4 ms·

Isreal has been trying to keep their morals for decades using defensive measures. They constructed probaby best in the world air defense systems to protect thei

Isreal has been trying to keep their morals for decades using defensive measures. They constructed probaby best in the world air defense systems to protect their civilians daily. They could just send one rocket for one they were targetted by instead and Gaza would be inhabitable decades ago. So when they were rewarded for their restraint on 7 Oct with savagery I'm not really surprised that huge part of the world gives them now blank checkque to do what they believe they need to. Not to mention that what Putin did to Ukrainie softened the morals of people to "it's ok if it's for the right reasons".

CrzyLngPwd 3y ago
[flagged]
- shenberg 3y ago
  If you're seriously suggesting that attacking unarmed civilians intentionally, killing parents in front of their children and then kidnapping the children, slaughtering defenseless party-goers, etc. is what I any resistance movement would do, that's ridiculous. If Hamas would only have attacked military targets, there would be no legitimacy to Israel's actions. However, what actually happened was that they attacked plenty of civilian targets, in a premeditated fashion, in areas that are recognized internationally to be part of Israel.
  - 616c 3y ago
    Perhaps you should read about what Haganah did to the British before the establishment of Israel in 1948.
    - reitanqild 3y ago
      Perhaps you shouldn't use something that happened 75 years ago against someone to justify something someone else did a month ago?
    - raxxorraxor 3y ago
      Or the Arabs that called Jews dogs that should be subjugated 20 years before that? Don't be ridiculous.
  - immibis 3y ago
    To paraphrase JFK, those who make peaceful resistance impossible make violent resistance inevitable.
    - raxxorraxor 3y ago
      This would justify the retaliation by Israel to any extend.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      Something being inevitable is different from it being justified. Hamas’ and Palestinian Jihad’s violence is a predictable response to Israel’s abandonment of two-party talks and its right wing’s ascendency within its politics. That doesn’t justify gunning down kids at a concert. Similarly, the IDF levelling much of Gaza in retribution was a predictable repercussion of killing Israeli civilians, including children. That doesn’t make their deaths fair.
      - immibis 3y ago
        If your choices make something inevitable, do you have full rights to complain about what you made inevitable happening?
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > do you have full rights to complain about what you made inevitable happening? No, it undermines the complaint’s legitimacy. That doesn’t mean we must be unsympathetic; but it is a factor. Also, these decisions are often made by individuals within groups. Collective punishment is immoral. It’s also quite likely to produce blowback.
  - naasking 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - CrzyLngPwd 3y ago
    [flagged]
- shilgapira 3y ago
  > If your land was occupied by an invading force armed and financed by the US and its allies would you sit back and do nothing while that force murdered your people and stole your property, or would you have done exactly what Hamas did on October the 7th? No, I would have accepted one of the many peace proposals the other side offered. Regardless, your framing of how there are only two binary options – (1) doing nothing to advance my political goals, or (2) resorting to the most savage terrorism imaginable – and no other options between them is appalling and telling.
  - immibis 3y ago
    [flagged]
- raxxorraxor 3y ago
  This is not a valid comparison. Yes, some Palestinians were displaced, even more Jews were displaced at the same time. Even by total numbers, which is hard, since Jews are always a minority and even if you don't count European Jews and just look at the surrounding countries. One injustice doesn't excuse the other, but people need to move on. Germans did need to part with land as well. The stolen property story would need some correcting here.
- Seanambers 3y ago
  Israel is a state established by UN resolution. If you really want to blame someone you can blame the British. The British incidentally also promised a Palestinian state to the Palestinians and it was provisioned in the resolution but the Palestinians rejected it. However, if we really were to do this comparison. The Israelis have have been way to nice. The Palestinians have been on the loosing side of 4-5 wars - its unprecedented. To the victor goes the spoils, thats how it is in the real world. If there is cause for a Palestinian state, then there is also cause for a Jewish state. Problem is the Palestinians rejects this notion and want the Jewish state gone.
Ma8ee 3y ago
Missing from your narrative is the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israeli settlers. The settlers are harassing and seizing land from Palestinians. Those settlers are protected by the Israeli Defense Forces. All of this is well documented and are repeatedly criticised by many well reputable human rights organisations. So, no, it's not restrain that is rewarded by these savage attacks. And while I condemn the terrorist attacks on innocent civilians by Hamas, we should not pretend they came out of a vacuum, or that the state of Israel is a pure peace loving innocent victim in all this.
- grumple 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - immibis 3y ago
    Well that appears to demonstrate that Hamas works and prevents even greater harm than the harm carried out by Hamas. Probably not a message Israel wants to send.
    - grumple 3y ago
      That is the exact opposite of the message that was sent.
- shilgapira 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - Ma8ee 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - hn_go_brrrrr 3y ago
      It's not ridiculous. Your statement reads as "I condemn it, but they really had it coming", which a reasonable person could understand to mean "I don't really condemn it".
toyg 3y ago
> They could just send one rocket Putin could do the same to half of Europe, eh. The fact that he doesn't, doesn't mean his actions are justified. Not applying overwhelming force doesn't mean that applying any other type of force is justified. > Isreal has been trying to keep their morals for decades There are no morals left, in that conflict, since the 1982 mass murder of thousands of Lebanese civilians in Beirut at the very least - if not earlier. Both sides have happily displayed the worst in human nature, multiple times, over the last 70 years. > what Putin did to Ukrainie softened the morals of people to "it's ok if it's for the right reasons". Again, that's hardly new. From Vietnam to Desert Storm to Afghanistan, significant chunks of any public opinion will determine it's ok to apply violence. That doesn't mean it's morally justified - morals are determined in ways that go beyond counting how many individuals are pro or against something.
- mlrtime 3y ago
  This is not a "both sides" issue. Thought experiment for you. Q: What would happen today if Hamas and supporters permanently gave up all their weapons and surrendered? A: Israel would immediately stop any wartime action. Q: What would happen today if Israel gave up it's defenses and military, took down the borders? A: Iran and Hamas would kill every last Jew in Israel. They have to, it is their charter. Also, how many Jews and Christians are living in Gaza openly vs Israel? What would happen to them in the above?
  - toyg 3y ago
    Those answers are preposterous and your argument is laughable. This is indeed a "both sides" issue, because otherwise it wouldn't have remained a hot conflict after 70 years. There are legitimate and now multi-generational grievances on both sides, that are really difficult to recompose. You can't engage with simplistic attitudes if you want to be intellectually honest.
    - raxxorraxor 3y ago
      You don't like the argument because you know it to be true. The exception is the settlements in the West Bank, but those began after extremism in Israel rose considerably. That is a severe problem, but if people excuse terrorism as resistance, the same would apply here.

CrzyLngPwd 3y ago

[flagged]

shenberg 3y ago
If you're seriously suggesting that attacking unarmed civilians intentionally, killing parents in front of their children and then kidnapping the children, slaughtering defenseless party-goers, etc. is what I any resistance movement would do, that's ridiculous. If Hamas would only have attacked military targets, there would be no legitimacy to Israel's actions. However, what actually happened was that they attacked plenty of civilian targets, in a premeditated fashion, in areas that are recognized internationally to be part of Israel.
- 616c 3y ago
  Perhaps you should read about what Haganah did to the British before the establishment of Israel in 1948.
  - reitanqild 3y ago
    Perhaps you shouldn't use something that happened 75 years ago against someone to justify something someone else did a month ago?
  - raxxorraxor 3y ago
    Or the Arabs that called Jews dogs that should be subjugated 20 years before that? Don't be ridiculous.
- immibis 3y ago
  To paraphrase JFK, those who make peaceful resistance impossible make violent resistance inevitable.
  - raxxorraxor 3y ago
    This would justify the retaliation by Israel to any extend.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    Something being inevitable is different from it being justified. Hamas’ and Palestinian Jihad’s violence is a predictable response to Israel’s abandonment of two-party talks and its right wing’s ascendency within its politics. That doesn’t justify gunning down kids at a concert. Similarly, the IDF levelling much of Gaza in retribution was a predictable repercussion of killing Israeli civilians, including children. That doesn’t make their deaths fair.
    - immibis 3y ago
      If your choices make something inevitable, do you have full rights to complain about what you made inevitable happening?
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > do you have full rights to complain about what you made inevitable happening? No, it undermines the complaint’s legitimacy. That doesn’t mean we must be unsympathetic; but it is a factor. Also, these decisions are often made by individuals within groups. Collective punishment is immoral. It’s also quite likely to produce blowback.
- naasking 3y ago
  [flagged]
- CrzyLngPwd 3y ago
  [flagged]
shilgapira 3y ago
> If your land was occupied by an invading force armed and financed by the US and its allies would you sit back and do nothing while that force murdered your people and stole your property, or would you have done exactly what Hamas did on October the 7th? No, I would have accepted one of the many peace proposals the other side offered. Regardless, your framing of how there are only two binary options – (1) doing nothing to advance my political goals, or (2) resorting to the most savage terrorism imaginable – and no other options between them is appalling and telling.
- immibis 3y ago
  [flagged]
raxxorraxor 3y ago
This is not a valid comparison. Yes, some Palestinians were displaced, even more Jews were displaced at the same time. Even by total numbers, which is hard, since Jews are always a minority and even if you don't count European Jews and just look at the surrounding countries. One injustice doesn't excuse the other, but people need to move on. Germans did need to part with land as well. The stolen property story would need some correcting here.
Seanambers 3y ago
Israel is a state established by UN resolution. If you really want to blame someone you can blame the British. The British incidentally also promised a Palestinian state to the Palestinians and it was provisioned in the resolution but the Palestinians rejected it. However, if we really were to do this comparison. The Israelis have have been way to nice. The Palestinians have been on the loosing side of 4-5 wars - its unprecedented. To the victor goes the spoils, thats how it is in the real world. If there is cause for a Palestinian state, then there is also cause for a Jewish state. Problem is the Palestinians rejects this notion and want the Jewish state gone.

Ma8ee 3y ago

Missing from your narrative is the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israeli settlers. The settlers are harassing and seizing land from Palestinians. Those settlers are protected by the Israeli Defense Forces. All of this is well documented and are repeatedly criticised by many well reputable human rights organisations. So, no, it's not restrain that is rewarded by these savage attacks. And while I condemn the terrorist attacks on innocent civilians by Hamas, we should not pretend they came out of a vacuum, or that the state of Israel is a pure peace loving innocent victim in all this.

grumple 3y ago
[flagged]
- immibis 3y ago
  Well that appears to demonstrate that Hamas works and prevents even greater harm than the harm carried out by Hamas. Probably not a message Israel wants to send.
  - grumple 3y ago
    That is the exact opposite of the message that was sent.
shilgapira 3y ago
[flagged]
- Ma8ee 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - hn_go_brrrrr 3y ago
    It's not ridiculous. Your statement reads as "I condemn it, but they really had it coming", which a reasonable person could understand to mean "I don't really condemn it".

toyg 3y ago

> They could just send one rocket Putin could do the same to half of Europe, eh. The fact that he doesn't, doesn't mean his actions are justified. Not applying overwhelming force doesn't mean that applying any other type of force is justified. > Isreal has been trying to keep their morals for decades There are no morals left, in that conflict, since the 1982 mass murder of thousands of Lebanese civilians in Beirut at the very least - if not earlier. Both sides have happily displayed the worst in human nature, multiple times, over the last 70 years. > what Putin did to Ukrainie softened the morals of people to "it's ok if it's for the right reasons". Again, that's hardly new. From Vietnam to Desert Storm to Afghanistan, significant chunks of any public opinion will determine it's ok to apply violence. That doesn't mean it's morally justified - morals are determined in ways that go beyond counting how many individuals are pro or against something.

mlrtime 3y ago
This is not a "both sides" issue. Thought experiment for you. Q: What would happen today if Hamas and supporters permanently gave up all their weapons and surrendered? A: Israel would immediately stop any wartime action. Q: What would happen today if Israel gave up it's defenses and military, took down the borders? A: Iran and Hamas would kill every last Jew in Israel. They have to, it is their charter. Also, how many Jews and Christians are living in Gaza openly vs Israel? What would happen to them in the above?
- toyg 3y ago
  Those answers are preposterous and your argument is laughable. This is indeed a "both sides" issue, because otherwise it wouldn't have remained a hot conflict after 70 years. There are legitimate and now multi-generational grievances on both sides, that are really difficult to recompose. You can't engage with simplistic attitudes if you want to be intellectually honest.
  - raxxorraxor 3y ago
    You don't like the argument because you know it to be true. The exception is the settlements in the West Bank, but those began after extremism in Israel rose considerably. That is a severe problem, but if people excuse terrorism as resistance, the same would apply here.