4 ms·
It's pretty clear Israel systematically kills Palestinian children to those paying attention. According to a public statement by the United Nations, Gaza has th
by Computer0 3mo ago
It's pretty clear Israel systematically kills Palestinian children to those paying attention. According to a public statement by the United Nations, Gaza has the highest number of child amputees per capita in the world. At least 21,289 children have been killed. They starve the population, drive them out of their homes. (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)01541-7/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...) This is the modus operandi of the Zionist belief system. It is a colonial settler ideology and they have to eradicate the natives, much like American settlers killed the native people and destroyed their way of life until they could keep them in tiny """sovereign nations""" where they would be crushed if they every truly tried to display any real sense of sovereignty. To be sovereign is to have a government with a monopoly on violence, the "reservations" are occupied.
- lovich 3mo agoI gotta be honest, the phrase “colonial settler ideology” gets an instant eye roll and detracts from the rest of your statements. Most nations on the planet are formed of settlers unless you think there were always Russians in Siberia, or there were always Anglo-Saxons on Albion.
- Computer0 3mo agoThose happened many lifetimes ago. Much like the slave trade we recognize these actions by our ancestors to be wrong. There are many different conversations about "Land Back" or reparations for those affected by these systems, which often lead to nowhere. The distinction is this is happening today.
- hardbass 3mo agoYes for example if a religious extremist British faction were trying to colonize Native American america today, I'd gladly support funding and arming them against the invaders. Whats centuries past is past, what is happening today is important.
- gershy 3mo agoThis positions israel as the invader, but pro-israelis (like myself) will argue that historically israeli jews+arabs are the indigenous population, and have been the target of invasion, and israeli territorial expansion has been through arguably defensive wars. In your example I immediately think "you'd never support a native movement that willfully and indiscriminately murdered a bunch of british citizens". And to me it's an even weaker argument, as jews are indigenous to not-too-far-off from the borders of modern day israel - in a way that does not correspond to brits in america.
- hardbass 3mo agoI don't mind the jews already living in the region. If European whites had immigrated peacefully and with consent of those already living then none of these problems would exist or would be much smaller. But no, we have Europeans forcibly carving out a chunk of that land and today we have classic "Levatine tribes" like the...Milejkowskis lording over that patch and killing the actual peoples who lived for centuries before them. These people are mostly Poles, Russians, Germans not natives.
- gershy 3mo ago(see above)
- hardbass 3mo agoThat is not much relevant to the legality of living there. I could have French dna and have lived in Canada for 5 generations (let alone however many tens of generations white jews have been europeans), does that grant me any special rights to taking over the landmass that is France?
- Computer0 3mo agoThe issue isn't the historical Jews living there (now Palestinian) the issues are the European Jews moving there claiming that they have some sort of connection to the land over say Poland.
- gershy 3mo agoI mean you could qualify it by saying e.g. "it's a post-19XX settler colonial movement" - that would be some refreshing nuance on what is otherwise glaringly ideological language, mostly parroted by those who don't know much about the history (hence, I suspect, the disregard you received from another commenter here). But even then the implication of some global cutoff year after which certain actions are officially no longer "ethical" or "advisable" is pretty ridiculous. Our ethical standards shouldn't vary only by what year it is, but rather ideally by the broadest possible context we are able to fathom. Israel is a unique case with indigenous jews returning to their native land after unparalleled delay, except in terms of borders modern-day israel doesn't perfectly map to ancient judea, and the crazy history of british intervention, geopolitical tension, war, expansion, and attempted peace treaties.
- gershy 3mo agoI'm trying to see the argument for "Israel deliberately targets children", closest thing I got was "Israel has made lots of children into amputees" - can you provide more info?
- andriy_koval 3mo agoI think its obvious that there will be a lot of children amputees in active denstly populated warzone.
- gershy 3mo agoI think there's an ethical difference between "we need to wage war on a densely populated area", and "we need to wage war on a densely populated area, let's make sure to harm the vulnerable people we encounter there". This is what I'm trying to differentiate between.
- andriy_koval 3mo agoWe won't know without analyzing protocols how Israel picks targets. Also, harming civilians is the norm in modern world. Russia absolutely deliberately is targeting critical civilian infra in Ukraine (e.g. grid during cold winter).
- t0mpr1c3 3mo agoIf the effect of your actions is a war crime, you are a war criminal. If the Russians also do it, that is additional evidence of war crimes.
- andriy_koval 3mo ago> If the effect of your actions is a war crime, you are a war criminal. war crimes usually defined by intent: were civilians targeted intentionally.