5 ms·

> Hard to "end the conflict" when the other side has made your destruction its founding mission. Read the Hamas covenant. It doesn't distinguish between Zionist

> Hard to "end the conflict" when the other side has made your destruction its founding mission. Read the Hamas covenant. It doesn't distinguish between Zionists and Jews. It wants Jews gone. I find it fascinating that so many people trot out the threat of genocide by a power utterly incapable of carrying it out as if it's worse than Israel actively committing genocide or if it somehow makes it justified. I have no love for Hamas, but let's be real: most of what Hamas puts out is meaningless chest-thumping by an irrelevant power that wants to feel powerful within an apartheid state. It has been allowed to fester and has even been cultivated by the Israeli government at times so Hamas can act as the boogeyman which justifies all the evil shit the IDF and Israeli settlers do. Ideally, Hamas should absolutely be removed, but the conditions in which the Israeli government puts Palestinians in guarantees another Hamas-like group would immediately spring up in its place. Israel should not get the free pass it does.

ratrace 6mo ago
[dead]
Protostome 6mo ago
I like how those buzzwords are being thrown around casually: "Genocide", "Apartheid" ... It's hard to take your comments seriously. There is no genocide in Gaza, a genocide is a systematic annhiliation of a whole people. Read the UN ICJ definition of genocide, intent is a major part of it: >Under Article II, genocide means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group" If Israel wanted to conduct a genocide in gaza, i.e. had an "intent" - do you think it would have been a problem for it? Would it issue warnings before bombings? no. The only intent here, is to destroy hamas. the rest - a direct consequence of how they fight from within hospitals and civilian population. Second, "apartheid" - Israel has arab supreme judges and muslim parliament members, very very far from apartheid. Is it a perfect system? no. but no system is perfect, especially compared to the rest of the countries of the middle east.
- xg15 6mo ago
  Come on dude, there are enough, very public indicators that it indeed had that intent. The quotes from various government officials are well-known by now. > Second, "apartheid" - Israel has arab supreme judges and muslim parliament members, very very far from apartheid That term is in relation to Palestinians in the occupied territories, not in relation to Arab Israelis, and you know that. > The only intent here, is to destroy hamas. the rest - a direct consequence of how they fight from within hospitals and civilian population. That's why they're not letting in any shelter material more durable than a tent...
  - Protostome 6mo ago
    Quotes are not intents. If someone would have advocated for peace and acted in aggression you wouldn't call them peaceful. You judge by actions, rather than words. and the actions are far from pointing out any intent for a genocide. Second, the occupied territories were Jordanian and Egyptian territories. Currently most of the territory is governed by the Palestinian Authority with Israeli security control. Palestinians have demonstrated very well that they are unable to prevent suicide bombings, stabbing, mass shootings, so Israel had no choice but to take care of the security itself. The purpose of the Oslo accords was to hand the control in the entire west bank to the Palestinians and establish a state in those territories. Right now, we are in a limbo state. This is not an apartheid, apartheid is a systemic racial separation in all levels of society. And finally, again, everything that went into Gaza was used for one purpose - fight and destroy Israel. Where did they get all this concrete to build tunnels? Where did they get all the chemicals and metals to build rocket and rocket fuel?
    - xg15 6mo ago
      Explain what "security control" means.
      - spwa4 6mo ago
        If you explain first what "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him" means, you know, in what is generally considered the constitution of Gaza. Could you please also expand on why this explicitly refers to Jews to be exterminated without limit, not Israeli. Oh AND explain how this is not apartheid or racism: "The sale of Palestinian land to Jews is punishable by death" (part of the PLO laws) I'll wait.
tzs 6mo ago
> I have no love for Hamas, but let's be real: most of what Hamas puts out is meaningless chest-thumping by an irrelevant power that wants to feel powerful within an apartheid state. The October 7 attack on the other hand killed 12 Israelis per 100k population, which is a little over an order of magnitude more than the kill rate of the 9/11 attack on the US. I don't think there is any country on Earth that would not respond to a 9/11 magnitude attack, let alone an attack that is 10x bigger per capita, with overwhelming force if they have the resources.
- xg15 6mo ago
  Do you want to make the same calculation for the number of Gazans killed vs the total population of the strip?
  - tzs 6mo ago
    Not really, since it would be irrelevant to the point I was addressing which was the assertion that Hama are mostly just irrelevant chest thumpers that want to feel powerful. What horrors others have inflicted on Gaza deserves plenty of discussion, but in a thread branch where it is relevant.
    - xg15 6mo ago
      Fair point. But even then, having to retreat to relative calculations is not exactly the best argument. In absolute terms, Hamas was at no point able to destroy anytime outside of the Gaza envelope. The attack was horrible enough, but there was never a possibility that it would annihilate Israel, as much as Hamas would want that.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
- xethos 6mo ago
  Roughly 3,000 Americans died September eleventh. Similar numbers of Americans die every month from the automobile, with enough deaths annually for a bonus thirteenth month I've seen America declare a war on Terror, but I'm still waiting for the war on oversized cars and poor urban design In other words, let me know when 3,000 deaths mean something to America as a whole

ratrace 6mo ago

[dead]

Protostome 6mo ago

I like how those buzzwords are being thrown around casually: "Genocide", "Apartheid" ... It's hard to take your comments seriously. There is no genocide in Gaza, a genocide is a systematic annhiliation of a whole people. Read the UN ICJ definition of genocide, intent is a major part of it: >Under Article II, genocide means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group" If Israel wanted to conduct a genocide in gaza, i.e. had an "intent" - do you think it would have been a problem for it? Would it issue warnings before bombings? no. The only intent here, is to destroy hamas. the rest - a direct consequence of how they fight from within hospitals and civilian population. Second, "apartheid" - Israel has arab supreme judges and muslim parliament members, very very far from apartheid. Is it a perfect system? no. but no system is perfect, especially compared to the rest of the countries of the middle east.

xg15 6mo ago
Come on dude, there are enough, very public indicators that it indeed had that intent. The quotes from various government officials are well-known by now. > Second, "apartheid" - Israel has arab supreme judges and muslim parliament members, very very far from apartheid That term is in relation to Palestinians in the occupied territories, not in relation to Arab Israelis, and you know that. > The only intent here, is to destroy hamas. the rest - a direct consequence of how they fight from within hospitals and civilian population. That's why they're not letting in any shelter material more durable than a tent...
- Protostome 6mo ago
  Quotes are not intents. If someone would have advocated for peace and acted in aggression you wouldn't call them peaceful. You judge by actions, rather than words. and the actions are far from pointing out any intent for a genocide. Second, the occupied territories were Jordanian and Egyptian territories. Currently most of the territory is governed by the Palestinian Authority with Israeli security control. Palestinians have demonstrated very well that they are unable to prevent suicide bombings, stabbing, mass shootings, so Israel had no choice but to take care of the security itself. The purpose of the Oslo accords was to hand the control in the entire west bank to the Palestinians and establish a state in those territories. Right now, we are in a limbo state. This is not an apartheid, apartheid is a systemic racial separation in all levels of society. And finally, again, everything that went into Gaza was used for one purpose - fight and destroy Israel. Where did they get all this concrete to build tunnels? Where did they get all the chemicals and metals to build rocket and rocket fuel?
  - xg15 6mo ago
    Explain what "security control" means.
    - spwa4 6mo ago
      If you explain first what "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him" means, you know, in what is generally considered the constitution of Gaza. Could you please also expand on why this explicitly refers to Jews to be exterminated without limit, not Israeli. Oh AND explain how this is not apartheid or racism: "The sale of Palestinian land to Jews is punishable by death" (part of the PLO laws) I'll wait.

tzs 6mo ago

> I have no love for Hamas, but let's be real: most of what Hamas puts out is meaningless chest-thumping by an irrelevant power that wants to feel powerful within an apartheid state. The October 7 attack on the other hand killed 12 Israelis per 100k population, which is a little over an order of magnitude more than the kill rate of the 9/11 attack on the US. I don't think there is any country on Earth that would not respond to a 9/11 magnitude attack, let alone an attack that is 10x bigger per capita, with overwhelming force if they have the resources.

xg15 6mo ago
Do you want to make the same calculation for the number of Gazans killed vs the total population of the strip?
- tzs 6mo ago
  Not really, since it would be irrelevant to the point I was addressing which was the assertion that Hama are mostly just irrelevant chest thumpers that want to feel powerful. What horrors others have inflicted on Gaza deserves plenty of discussion, but in a thread branch where it is relevant.
  - xg15 6mo ago
    Fair point. But even then, having to retreat to relative calculations is not exactly the best argument. In absolute terms, Hamas was at no point able to destroy anytime outside of the Gaza envelope. The attack was horrible enough, but there was never a possibility that it would annihilate Israel, as much as Hamas would want that.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
xethos 6mo ago
Roughly 3,000 Americans died September eleventh. Similar numbers of Americans die every month from the automobile, with enough deaths annually for a bonus thirteenth month I've seen America declare a war on Terror, but I'm still waiting for the war on oversized cars and poor urban design In other words, let me know when 3,000 deaths mean something to America as a whole