Calls are growing for the UN Security Council to be reformed after the US became the only member to use its veto power to block a Gaza ceasefire resolution, a move welcomed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The UN chief says he will keep pushing for peace.

  • @PopOfAfrica
    link
    English
    53
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Picture a bank hostage situation. Police officer comes in with a fully loaded gun. A bank teller is being held at gunpoint by the robber. Never once in the history of ever has the police officer shot the bank teller.

    That’s what Israel is doing.

    • eric
      link
      English
      541 year ago

      It’s more like the cops throw a grenade at the robber and teller, and when they kill the teller, the officers try to imply the teller’s complicity because they allowed the robbers to control the bank to begin with.

      And then when the robbers rationalize the bank teller’s death as martyrdom for their cause, should we really feel bad for the teller?

      • @Furedadmins
        link
        English
        81 year ago

        Closer to the usaf bombing the entire neighborhood that the bank is in.

    • MxM111
      link
      fedilink
      -291 year ago

      No police in the world would say “ok, go free, and keep the hostages”. And by the way, a murderer would be better analogy than bank robber.
      Also, hostages did die in real world hostage situations too, while police was targeting those hostage takers.

      • @PopOfAfrica
        link
        English
        221 year ago

        You are an ill little man. I wish you better help.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -311 year ago

      Thanks for clarifying for me. Didn’t realize it was such a simple scenario like a bank robbery.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        40
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You clearly can’t grasp the real complicated scenario so he gave you a simplified version to make it easier to understand.

        Anyone with even an ounce of empathy understands why Israel bombing children is always unacceptable. Nobody should need to explain it to you really

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -311 year ago

          So, which is less acceptable:

          Hamas, a military threat to Israel who hides behind children.

          Or

          Israel, a country with a military who is responding to military threats in a way a military would.

          BTW, my original post is asking questions, but you Lemmy Users just keep making it seem I’m pro Israel just for asking.

          • @kurwa
            link
            English
            361 year ago

            But is Israels actions appropriate? Indiscriminate bombing across all of Gaza? Collective punishment? If they really wanted to A) save hostages and B) take out those responsible, they could do a surgical strike with special forces. Raining hellfire upon innocent people just because their might be hamas there is absolutely disgusting.

              • @kurwa
                link
                English
                271 year ago

                Israel commiting genocide is awful. Hamas is just a response to that.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -5
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                As you laid out your question, probably (cynically), hamas. The world has been happy to tolerate some incredibly awful governments - especially if you start looking at African dictators.

                • @Linkerbaan
                  link
                  English
                  5
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  If you look at Nelson Mandela and the ANC in South Africa you’ll find they did the same thing as Hamas to get rid of the Apartheid.

                  When asking nicely didn’t work they started asking less nicely.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            18
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Both are unacceptable but clearly Israel is more so. In a hostage situation, you don’t bomb the neighborhood. I’d also like to point out that nobody is really defending Hamas, which is more acceptable is missing the point entirely.

            Israel has serious military advantage, they can basically force a cease fire at any time. They aren’t under threat and tbh, probably let the events that started all this happen for causus belli.

            The article talks about a mostly symbolic UN vote that was vetoed by the US at the request of Israel. They don’t want a ceasefire, they don’t want their hostages back, they don’t want a solution.

            They just want to keep bombing.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -51 year ago

              I’ll agree israel is worse in hindsight, but Hamas kicked this off with this sneak attack that has led to this situation, so I’d say that is worse. Hamas was so successful in causing an Israeli intelligence disaster, which I feel like caused their military to lash out. All militaries do is destroy, they are not nation builders. Surgical special force operations can take a long time to plan and wouldn’t work since there were so many hostages and they kept moving them around.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                131 year ago

                What about the decades before this where Israel had been killing people, imprisoning without charges, and forcing them off their land? When that’s added for context, Israel is the one who kicked this off.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                21 year ago

                All militaries do is destroy

                This is a fundamental misunderstanding of violence generally. The purpose of destructive capability is deterrence, and hence the protection of things. This is really crucial to get in order to understand anything about violence at all.

                This is why a mother cat bares her fangs when she’s cornered. She’s not attempting to destroy, but rather to prove that she can destroy, in order to deter an attack.

                Weapons, by existing and being visible, send signals that make violence less likely to occur.

                When weapons are being used actively to destroy, it’s because their initial purpose failed.

              • @ghostdoggtv
                link
                English
                11 year ago

                Stop trying to wash Bibi’s ass and depose him already. You are going to get Israel destroyed if you don’t.