you answer no to that you’re saying I’m no better than them, and if you’re ok with that then what is your moral high ground here?
If you answered no to that I’d say you’re honestly assessing the grim realities of war, where the goal is to pacify the enemy without sacrificing your own people, even if that may result in collateral damage.
For purposes of this conversation you can use citizens, civilians, and children interchangeably. All are examples of collateral damage, and many of Hamas’ human shields will fit into multiple categories.
For purposes of this conversation you can use citizens, civilians, and children interchangeably
no, you cannot, read the conversation again.
most people have closer relationship to their own kids than to some other random co-citizen. so if some clown claims, for a sake of his argument, that he would be willing to sacrifice his own kids to protect… literally anyone else, you know he is a moron, or a liar. or both.
All are examples of collateral damage, and many of Hamas’ human shields will fit into multiple categories.
What if they were shooting your kids while hiding behind their own? Would you let them keep doing it while insisting that reprisals are off limits?
Yeah, this is the problem I’m having with people picking sides. It’s a giant crap-pile of the worst of humanity. People act like there’s a good side. Nah, everything’s a mess of generational hatred and I hate it all.
There needs to be a cease-fire. Hamas needs to release all hostages and then be permanently removed from power in Gaza, and Israel needs to help the Palestinians rebuild what has been destroyed, burry their dead with dignity and respect, and heavily compensate the families of those who have died.
The whole thing is out of control
There was a ceasefire, then Hamas attacked. Hard to rebuild trust after that.
That may be so, but Israel clearly has the upper hand right now. It’s within their power to put the breaks on. I understand the depth of their rage after what Hamas did, but they shouldn’t soothe their sorrow with the blood of innocents
Removed by mod
I dont understand your comment. What do you mean “if only they were at level hand?”
Your comment makes it sound like you’d be hunky dory with October 7th, and then the Israeli response of they had proportional militaries.
Well said. The only angels here are the innocents being slaughtered. The belligerents are all devils.
Interesting that you mentioned the removal of Hamas from power but not the current Isreali government.
If polling is accurate, they will be voted out soon enough. To remove Hamas one needs the ammo box, as they have removed the ballot box as an option.
True, but it doesn’t require killing civilians to accomplish. Just assassinate the Hammas leadership until there’s no one left who wants to risk it. Mossad is pretty good at tracking people down.
Cut off the head and the body will die.
But, that’s pretending that Israel just wants to protect itself instead of looking for an excuse to genocide.
OOOoh now I understand! Just kill Hamas, it’s easy! Wish we’d thought of that sooner. Wow, war must be a breeze. No innocents ever die in wars!
If we wanted a genocide it would have happened a hell of a lot quicker. Bombing the places where the refugees are gathered, for example, instead of telling them to get out of harm’s way.
The whole situation is fucked, and war is fucked. There are no easy answers.
Finally someone that gets it… People think fighting those terrorists is just like a computer game, where the objective is simple and doable. Just stroll on and kill all of the Hamas leaders, which are conveniently located in the same room. Cue the ‘boss fight’ music!
They don’t understand how these people operate.
I mean they sometimes literally march civilians in front of their troops in active combat. It doesn’t help that their fighters are sometimes dressed as civilians, either.
The IDF also has to guard those humanitarian corridors themselves otherwise Hamas would shoot down all those trying to evacuate.
If Israel didn’t care about civilian deaths the war would be over on October 8th.
In one month and a half, Israel has killed 1 out of every 200 Gazans. For comparison, the death toll in Gaza is about 11000 civilians, while the death toll in Ukraine is 9700 (in 19 months). Isn’t that quick enough to you?
…only to bomb the people who are getting out of harm’s way: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/live-blog/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-rcna120252 https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/16/middleeast/israel-palestinian-evacuation-orders-invs/index.html https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/why-is-israel-attacking-south-gaza-after-telling-people-go-there-2023-10-25/
Your examples are clearly designed to create outrage, but you haven’t invalidated their point with your statistics or articles. Israel could have killed everyone in Gaza immediately were they so inclined. They are a nuclear power. They have access to many munitions and tactics they haven’t used and probably will never use.
IDF has been clear that they will attack legitimate Hamas targets anywhere. Yes, even under refugee camps. Yes, even in the south.
So, we have to be grateful that Israel hasn’t dropped a fucking nuke, how magnanimous! Not to mention the little detail that nuclear fallout doesn’t care about borders. A nuke in Gaza would kill hundreds of thousands in Israel.
The previous comment tried to argue that Israel wasn’t committing genocide because they didn’t bomb refugee camps and because they evacuated the population, and I showed that both of the claims are false. The rest is you moving the goalposts.
And the IDF will bomb as many civilians as they need to to remove them from power!
The government of Israel is at least somewhat democratic. That makes removing it a bit more thorny than removing an organization like Hamas, because one either has to effectively just force an election there, which carries the risk that the same people (or people with the same ideology, if you forbid the specific people currently in power) might just win it and keep things the same, or replace the entire system with something that isn’t democratic, which is generally viewed as a bad thing in itself. It’s also move salvageable though for the same reason: there’s little chance that someone wanting peace and resolution will somehow take over Hamas, it would be antithetical to what their organization even is, but the policies of a government like Isreal’s at least have the potential to dramatically shift if people wanting those things take hold of it.
Sure that can change, too. I don’t live there, so it didn’t come to mind. My desires mean nothing to anyone by me- but I want the violence to stop.
I can’t imagine that the Israeli people so close to the border are just totally fine with what happened to the civilians and likely would want their government overhauled- but again, I don’t live there. I only know what the media as told me, and I acknowledge that all that could even be a lie.
It’s messy
Indeed it is messy. But “removing” Hamas from power is about as easy as “removing” Bibi and his cabal from power. They feed off each other, and blame each other just enough to sway their populace into letting them stay in power.
The problem isn’t as easily fixed as “just take Hamas… and put it over there”.
Bibi can be removed via an election. There literally does not exist a method of removing Hamas other than violence, either from the people of Gaza or an external force.
Never said it was.
I have no stakes in the game. Just an opinion
Every government should be removed from power
That’s why you don’t pick sides
For sure. It’s hard to know what’s true and what isn’t. All we know is what the media tells us. Hopefully we’ll know at some point
There’s an infinite spectrum between “not shooting children” and “letting the other guy shoot yours”
Also, this “oh we’re so much better and civilized” act really falls short when it has to be explained to you why shooting children is still bad even when you do it.
False dilemma. There are ways to react that don’t involve shooting children.
Even if there weren’t, I wouldn’t say “yeah shoot some children.”
You’re misrepresenting my position. It’s, “yeah definitely shoot the terrorist, try to avoid shooting their hostages if you can.”
That isn’t an option atm so just a pointless strawman being propped up.
My dude, you’re arguing that a certain amount of shooting children is okay. If you can’t see how this is a problem I don’t know what else to say.
As are you? If they don’t take out the military targets, kids die. It’s essentially lose lose for the civilans, but one course of action leads to bot prolonging child murder.
Nope. Preemptive killing is not justifiable. No children are saved by the killing of these children.
In fact all that is being done is assuring the next generation of terrorists.
https://youtu.be/QkgPYFy7NM4?si=5OEjgnFd4beRTtkH
deleted by creator
Wouldn’t proportionality be a thing here? Reprisals would be acceptable if they did not result in a disproportionate loss of innocent civilians. Unfortunately it seems like Palestinian children’s lives are much cheaper than Israeli lives. I hate saying it because I think all children deserve protection regardless of the actions of the people in power, be it hamas or idf.
Also the comparision isnt Palestinian children vs Israeli children. It is Palestinian children vs. grown armed men and women aka Soldiers.
Israel could have worked with insurgencies to target Hamas specifically, without having to bomb everything to rubble. That would have risked more soldiers lives though.
So they are weighting their soldiers lifes at a rate of about 200 Palestinains of which 80 are children.
For comparision. In WW2 about 4 Ally soldiers died for one civillian death in the Axis and about 6 Ally civillians, mostly Chinese, Polish, Ukranian and Russian, died for every Axis soldier. So the war of total annhilation, with death squads eradicating entire villages and concentration camps for mass murder still had a much lower rate of civillian to military deaths.
But they’re not. Unless you’re claiming all Palestinian kids are Hamas, and then if you are, or if your ready to punish an entire people for the actions of an extremist group, you’re committing war crimes and are well on your way to Genocide.
So maybe a more tactical approach would be better for everyone.
That is how they justify genocide.
Well, didn’t take long at all to find a new low.
Hamas barely has any power against Israel and two wrongs don’t make a right. Killing children is off limits period. Dosen’t matter who is hiding behind them. Also the children are not Hamas’s kids. If you decide to shoot a innocent child you deserve go to hell there is no buts.
Indeed. It would be nice if they would acknowledge the reality of their situation. Maybe they would release the hostages, lay down arms, and sue for peace, if they acknowledged as you do that they don’t have any hope against winning against Israel with violence.
The children that they hide behind are Palestinian children. Hamas is the government of Gaza and every citizen there is under their jurisdiction and control until they are deposed; i.e., “theirs.”
War is always ethically shitty, but I see no other option for Israel at this point. If they don’t meet violence with violence and achieve meaningful objectives to keep themselves safe in response to Hamas’ mass slaughter, it’s just begging for more of the same in the future. War is what happens when deterrence fails, perhaps this will serve as an example to those who would consider attacking Israel next time of the consequences.
Israel’s intention is not to shoot children being used as shields. It is to neutralize the one shooting from behind them, even if there’s significant risk of hitting a human shield. This devalues the strategy and discourages such people from using human shields in the future. It’s the same reason one does not negotiate for hostages, it encourages future hostage taking. You let this be a viable strategy that deters reprisal, expect more of it.
I don’t want to flame but I am just going to put this here: A person was faced with the choice to kill a innocent child or not do anything. They chose to kill a innocent child. Doesn’t matter who is behind them you still shot to kill the child. They deserve to burn.
Kill a child or watch the person behind the child kill your child. Ftfy
Something about two wrongs…
No you killed a child period. This has nothing to do with your child dying. Killing a child dosen’t stop your own child from being killled.
Except in this situation, it literally can stop your child from being killed.
Only in your imagination.
For strangers arguing on internet it’s a mind game. For some IDF soldiers it’s a messed up reality, and their daily struggle
deleted by creator
I mean this is demonstrably untrue considering the attack where they killed and kidnapped hundreds of innocents.
That doesn’t make Israel’s response even remotely justifiable of course. But Hamas is not some plucky rebel group throwing pebbles. They’re dangerous and need to be removed from power in a method that doesn’t kill babies.
Yes? What kind of question is that? If you answer no to that you’re saying I’m no better than them, and if you’re ok with that then what is your moral high ground here?
really? you would let them continue killing your kids? tell me you don’t have kids without telling me you don’t have kids 😆
How good of you to put words in my mouth. I would not kill your children if you killed mine. You’re fair game but I’m not gonna shoot your children and any other children nearby to get to you. This is not a tricky moral question.
question was:
and your reply was
albeit with a question mark, but you followed by explicitly refuting the “no” answer
what exactly am i putting in your mouth?
I don’t know how to explain to you that it’s wrong to kill their kids even if they’ve killed your kids. Especially when you seem determined to misconstrue anything I write.
they have killed your kids and THEY ARE GOING TO KILL MORE YOUR KIDS.
i am literally quoting you. what is there to misconstrue?
Your still don’t get to kill kids! I don’t know what’s so hard for you to understand about that or why you want so badly for it to be mostly justifiable to kill kids. You’re saying that because of how morally heinous it is to kill kids you should be allowed to kill their kids. Do you not see that?
You quote me and then you attribute meanings I don’t profess. I do not say you let them keep murdering, I say you do not get to murder children to stop them and frankly again why the fuck do you want to?
i don’t see that because that is not what i said. you should learn to read. i said i will do anything to protect my kids, even if it means killing yours. i will not protect your kids at the expense of mine. if there is a way not to kill anyone, great. if not, well, bad news for you - you probably shouldn’t have commited terrorism and then hide behind your kids.
x
eh? what? you don’t say A, because you say A?
Nice of you to value their citizens’ lives above your own. I doubt that will be much of a consolation for your countrymen that you’re willing to sacrifice to violence. Expect more human shields in the future now that you’ve proven the tactic so effective.
A moral dilemma.
If you answered no to that I’d say you’re honestly assessing the grim realities of war, where the goal is to pacify the enemy without sacrificing your own people, even if that may result in collateral damage.
the question wasn’t about your citizens, it was about your kids. which makes his answer even more laughable.
For purposes of this conversation you can use citizens, civilians, and children interchangeably. All are examples of collateral damage, and many of Hamas’ human shields will fit into multiple categories.
no, you cannot, read the conversation again.
most people have closer relationship to their own kids than to some other random co-citizen. so if some clown claims, for a sake of his argument, that he would be willing to sacrifice his own kids to protect… literally anyone else, you know he is a moron, or a liar. or both.
sure, but that was not the point of my remark.
They just love their non-representative and in no way realistic strawman.