4 ms·

I think this is a great example of what I was talking about upthread. If your position is that it's Israel's responsibility to protect and value Gaza's civil a

I think this is a great example of what I was talking about upthread. If your position is that it's Israel's responsibility to protect and value Gaza's civil and religious infrastructure more than Hamas itself does, then you are treating Gaza as a dependent state that needs legal guardianship. If Israel is expected to work around Hamas's militarizing of civilian infrastructure, that more than justifies Israel's blockade in my mind.

skyyler 2y ago
>Hamas's civil and religious infrastructure When you call Palestine "Hamas" like this, it becomes obvious what you're doing ideologically. Come on. >your position is that it's Israel's responsibility to protect and value What a way to frame "please stop bombing hospitals and churches" >you are treating Hamas as a dependent state that needs legal guardianship I am not treating Hamas as a state of any kind, I'm treating them as a hostile political party that currently holds power in a country that has been dealing with a literal genocide for decades. >A real state would not militarize hospitals and churches I guess Israel isn't a real state then, giving how they use hospitals and churches as military targets... >or if it did, it would accept the consequences for having done so. Oh yeah? Those hospitals were really asking for it by "letting" Hamas operate? That's callous.
- haberman 2y ago
  > What a way to frame "please stop bombing hospitals and churches" Hospitals and churches that are militarized. I don't think you are interested in understanding or fairly representing what I'm actually saying, so I'm not interested in discussing this further with you. > When you call Palestine "Hamas" like this, it becomes obvious what you're doing ideologically. Come on. That was unintentional actually. I was trying to edit for clarity and conciseness, but this is not what I meant. I changed it to "Gaza's".
  - skyyler 2y ago
    >That was unintentional actually Freudian slip? Hehehe
  - racional 2y ago
    The IDF's claims as to the extent to which its targets are "militarized" are of course widely disputed (by journalists, government bodies, NGOs, etc). The raids on Al-Shifa, the bombings of mosques and the destruction of cemeteries most notably. In this context -- it seems clear enough that the commenter above understands what you're saying, and is not making any distortions of it. They simply do not see any reason accept, at face value, the IDF's attempts to spin and obfuscate these horrific incidents. As seems to be the IDF's expectation from the world at large. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbara https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbara

skyyler 2y ago

>Hamas's civil and religious infrastructure When you call Palestine "Hamas" like this, it becomes obvious what you're doing ideologically. Come on. >your position is that it's Israel's responsibility to protect and value What a way to frame "please stop bombing hospitals and churches" >you are treating Hamas as a dependent state that needs legal guardianship I am not treating Hamas as a state of any kind, I'm treating them as a hostile political party that currently holds power in a country that has been dealing with a literal genocide for decades. >A real state would not militarize hospitals and churches I guess Israel isn't a real state then, giving how they use hospitals and churches as military targets... >or if it did, it would accept the consequences for having done so. Oh yeah? Those hospitals were really asking for it by "letting" Hamas operate? That's callous.

haberman 2y ago
> What a way to frame "please stop bombing hospitals and churches" Hospitals and churches that are militarized. I don't think you are interested in understanding or fairly representing what I'm actually saying, so I'm not interested in discussing this further with you. > When you call Palestine "Hamas" like this, it becomes obvious what you're doing ideologically. Come on. That was unintentional actually. I was trying to edit for clarity and conciseness, but this is not what I meant. I changed it to "Gaza's".
- skyyler 2y ago
  >That was unintentional actually Freudian slip? Hehehe
- racional 2y ago
  The IDF's claims as to the extent to which its targets are "militarized" are of course widely disputed (by journalists, government bodies, NGOs, etc). The raids on Al-Shifa, the bombings of mosques and the destruction of cemeteries most notably. In this context -- it seems clear enough that the commenter above understands what you're saying, and is not making any distortions of it. They simply do not see any reason accept, at face value, the IDF's attempts to spin and obfuscate these horrific incidents. As seems to be the IDF's expectation from the world at large. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbara https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbara