4 ms·

Actually, there's no genocide happening in Gaza. Yes, there are way too many civilian casualties, which is awful. But here's the thing: Hamas often launches att

Actually, there's no genocide happening in Gaza. Yes, there are way too many civilian casualties, which is awful. But here's the thing: Hamas often launches attacks from places where people live, putting those civilians in danger. They kind of use this as a tactic, because the more civilian casualties there are, the more pressure is on Israel to stop fighting. Now, about those tunnels in Gaza – they're everywhere, right? But Hamas doesn't let ordinary folks use them for safety. That's pretty different from Israel, where new apartments have had to include bunkers since the 90s, and you can find bomb shelters all over the place. So, the sad truth is, the high number of civilians dying in Gaza is mainly because of how Hamas operates, using its own people as a shield.

hayst4ck 3y ago
[flagged]
- Protostome 3y ago
  I get where you're coming from, But let's put things in perspective. First off, nobody's saying that the loss of innocent lives, especially children, isn't tragic. It's heartbreaking, and every life lost is a huge deal. But saying that Israel is intentionally targeting children and women oversimplifies and misrepresents the reality. You mentioned feeling ashamed, like back during the Iraq war, but consider this: have you ever been in the shoes of a country under constant threat from a radical militant group? Imagine if 1,200 of your citizens were attacked, with the clear intent of causing as much harm as possible. What would you expect your country to do? Most people would say: stop the threat, make sure it never happens again. Hamas (and many of its supporters in the west) claim that the attack is a response for Israel making Gaza "an open-air-prison" – it's inaccurate to say the least. Yes, Israel did enforce a blockade on Gaza, but it's crucial to understand why. It wasn't to make life miserable for Gazans. The main goal was to prevent weapons from getting to Hamas, a group that's openly committed to destroying Israel. And it's not like everything else was blocked – food, medicine, and other essentials were still getting through after security checks. Hamas makes their goals regarding Israel very clear in their covenant. It's not just about land or politics; it's about an ideology that doesn't recognize jews right to exist in this tiny piece of land. Sure, Israel isn't perfect. Mistakes happen in war, and they should be acknowledged and dealt with. But calling it genocide? That's a stretch. Genocide involves the deliberate, systematic attempt to wipe out a group of people. In all the conflicts, Israel has actually taken enormous efforts to minimize civilian casualties, like warning civilians of upcoming attacks, especially in this ongoing conflict. I'm curoious to get your perspective - how do you think a country should react to attacks from a group like Hamas? It's a tough question, right? What's the right balance between defending your citizens and ensuring minimal harm to the other side, especially when that side uses civilians as shields?
  - hayst4ck 3y ago
    I enjoy your presupposition that my post is not in perspective. My perspective is not your perspective. Your perspective is certainly not any more objective than my perspective. How about you tell me the Gazan perspective as if you were a Gazan? Then tell me the the Hamas perspective as if you were Hamas? You are losing a bit of nuance by saying I think Israel is intentionally targeting women and children. I did not say Israel is intentionally targeting children and women. I think Israeli leadership is expanding south much like Germany expanded east with Lebensraum and America west with manifest destiny. I think they are doing this while promoting a culture of dehumanization of gazans which results in Israeli soldiers not experiencing gazan deaths as much more significant than mowing the lawn. "Regrettable but necessary" I wonder if that's what the Khmer rouge thought when they were smashing babies against trees. I hear "tragic," but there's an awful lot of telling and not showing. I would find Israel's sales pitch more convincing if they had journalists on the ground and with soldiers showing why they had to make the decisions they made, but that's not what happens is it? Instead journalists are bombed, imprisoned, or controlled. Israels actions against journalists is clear Mens Rea. All of the liberal leaning journalism in America (NPR for example) have shown that Israel is the bad guy. WCNSF is showing the damage Israel is doing. > Hamas makes their goals regarding Israel very clear in their covenant. It's not just about land or politics; it's about an ideology that doesn't recognize jews right to exist in this tiny piece of land. Israel is making a very compelling case that they are right. I am not convinced this stone isn't thrown from a very glass house. > But calling it genocide? That's a stretch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Stages,_risk_factors,_and_prevention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Stages,_risk_factors,... The 8th (persecution) is unarguably clear. You are textbook in denial which is stage 10. I think the case for 9 (extermination) can be made. Genocide: Any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part You have to at least admit at minimum there is a case to be made. What would you estimate the level of mental harm Gazans are experiencing right now? How do you think Gazans would rate the conditions of their life and their agency over those conditions? Not to mention 1 in 100 members of the group dead. Intent of destruction follows from dehumanization. I can't say it's clear Israel has intent to exterminate, but if I ask "are Israel's actions consistent with slow extermination" my answer is most definitely yes. > Sure, Israel isn't perfect. 70% of deaths being women and children is pretty far from "not perfect". Judicial coups and strongmen leaders are far from "not perfect." > "open air prison"... Based on what I've seen and read, the case that Gaza is an open air prison has been made. I think Gazans have a right to attack Israel in the same way I think Americans had a right to attack the british. No Taxation without Representation. Israel exercises tyrannical control over gaza. Tyranny breeds terrorism. > In all the conflicts, Israel has actually taken enormous efforts to minimize civilian casualties, like warning civilians of upcoming attacks, especially in this ongoing conflict. If you listen to American news, this is just not true. Factually incorrect. Is it more likely American news (NPR) is lying to me, or that Israeli news is lying to Israelis? > Most people would say: stop the threat, make sure it never happens again. you're not wrong because that is in fact what happens. "We have a conflict with this group, lets solve it by killing them all" is certainly the easiest solution. Genocides wouldn't happen if they didn't have popular support. > how do you think a country should react to attacks from a group like Hamas? It's a tough question, right? What's the right balance between defending your citizens and ensuring minimal harm to the other side, especially when that side uses civilians as shields? It's a hard question. I can say for certain not like Israel or like America after 9/11. My senators won't even ask if Israel is committing war crimes, they don't want to know the answer. My president is called Genocide Joe. I don't know anyone who disagrees with that name.
- tzs 3y ago
  What would you say is the correct response when your country is repeatedly attacked by a neighbor that keeps most of its military assets maximally mingled with civilians so that any counterattack must kill civilians?
Cyph0n 3y ago
[flagged]

hayst4ck 3y ago

[flagged]

Protostome 3y ago
I get where you're coming from, But let's put things in perspective. First off, nobody's saying that the loss of innocent lives, especially children, isn't tragic. It's heartbreaking, and every life lost is a huge deal. But saying that Israel is intentionally targeting children and women oversimplifies and misrepresents the reality. You mentioned feeling ashamed, like back during the Iraq war, but consider this: have you ever been in the shoes of a country under constant threat from a radical militant group? Imagine if 1,200 of your citizens were attacked, with the clear intent of causing as much harm as possible. What would you expect your country to do? Most people would say: stop the threat, make sure it never happens again. Hamas (and many of its supporters in the west) claim that the attack is a response for Israel making Gaza "an open-air-prison" – it's inaccurate to say the least. Yes, Israel did enforce a blockade on Gaza, but it's crucial to understand why. It wasn't to make life miserable for Gazans. The main goal was to prevent weapons from getting to Hamas, a group that's openly committed to destroying Israel. And it's not like everything else was blocked – food, medicine, and other essentials were still getting through after security checks. Hamas makes their goals regarding Israel very clear in their covenant. It's not just about land or politics; it's about an ideology that doesn't recognize jews right to exist in this tiny piece of land. Sure, Israel isn't perfect. Mistakes happen in war, and they should be acknowledged and dealt with. But calling it genocide? That's a stretch. Genocide involves the deliberate, systematic attempt to wipe out a group of people. In all the conflicts, Israel has actually taken enormous efforts to minimize civilian casualties, like warning civilians of upcoming attacks, especially in this ongoing conflict. I'm curoious to get your perspective - how do you think a country should react to attacks from a group like Hamas? It's a tough question, right? What's the right balance between defending your citizens and ensuring minimal harm to the other side, especially when that side uses civilians as shields?
- hayst4ck 3y ago
  I enjoy your presupposition that my post is not in perspective. My perspective is not your perspective. Your perspective is certainly not any more objective than my perspective. How about you tell me the Gazan perspective as if you were a Gazan? Then tell me the the Hamas perspective as if you were Hamas? You are losing a bit of nuance by saying I think Israel is intentionally targeting women and children. I did not say Israel is intentionally targeting children and women. I think Israeli leadership is expanding south much like Germany expanded east with Lebensraum and America west with manifest destiny. I think they are doing this while promoting a culture of dehumanization of gazans which results in Israeli soldiers not experiencing gazan deaths as much more significant than mowing the lawn. "Regrettable but necessary" I wonder if that's what the Khmer rouge thought when they were smashing babies against trees. I hear "tragic," but there's an awful lot of telling and not showing. I would find Israel's sales pitch more convincing if they had journalists on the ground and with soldiers showing why they had to make the decisions they made, but that's not what happens is it? Instead journalists are bombed, imprisoned, or controlled. Israels actions against journalists is clear Mens Rea. All of the liberal leaning journalism in America (NPR for example) have shown that Israel is the bad guy. WCNSF is showing the damage Israel is doing. > Hamas makes their goals regarding Israel very clear in their covenant. It's not just about land or politics; it's about an ideology that doesn't recognize jews right to exist in this tiny piece of land. Israel is making a very compelling case that they are right. I am not convinced this stone isn't thrown from a very glass house. > But calling it genocide? That's a stretch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Stages,_risk_factors,_and_prevention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Stages,_risk_factors,... The 8th (persecution) is unarguably clear. You are textbook in denial which is stage 10. I think the case for 9 (extermination) can be made. Genocide: Any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part You have to at least admit at minimum there is a case to be made. What would you estimate the level of mental harm Gazans are experiencing right now? How do you think Gazans would rate the conditions of their life and their agency over those conditions? Not to mention 1 in 100 members of the group dead. Intent of destruction follows from dehumanization. I can't say it's clear Israel has intent to exterminate, but if I ask "are Israel's actions consistent with slow extermination" my answer is most definitely yes. > Sure, Israel isn't perfect. 70% of deaths being women and children is pretty far from "not perfect". Judicial coups and strongmen leaders are far from "not perfect." > "open air prison"... Based on what I've seen and read, the case that Gaza is an open air prison has been made. I think Gazans have a right to attack Israel in the same way I think Americans had a right to attack the british. No Taxation without Representation. Israel exercises tyrannical control over gaza. Tyranny breeds terrorism. > In all the conflicts, Israel has actually taken enormous efforts to minimize civilian casualties, like warning civilians of upcoming attacks, especially in this ongoing conflict. If you listen to American news, this is just not true. Factually incorrect. Is it more likely American news (NPR) is lying to me, or that Israeli news is lying to Israelis? > Most people would say: stop the threat, make sure it never happens again. you're not wrong because that is in fact what happens. "We have a conflict with this group, lets solve it by killing them all" is certainly the easiest solution. Genocides wouldn't happen if they didn't have popular support. > how do you think a country should react to attacks from a group like Hamas? It's a tough question, right? What's the right balance between defending your citizens and ensuring minimal harm to the other side, especially when that side uses civilians as shields? It's a hard question. I can say for certain not like Israel or like America after 9/11. My senators won't even ask if Israel is committing war crimes, they don't want to know the answer. My president is called Genocide Joe. I don't know anyone who disagrees with that name.
tzs 3y ago
What would you say is the correct response when your country is repeatedly attacked by a neighbor that keeps most of its military assets maximally mingled with civilians so that any counterattack must kill civilians?

Cyph0n 3y ago

[flagged]