12 ms·

> Yes, horrible, but at what point does the consensus become that October 7 starts to look like a small event in light of the death toll on the other side At t

by Zvez 3mo ago

> Yes, horrible, but at what point does the consensus become that October 7 starts to look like a small event in light of the death toll on the other side At the point when other side (free palestine and alike) start acknowledging it. Two wrongs don't make something right. Start with teaching Palestine supporters that hamas is not the answer. And maybe, maybe after that people start seeing Palestine people as victims. Without it, most people will continue supporting Israel, not because they think that it does no wrong. But in comparison with hamas and their supporters Israel is lesser evil.

kykeonaut 3mo ago
In what world is 20,179 dead children the lesser of two evils?
- gershy 3mo ago
  The pro-israel argument is that hamas are almost entirely to blame for those numbers (as they use civilian infrastructure for war purposes)
  - hardbass 3mo ago
    Almost all Israelis are IDF members, members of various intelligence and defense companies. If we plotted a map of a suitable attack radius around all valid combat targets in Israel, almost the entirety of their "civilian" regions would be covered.
    - gershy 3mo ago
      The idf doesn't fight near civilian infrastructure - it deploys to the borders. Military bases in israel are far from civilian infrastructure. I think you're probably just wrong here.
      - hardbass 3mo ago
        That's another fun one. Israel doesn't seem to mind launching missiles at non-serving non-military officers who are living in neutral countries like Qatar, and killing unrelated Qatari civilians in the process. So I would say by the same precedent, anyone has served or is serving in the IDF, which obviously would live in the cities as most of the population is a valid target.
        gershy 3mo ago
        I misunderstood your point earlier. Not that international law is necessarily always a valid philosophy we should accept, but international law does only consider people to be combatants if they're actively serving. Regardless of what international law says, I would argue that ethically, retired/non-serving army members should not be considered combatants or fair wartime targets (I think I mostly feel this way on the basis that targeting them causes civilian strife - e.g. the company they work for, family/community they support etc. is harmed - with zero war value). And I would say reservists are a more complicated case.
        hardbass 3mo ago
        I care more about equality than international law. If Israel uses a tactic or policy, then its valid and just for those fighting Israel to not tie their hands behind their backs and avoid the same tactic. >Khalil al-Hayya, a reported target of this air strike, was previously targeted by a 2007 assassination attempt, which killed at least seven of his family members.[33][34][35] His home in Gaza was struck by an airstrike in the 2014 Gaza War. Israel hardly has difficulties with killing innocent family members. So "civilian strife" is irrelevant in my view, as symmetrically Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, etc are permitted to do the same against Israel. The people targeted in the Qatar strike were all political office holders not soldiers. So for instance it is valid for these countries to bomb the home or place of stay of Ben Gvir or Benjamin Netenyahu and kill them and their family members for the sake of just and fair combat.
        gershy 3mo ago
lorecore 3mo ago
> maybe after that people start seeing Palestine people as victims. Without it, most people will continue supporting Israel Most of the world sees Palestinians as the victims and Zionists are very much the global minority. Hamas made that a reality, so I think they are the answer. I certainly support their resistance to Zionism, just like the Haitian slave revolt.
hashstring 3mo ago
> most people will continue supporting Israel Your perspective is divorced from reality. Across the 36 countries, a median of 67% of adults have an unfavorable view of Israel, while 25% have a favorable view [1]. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/06/04/most-people-across-36-countries-have-negative-views-of-israel-and-little-confidence-in-netanyahu/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/06/04/most-peop...
olelele 3mo ago
To go back a long long while, the Israeli state was also founded by religious paramilitary organizations. Irgun et al. Hamas IS the only organization to survive Israeli assasinations & internal conflict. Why is it there are no secular Palestinian groups left? IMO Hamas / Netanyahu & the Kahanists are both the worst possible leadership on both sides. The Kahanists literally murdered the Israeli prime minister for shaking hands w Arafat.
manyaoman 3mo ago
Start with teaching Israel supporters that IOF is not the answer. And maybe, maybe after that people start seeing Israelis as victims. Without it, most people will continue supporting Palestine, not because they think that it does no wrong. But in comparison with IOF and their supporters Palestine is lesser evil. Fixed that for you.
NomDePlum 3mo ago
[dead]

by Zvez 3mo ago

kykeonaut 3mo ago

In what world is 20,179 dead children the lesser of two evils?

gershy 3mo ago
The pro-israel argument is that hamas are almost entirely to blame for those numbers (as they use civilian infrastructure for war purposes)
- hardbass 3mo ago
  Almost all Israelis are IDF members, members of various intelligence and defense companies. If we plotted a map of a suitable attack radius around all valid combat targets in Israel, almost the entirety of their "civilian" regions would be covered.
  - gershy 3mo ago
    The idf doesn't fight near civilian infrastructure - it deploys to the borders. Military bases in israel are far from civilian infrastructure. I think you're probably just wrong here.
    - hardbass 3mo ago
      That's another fun one. Israel doesn't seem to mind launching missiles at non-serving non-military officers who are living in neutral countries like Qatar, and killing unrelated Qatari civilians in the process. So I would say by the same precedent, anyone has served or is serving in the IDF, which obviously would live in the cities as most of the population is a valid target.
      - gershy 3mo ago
        I misunderstood your point earlier. Not that international law is necessarily always a valid philosophy we should accept, but international law does only consider people to be combatants if they're actively serving. Regardless of what international law says, I would argue that ethically, retired/non-serving army members should not be considered combatants or fair wartime targets (I think I mostly feel this way on the basis that targeting them causes civilian strife - e.g. the company they work for, family/community they support etc. is harmed - with zero war value). And I would say reservists are a more complicated case.
        hardbass 3mo ago
        I care more about equality than international law. If Israel uses a tactic or policy, then its valid and just for those fighting Israel to not tie their hands behind their backs and avoid the same tactic. >Khalil al-Hayya, a reported target of this air strike, was previously targeted by a 2007 assassination attempt, which killed at least seven of his family members.[33][34][35] His home in Gaza was struck by an airstrike in the 2014 Gaza War. Israel hardly has difficulties with killing innocent family members. So "civilian strife" is irrelevant in my view, as symmetrically Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, etc are permitted to do the same against Israel. The people targeted in the Qatar strike were all political office holders not soldiers. So for instance it is valid for these countries to bomb the home or place of stay of Ben Gvir or Benjamin Netenyahu and kill them and their family members for the sake of just and fair combat.
        gershy 3mo ago

lorecore 3mo ago

> maybe after that people start seeing Palestine people as victims. Without it, most people will continue supporting Israel Most of the world sees Palestinians as the victims and Zionists are very much the global minority. Hamas made that a reality, so I think they are the answer. I certainly support their resistance to Zionism, just like the Haitian slave revolt.

hashstring 3mo ago

> most people will continue supporting Israel Your perspective is divorced from reality. Across the 36 countries, a median of 67% of adults have an unfavorable view of Israel, while 25% have a favorable view [1]. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/06/04/most-people-across-36-countries-have-negative-views-of-israel-and-little-confidence-in-netanyahu/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/06/04/most-peop...

olelele 3mo ago

To go back a long long while, the Israeli state was also founded by religious paramilitary organizations. Irgun et al. Hamas IS the only organization to survive Israeli assasinations & internal conflict. Why is it there are no secular Palestinian groups left? IMO Hamas / Netanyahu & the Kahanists are both the worst possible leadership on both sides. The Kahanists literally murdered the Israeli prime minister for shaking hands w Arafat.

manyaoman 3mo ago

Start with teaching Israel supporters that IOF is not the answer. And maybe, maybe after that people start seeing Israelis as victims. Without it, most people will continue supporting Palestine, not because they think that it does no wrong. But in comparison with IOF and their supporters Palestine is lesser evil. Fixed that for you.

NomDePlum 3mo ago

[dead]