5 ms·

You don't understand it because most, if not all, aren't arguing that Israel should "just take any attacks coming their way." A response needs to be proportion

You don't understand it because most, if not all, aren't arguing that Israel should "just take any attacks coming their way." A response needs to be proportionate, and also one needs to account for the causes of the attack in the first place. People will point to things like Israeli expansion, mass surveillance, and other issues relating to Gaza as factors which need to be considered when discerning what is an appropriate response. Now, what I just said is a very simplistic and slanted presentation, but it should suffice in demonstrating that it's not as simple as one side (the "good guys") who thinks Israel should defend itself and the other side (the "bad guys") who think Israel should allow itself to be wiped off the map by terrorists.

ergocoder 2y ago
It is proportionate, IMO. Palestine fired thousands of missiles at Israel after the Oct 7. Just because Israel is able to block most of them doesn't make it okay. Those missiles still count. At worst, this is debatable but the protesters at google think that they are absolutely correct with no debate needed. I think they all should be fired, and their names should definitely be disclosed.
- yterdy 2y ago
  Your opinion is incorrect and concerning in its confidence. Oct. 7th has been characterized as Israel's 9/11 (with, frankly, fewer deaths). Meanwhile, Israel has perpetrated a 9/11 roughly every 2.5 weeks for the past 6 months in Gaza. The difference in Hamas versus the IDF's allowance of accessibility to basic needs is also stark. In essence, a terrorist attack is not proportional to a siege.
  - me_me_me 2y ago
    only if hamas had access to billions of dollars to develop infrastructure and build up emergency shelters...
    - lodrion 2y ago
      You mean miles of tunnels that just dug themselves?
  - ergocoder 2y ago
    We can agree to disagree. Israel definitely did not perpetrate 9/11 every other week. Did Israel parade corpses around town like how Palestinians did it? Nope. Did Israel kill 3000 Palestinians every 2 weeks? Nope. Did Israel kidnap babies? Nope. The difference is obvious. Yet you pretend not to see it.
    - HDThoreaun 2y ago
      Israel did initiate a starvation campaign though
    - Thiez 2y ago
      I guess you must have missed the news about the Israeli soldier stealing a baby https://www.palestinechronicle.com/israeli-soldier-kidnaps-palestinian-baby-from-gaza-strip-reports/ https://www.palestinechronicle.com/israeli-soldier-kidnaps-p... .
    - yterdy 2y ago
      No, we cannot agree to disagree. 3 of your 4 statements are verifiably false. Notably, 33000 dead over 6 months is roughly a 9/11 every 2.5 weeks (if you're going to say, "I said 2 weeks," I said 2.5 weeks). You are wrong. You should ask yourself why you cling so hard to that. It is your duty as a human being to recognize and denounce the genocide that is taking place.
      - ergocoder 2y ago
        Palestine has been offered ceasefire, two state solution, and etc. They have refused to take it. They fired thousands of missiles at Israel. Their army hide under hospital and schools. You declare "verifiably" and "we must recognize genocide" when it is not. It's a war. Then, after you declare a genocide, you follow with "it's your duty!" You are looking to harass anyone who disagrees with you. People can't even be neutral on the topic and recognize it's debatable. There's no discourse to be had. This is why people like this should be fired from a workplace.
        runarberg 2y ago
  - mupuff1234 2y ago
    I think categorizing it as a "terror attack" does some injustice to the scale of things - we are talking about thousands participating in the Oct 7th attack, basically the Palestinian "army". Not that I think Israel's reaction was wise, but that's a different story.
    - yterdy 2y ago
      I actually tend to agree. Characterizing it as a terrorist attack was a mea culpa; it is absolutely better categorized as a counterattck/insurgency against an occupying force.
yolovoe 2y ago
> A response needs to be proportionate, and also one needs to account for the causes of the attack in the first place. You mention a list of reasons, but you forget to mention the most important: that the Palestinians were displaced from their homeland in hordes, often quite violently, in the 1940s to make room for current day Israel. Just want an accurate depiction of the real reasons, so people are also able to kind of understand (tho not necessarily condone) the Palestinian response. I have a lot of Israeli coworkers who I like working with, and would never wish them harm. Instead of taking sides, I really wish people understood how we got here, and what we can do to go forward from here. I think a fair path forward would be for both the west and Israel to pay massive reparations of some kind to Palestine, and just slightly re-visit the current drawing of the Israel/Palestine borders. Chances of this happening are slim tho, with western media portraying Palestinians as mindless Hamas terrorists.
- weatherlite 2y ago
  > You mention a list of reasons, but you forget to mention the most important: that the Palestinians were displaced from their homeland in hordes, often quite violently, in the 1940s to make room for current day Israel Right, so because 700k Palestinians were displaced 75 years ago (due to a war they started together with the surrounding Arab nations, while throwing out the Jews living in those Arab nations) the just thing to do is to violently displace 7 million Jews now (?). Sounds simplistic maybe but what I described is the 'solution' Hamas says it wants and there's a huge support for this among Palestinians and Muslims in general. I wonder if all other nations who had a history of displacement are going to follow suit and voluntarily dismantle themselves to try to create justice for events whose participators are mostly not alive anymore.
  - runarberg 2y ago
    > due to a war they started together with the surrounding Arab nations, while throwing out the Jews living in those Arab nations I’m not super well versed in the specifics of this history, so correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t these things happen during and after the Nakba? Reading the timeline of Wikipedia it seems as though expulsion had already started and was well on it way before the Arab League’s armies entered Palestine in May 1948. Likewise reading about the history of Jewish people in Iraq[1] it seems that the persecution was very much a reaction to Zionist conduct in Palestine. As in most of the anti-jewish laws were passed between July and December 1948, which is several months to over a year into the Nakba. These actions were certainly unjust and should be condemned, but to me it seems wildly ahistorical to blame the Nakba on them. Plan Dalet started in April 1948 before the Arab league invasion, and certainly before anti-jewish laws in Iraq. And Plan Dalet was not the first instance of ethnic cleansing by Zionsits in Palestine, but rather followed several months of escalations which included depopulating villages as early as November 1947. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iraq#Modern_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iraq#Mo... EDIT: I also feel like it needs stated how weird of a justification that is. The Palestinians who were displaced during the Nakba had nothing to do with the Arab invasion and certainly not the discriminatory anti-jewish legislation in neighboring country. These refugees and their descendants are still to this day refugees now three to four generations later. It seems odd to continue to punish them with Apartheid and genocide to this day because of actions they had nothing to do with. Most other groups who have suffered similar and much smaller injustice have gotten apologies and even reparations for (a noticeable example are Japanese Americans after E.O. 9066). Palestinians however still get blamed for crimes they had nothing to do with, except having been victims.
BurningFrog 2y ago
> The rule of proportionality requires that the anticipated incidental loss of human life and damage to civilian objects should not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected from the destruction of a military objective.. (From the Geneva Convention) The Israeli military goal is to destroy Hamas, which started the war, and is hiding in and under densely populated cities. So the question becomes how you can destroy Hamas without unnecessary civilian casualties. My impression is that Israel is doing pretty OK with that, though things can always be better, and tragic mistakes are inevitable in war. A common misconception is that the response needs to be proportionate to the attack. So if Hamas killed 1200 people on Oct 7, Israel should not kill more than that. That is not at all how the laws of war work!

ergocoder 2y ago

It is proportionate, IMO. Palestine fired thousands of missiles at Israel after the Oct 7. Just because Israel is able to block most of them doesn't make it okay. Those missiles still count. At worst, this is debatable but the protesters at google think that they are absolutely correct with no debate needed. I think they all should be fired, and their names should definitely be disclosed.

yterdy 2y ago
Your opinion is incorrect and concerning in its confidence. Oct. 7th has been characterized as Israel's 9/11 (with, frankly, fewer deaths). Meanwhile, Israel has perpetrated a 9/11 roughly every 2.5 weeks for the past 6 months in Gaza. The difference in Hamas versus the IDF's allowance of accessibility to basic needs is also stark. In essence, a terrorist attack is not proportional to a siege.
- me_me_me 2y ago
  only if hamas had access to billions of dollars to develop infrastructure and build up emergency shelters...
  - lodrion 2y ago
    You mean miles of tunnels that just dug themselves?
- ergocoder 2y ago
  We can agree to disagree. Israel definitely did not perpetrate 9/11 every other week. Did Israel parade corpses around town like how Palestinians did it? Nope. Did Israel kill 3000 Palestinians every 2 weeks? Nope. Did Israel kidnap babies? Nope. The difference is obvious. Yet you pretend not to see it.
  - HDThoreaun 2y ago
    Israel did initiate a starvation campaign though
  - Thiez 2y ago
    I guess you must have missed the news about the Israeli soldier stealing a baby https://www.palestinechronicle.com/israeli-soldier-kidnaps-palestinian-baby-from-gaza-strip-reports/ https://www.palestinechronicle.com/israeli-soldier-kidnaps-p... .
  - yterdy 2y ago
    No, we cannot agree to disagree. 3 of your 4 statements are verifiably false. Notably, 33000 dead over 6 months is roughly a 9/11 every 2.5 weeks (if you're going to say, "I said 2 weeks," I said 2.5 weeks). You are wrong. You should ask yourself why you cling so hard to that. It is your duty as a human being to recognize and denounce the genocide that is taking place.
    - ergocoder 2y ago
      Palestine has been offered ceasefire, two state solution, and etc. They have refused to take it. They fired thousands of missiles at Israel. Their army hide under hospital and schools. You declare "verifiably" and "we must recognize genocide" when it is not. It's a war. Then, after you declare a genocide, you follow with "it's your duty!" You are looking to harass anyone who disagrees with you. People can't even be neutral on the topic and recognize it's debatable. There's no discourse to be had. This is why people like this should be fired from a workplace.
      - runarberg 2y ago
- mupuff1234 2y ago
  I think categorizing it as a "terror attack" does some injustice to the scale of things - we are talking about thousands participating in the Oct 7th attack, basically the Palestinian "army". Not that I think Israel's reaction was wise, but that's a different story.
  - yterdy 2y ago
    I actually tend to agree. Characterizing it as a terrorist attack was a mea culpa; it is absolutely better categorized as a counterattck/insurgency against an occupying force.

yolovoe 2y ago

> A response needs to be proportionate, and also one needs to account for the causes of the attack in the first place. You mention a list of reasons, but you forget to mention the most important: that the Palestinians were displaced from their homeland in hordes, often quite violently, in the 1940s to make room for current day Israel. Just want an accurate depiction of the real reasons, so people are also able to kind of understand (tho not necessarily condone) the Palestinian response. I have a lot of Israeli coworkers who I like working with, and would never wish them harm. Instead of taking sides, I really wish people understood how we got here, and what we can do to go forward from here. I think a fair path forward would be for both the west and Israel to pay massive reparations of some kind to Palestine, and just slightly re-visit the current drawing of the Israel/Palestine borders. Chances of this happening are slim tho, with western media portraying Palestinians as mindless Hamas terrorists.

weatherlite 2y ago
> You mention a list of reasons, but you forget to mention the most important: that the Palestinians were displaced from their homeland in hordes, often quite violently, in the 1940s to make room for current day Israel Right, so because 700k Palestinians were displaced 75 years ago (due to a war they started together with the surrounding Arab nations, while throwing out the Jews living in those Arab nations) the just thing to do is to violently displace 7 million Jews now (?). Sounds simplistic maybe but what I described is the 'solution' Hamas says it wants and there's a huge support for this among Palestinians and Muslims in general. I wonder if all other nations who had a history of displacement are going to follow suit and voluntarily dismantle themselves to try to create justice for events whose participators are mostly not alive anymore.
- runarberg 2y ago
  > due to a war they started together with the surrounding Arab nations, while throwing out the Jews living in those Arab nations I’m not super well versed in the specifics of this history, so correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t these things happen during and after the Nakba? Reading the timeline of Wikipedia it seems as though expulsion had already started and was well on it way before the Arab League’s armies entered Palestine in May 1948. Likewise reading about the history of Jewish people in Iraq[1] it seems that the persecution was very much a reaction to Zionist conduct in Palestine. As in most of the anti-jewish laws were passed between July and December 1948, which is several months to over a year into the Nakba. These actions were certainly unjust and should be condemned, but to me it seems wildly ahistorical to blame the Nakba on them. Plan Dalet started in April 1948 before the Arab league invasion, and certainly before anti-jewish laws in Iraq. And Plan Dalet was not the first instance of ethnic cleansing by Zionsits in Palestine, but rather followed several months of escalations which included depopulating villages as early as November 1947. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iraq#Modern_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iraq#Mo... EDIT: I also feel like it needs stated how weird of a justification that is. The Palestinians who were displaced during the Nakba had nothing to do with the Arab invasion and certainly not the discriminatory anti-jewish legislation in neighboring country. These refugees and their descendants are still to this day refugees now three to four generations later. It seems odd to continue to punish them with Apartheid and genocide to this day because of actions they had nothing to do with. Most other groups who have suffered similar and much smaller injustice have gotten apologies and even reparations for (a noticeable example are Japanese Americans after E.O. 9066). Palestinians however still get blamed for crimes they had nothing to do with, except having been victims.

BurningFrog 2y ago

> The rule of proportionality requires that the anticipated incidental loss of human life and damage to civilian objects should not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected from the destruction of a military objective.. (From the Geneva Convention) The Israeli military goal is to destroy Hamas, which started the war, and is hiding in and under densely populated cities. So the question becomes how you can destroy Hamas without unnecessary civilian casualties. My impression is that Israel is doing pretty OK with that, though things can always be better, and tragic mistakes are inevitable in war. A common misconception is that the response needs to be proportionate to the attack. So if Hamas killed 1200 people on Oct 7, Israel should not kill more than that. That is not at all how the laws of war work!