5 ms·

> What we see instead is that Hammas has less and less ability to harm Israel Well yes, that's why the proportion is like it is. Once/if it gets the ability to

> What we see instead is that Hammas has less and less ability to harm Israel Well yes, that's why the proportion is like it is. Once/if it gets the ability to harm Israel, many more Israelis will die. This has nothing much to do with "systematically killing Palestinians" or Hamas being merciful. It's just a possibly temporary balance of power. Interesting that Hamas fired the first shots in the last conflict, that's not really the behavior of a regime trying to save lives.

tsimionescu 5y ago
The point is this: for whatever reason (mostly, as you say, simple military inferiority), Hamas is no longer harming Israel to a great extent, and hasn't been in the last decade. Why then is Israel still harming Palestinians at the same rate it was back when Hamas was a major threat? The only reasonable conclusion is that Israel's attacks on Palestinian people are not related to Hamas attacks on Israeli people, they are coming from a desire to harm the people or state of Palestine. This desire is of course corroborated by other actions - most notably, the illegal colonization of Palestinian territories with Israeli citizens of Jewish descent.
- weatherlite 5y ago
  > The point is this: for whatever reason (mostly, as you say, simple military inferiority), Hamas is no longer harming Israel to a great extent, and hasn't been in the last decade. Why then is Israel still harming Palestinians at the same rate it was back when Hamas was a major threat? Hamas can't get a lot of kills because Israelis run to shelters, they have a very advanced bomb sirens and radars. Without this I'm sure Hamas' kills would have skyrocketed. So it's not that Hamas isn't trying. BTW a lot of Israeli cities live under unbearable conditions, it has been shown the psychological trauma running for shelters (for years on years) is doing to young kids. I'm not denying Palestinian kids live under an even greater trauma, I'm only saying this is affecting both sides. I wonder what the UK or US would do if the kids in London and NY would need to run to shelters a few times a week because of missile attacks. I'm sure they would seek to proportionally kill just as many terrorists right? It's not as if Israel can just decide to absorb this and do nothing, what country would do nothing in such a state? You seem to have no words of criticism towards Hamas for some reason - because yes colonialism and white privilege, gotcha.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    Do you think that if Hamas and all the other militant/terrorist organizations in Gaza surrendered all of their weapons to Israel tomorrow, conditions would improve for Palestinians? Do you think Israel would accept mass Palestinian (Arab) immigration? Do you think Israel would release its control of Palestine's borders? Do you think Israel would stop evicting Arabs and establishing Jewish colonies in Palestine? If you think all of these things, then you should look at the history of occupied territories much more closely. > I wonder what the UK or US would do if the kids in London and NY would need to run to shelters a few times a week because of missile attacks. I'm sure they would seek to proportionally kill just as many terrorists right? The US and UK are farthest from my mind in terms of potential models of good behavior in such situations. They have been some of the worse offenders in history in terms of unequal retaliation - the US's ongoing twenty-year plus war in the Middle East as punishment for 9/11 being one of the prime examples of unacceptable behavior in recent memory. > It's not as if Israel can just decide to absorb this and do nothing, what country would do nothing in such a state? Again, Israel is the original aggressor here. This fact is of utmost importance - Hamas was born in response to Israeli aggression, not the other way around. Israel could have chosen not to occupy the Gaza strip, West Bank, and East Jerusalem in 1967. Even once they chose to occupy these territories, they could have chosen to integrate them as parts of Israel, and offer citizenship to their occupants - but of course, this would have meant that Israel was no longer a Jewish state, having a majority Arab population, which was deemed (and is still deemed) unacceptable. Would the world be a better place had the Palestinians chosen to sacrifice their own interests and accepted to live as sub-humans under Israeli military rule, without retaliating against Israelis (remember, this was the state of Gaza and the other Palestinian territories between 1967 and 1994)? Yes, undoubtedly. Is it fair and reasonable to ask such a thing of an entire people? I certainly don't believe so.
    - weatherlite 5y ago
      > Do you think that if Hamas and all the other militant/terrorist organizations in Gaza surrendered all of their weapons to Israel tomorrow, conditions would improve for Palestinians? Yes, absolutely. Conditions have been much much better before Hamas came to power. In fact Israelis and Gazans used to visit each other freely in the 80s and lots of Gazans worked in Israel. > Do you think Israel would accept mass Palestinian (Arab) immigration? No, I don't. That's the crux of the matter and also deals with your comment about who the "main aggressor" is. Israel wants to remain a Jewish country, that means settle the descendants of Palestinian refugees in their current countries. Given what Jews have been through it should be clear why Jews feel like they need a country of their own. Given the fact that Palestinians don't really want to live in a binational state with Jews, or in a democracy, and all the bad blood between the two peoples, it should be clear why allowing uncontrolled immigration to Israel is not a solution but a creation of a new problem (probably a new wave of jewish refugees)

tsimionescu 5y ago

The point is this: for whatever reason (mostly, as you say, simple military inferiority), Hamas is no longer harming Israel to a great extent, and hasn't been in the last decade. Why then is Israel still harming Palestinians at the same rate it was back when Hamas was a major threat? The only reasonable conclusion is that Israel's attacks on Palestinian people are not related to Hamas attacks on Israeli people, they are coming from a desire to harm the people or state of Palestine. This desire is of course corroborated by other actions - most notably, the illegal colonization of Palestinian territories with Israeli citizens of Jewish descent.

weatherlite 5y ago
> The point is this: for whatever reason (mostly, as you say, simple military inferiority), Hamas is no longer harming Israel to a great extent, and hasn't been in the last decade. Why then is Israel still harming Palestinians at the same rate it was back when Hamas was a major threat? Hamas can't get a lot of kills because Israelis run to shelters, they have a very advanced bomb sirens and radars. Without this I'm sure Hamas' kills would have skyrocketed. So it's not that Hamas isn't trying. BTW a lot of Israeli cities live under unbearable conditions, it has been shown the psychological trauma running for shelters (for years on years) is doing to young kids. I'm not denying Palestinian kids live under an even greater trauma, I'm only saying this is affecting both sides. I wonder what the UK or US would do if the kids in London and NY would need to run to shelters a few times a week because of missile attacks. I'm sure they would seek to proportionally kill just as many terrorists right? It's not as if Israel can just decide to absorb this and do nothing, what country would do nothing in such a state? You seem to have no words of criticism towards Hamas for some reason - because yes colonialism and white privilege, gotcha.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  Do you think that if Hamas and all the other militant/terrorist organizations in Gaza surrendered all of their weapons to Israel tomorrow, conditions would improve for Palestinians? Do you think Israel would accept mass Palestinian (Arab) immigration? Do you think Israel would release its control of Palestine's borders? Do you think Israel would stop evicting Arabs and establishing Jewish colonies in Palestine? If you think all of these things, then you should look at the history of occupied territories much more closely. > I wonder what the UK or US would do if the kids in London and NY would need to run to shelters a few times a week because of missile attacks. I'm sure they would seek to proportionally kill just as many terrorists right? The US and UK are farthest from my mind in terms of potential models of good behavior in such situations. They have been some of the worse offenders in history in terms of unequal retaliation - the US's ongoing twenty-year plus war in the Middle East as punishment for 9/11 being one of the prime examples of unacceptable behavior in recent memory. > It's not as if Israel can just decide to absorb this and do nothing, what country would do nothing in such a state? Again, Israel is the original aggressor here. This fact is of utmost importance - Hamas was born in response to Israeli aggression, not the other way around. Israel could have chosen not to occupy the Gaza strip, West Bank, and East Jerusalem in 1967. Even once they chose to occupy these territories, they could have chosen to integrate them as parts of Israel, and offer citizenship to their occupants - but of course, this would have meant that Israel was no longer a Jewish state, having a majority Arab population, which was deemed (and is still deemed) unacceptable. Would the world be a better place had the Palestinians chosen to sacrifice their own interests and accepted to live as sub-humans under Israeli military rule, without retaliating against Israelis (remember, this was the state of Gaza and the other Palestinian territories between 1967 and 1994)? Yes, undoubtedly. Is it fair and reasonable to ask such a thing of an entire people? I certainly don't believe so.
  - weatherlite 5y ago
    > Do you think that if Hamas and all the other militant/terrorist organizations in Gaza surrendered all of their weapons to Israel tomorrow, conditions would improve for Palestinians? Yes, absolutely. Conditions have been much much better before Hamas came to power. In fact Israelis and Gazans used to visit each other freely in the 80s and lots of Gazans worked in Israel. > Do you think Israel would accept mass Palestinian (Arab) immigration? No, I don't. That's the crux of the matter and also deals with your comment about who the "main aggressor" is. Israel wants to remain a Jewish country, that means settle the descendants of Palestinian refugees in their current countries. Given what Jews have been through it should be clear why Jews feel like they need a country of their own. Given the fact that Palestinians don't really want to live in a binational state with Jews, or in a democracy, and all the bad blood between the two peoples, it should be clear why allowing uncontrolled immigration to Israel is not a solution but a creation of a new problem (probably a new wave of jewish refugees)