Funny how those people never seem to have any reservations to what hamas did, or any of the history of the past 20 yrs
Funny how people like you never seem to have any reservations to what Israel did, like the perpetual ethnic-cleansing and apartheid policies, or any of the history of the past 75+ yrs
> like the perpetual ethnic-cleansing
Funny you ask that, makes me wonder what happened to the jews of the levantine and arab countries
The absolute bare minimum of a position is "I'm taking the less bad side" but I think both are so awful neither honestly viable to support on a social level (political is different)
Do you always equate occupier and occupied, oppressor and oppressed?
How about Ukraine and Russia, do you apply the same logic? Of course you wouldn't and you don't.
Of course not, why on earth would anyone tolerate a bunch of invaders taking over their land? Zionists are really still making that argument as if it makes a lick of sense. No sane human would react otherwise.
>Funny you ask that, makes me wonder what happened to the jews of the levantine and arab countries
What came first? Exactly, Zionists started ethnic-cleansing Palestinians and IN RESPONSE their neighbors acted in kind, which by the way was exactly what Zionists wanted anyway. They wanted and needed as many jews in occupied Palestine as possible, so it was an emotional response from their neighbors that was a moral and strategic mistake.
The point of reclaiming Zion is to ultimately reclaim Mount Temple to build the Final Temple and usher in the end of days and an eternity of paradise.
One of the strange things with Israel is a lot of people that are pro Israel dont know anything about the nation. Ignorance usually breeds hate and not love. Or maybe being darker skinned is the key.
And the numerous attacks on the Israelis since it was formed, after each of which Israel gained more land?
And the numerous offers made to the Palestinians for a state which they refused?
> I hope you know how the Muslims acquired the lands they live on now, down through the centuries? Hint, it wasn't by asking nicely.
Yes it was common to have wars for land, but it's a completely different story to fleeing from Europe and presenting yourself as victims just to turn around and become the same monster you fled from and ethnically cleanse the native population for your colonial project. There is still testimony[0] from members of jewish terrorist groups like irgun & haganah who stated that the way they treated the natives reminded them of how the nazis treated the jews.
>And the numerous attacks on the Israelis since it was formed, after each of which Israel gained more land?
Well, if you invade and steal people's land they will fight you, it's common sense. What is surprising is that zionists think that they are somehow making a good argument with this. Furthermore, most of those wars you are probably referring to are falsely claimed to be "attacks on israel" while in fact israel was preemptively attacking[1] its neighbors. This is documented and confirmed by declassified israeli sources.
>And the numerous offers made to the Palestinians for a state which they refused?
Yes, if you steal someone's property they usually want 100% of it back not some arbitrary amount determined by the thief. I heard these nonsense arguments so many times and yet I'm still mind blown every time that zionists think that these are somehow smart talking points.
The hasbara ministry of affairs must have suffered under serious budget cuts.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bwy-Rf15UIs [1] "The Conflict based on a lie" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy56Q1a0Flc
> Yes it was common to have wars for land, but it's a completely different story to fleeing from Europe and presenting yourself as victims just to turn around and become the same monster you fled from and ethnically cleanse the native population for your colonial project.
If it was common to have wars for land, does it justify it? And you do know that a large proportion of Jews in Israel are Mizrahi and Shepardic, right? Also, those Jews fleeing from Europe were certainly victims, so I'm not sure why you are mocking that.
> Yes, if you invade people's land they will fight you, it's common sense.
A UN resolution provided for the state of Israel (and of Palestine, which they rejected), so I'm not sure what invasion you are talking about. Incidentally, this is the same UN whose resolutions Israel is accused of not following. So the Muslim nations are like, we will comply with UN resolutions only when we agree with it, but we expect others to follow them in all cases.
If you have a problem, find diplomatic ways of resolving them, but if you attack someone with genocidal intent, don't be surprised if you are hit with a disproportionate response. You can argue abut whether the justification for the preemptive strike of the 1967 six days war was strong enough, but that doesn't change the fact that Israel's enemies had clear and imminent intent to visit great harm on it.
> Yes, if you steal someone's property they usually want 100% of it back not some arbitrary amount determined by the thief. I heard these nonsense arguments so many times and yet I'm still mind blown every time that zionists think that these are somehow smart talking points.
So, in your opinion, the conflict will/should not be resolved until Israel is obliterated? Good luck. But in that case, it is dishonest to call for a cease-fire, or to accuse Israel if not negotiating in good faith. How do you live with, or negotiate, with an adversary who is only seeking your total destruction?
I see you use the word "Zionists" many times - it seems to be used as a dog whistle. I have no affiliation with Israel or Jews whatsoever; I'm just incensed that reason seems to have gone out the window in the latest incarnation of this conflict.
>A UN resolution provided for the state of Israel (and of Palestine, which they rejected), so I'm not sure what invasion you are talking about. Incidentally, this is the same UN whose resolutions Israel is accused of not following. So the Muslim nations are like, we will comply with UN resolutions only when we agree with it, but we expect others to follow them in all cases.
Any mentally sane human would have rejected that "resolution", which is/was non-binding anyway, since it gave the MAJORITY of Palestinian land to a MINORITY. And you saying "so I'm not sure what invasion you are talking about" is completely laughable and is evidence of you having bias, probably religious bias, and thus you have a motivation to be dishonest, that's why you keep making such arguments in bad faith.
>Incidentally, this is the same UN whose resolutions Israel is accused of not following.
Why are you saying "accused" when Israel has a documented track record of ignoring international law, illegally occupying land and committing war crimes with impunity for decades? You argue in bad faith, that's why.
>If you have a problem, find diplomatic ways of resolving them, but if you attack someone with genocidal intent, don't be surprised if you are hit with a disproportionate response. You can argue abut whether the justification for the preemptive strike of the 1967 six days war was strong enough, but that doesn't change the fact that Israel's enemies had clear and imminent intent to visit great harm on it.
Again, that's a complete lie and I have linked you a detailed documentary[0] which exposes that narrative as a fabrication of the israeli hasbara ministry. Zionists invaded land and started ethnic-cleansing the native population so it makes precisely ZERO SENSE to frame zionists in the dishonest "defensive" light you have painted them, when they were and still are the aggressors and colonizers from day 1. You argue in bad faith because the facts make israel and its history indefensible, that's why the only way zionists can defend their colonial project is to rewrite history and frame it as dishonestly as possible.
>So, in your opinion, the conflict will/should not be resolved until Israel is obliterated? Good luck. But in that case, it is dishonest to call for a cease-fire, or to accuse Israel if not negotiating in good faith. How do you live with, or negotiate, with an adversary who is only seeking your total destruction?
It's truly fascinating how you, as a black man, are so hellbent on defending an apartheid ethno-state with such cold-blooded dishonesty. Any sensible human wants to see an end to apartheid and occupation first. The call for a ceasefire has nothing to do with that, it's just a call of the world because we are seeing what bloodthirsty genocidal lunatics the zionists have become in their intentional targeting of civilians, mostly women and children, that's why we want to prevent the genocide israel is committing as we speak.
>How do you live with, or negotiate, with an adversary who is only seeking your total destruction?
That's Israel you are talking about and this description perfectly describes israel's genocidal behavior, but it's already clear from your rhetoric that you have absolutely zero interest in a honest answer because you are a zionist who has such a warped and biased view of the facts that you will just take any answer and twist it in such a way that your cognitive dissonance is satisfied.
>I see you use the word "Zionists" many times - it seems to be used as a dog whistle.
I've used it precisely 2 times, how is that many times? You guys can't just stick to debating facts without dishonestly accusing others of antisemitism because you know that your arguments are all based on lies and distortions. And the irony on top is that zionists like you openly engage in islamophobic rhetoric while whining about antisemitism, it's so cynical and deceitful.
[0] "The Conflict based on a lie" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy56Q1a0Flc
The violent Islamic expansion was not a war between countries. Is Islam a country? It was a rampage for land, pure and simple [1]
> Any mentally sane human would have rejected that "resolution", which is/was non-binding anyway
Hear, hear, now hardly a day passes without another UN resolution against Israel, sponsored by the same elements, who then accuse Israel of not complying with the resolutions. If the resolutions are non-binding, why do they keep accusing Israel of not heeding them? On the other hand, do we get to pick and choose which resolutions we will heed or not?
> Why are you saying "accused" when Israel has a documented track record of ignoring international law
International law should be followed by all, at all times. The Palestinians and their backers have no moral high ground here, not at all.
> Again, that's a complete lie and I have linked you a detailed documentary[0] which exposes that narrative as a fabrication of the israeli hasbara ministry
Was Egypt not massing troops in preparation for an attack on Israel? Or are we living in separate universes.
> It's truly fascinating how you, as a black man, are so hellbent on defending an apartheid ethno-state with such cold-blooded dishonesty.
You are avoiding my question: In your opinion, is the conflict not be resolvable until Israel is obliterated? And, what does the fact that I'm black have to do with anything?
> Any sensible human wants to see an end to apartheid and occupation first. The call for a ceasefire has nothing to do with that,
Oh, so you don't want a proper solution for now. You just you want a ceasefire that gives Hamas a reprieve to continue to build up their capacity to massacre Israeli civilians again.
> That's Israel you are talking about and this description perfectly describes Israel's genocidal behavior
Again, you don't answer my question: How do you live with, or negotiate, with an adversary who is only seeking your total destruction? What exactly does Hamas want again?
> I've used it precisely 2 times, how is that many times? You guys can't just stick to debating facts without dishonestly accusing others of antisemitism because you know that your arguments are all based on lies and distortions.
It is you who cannot stick to the argument without resorting to name calling and ad-hominem attacks. You have called me a liar, cold-blooded, not mentally sane, and the like.
[1] https://medium.com/@mehrdadyousefi_/was-muslim-conquest-of-p...
Amusing how you have to explicitly add "violent" as if this was exclusive to Islam, but not Christianity or Judiasm, thereby living out your islamophobic tendencies. Arguing that Islam or Christianity isn't a country is a matter of semantics and distracts from the more substantial point. While neither is a 'country' in the political sense, both religions have established comprehensive systems of law, culture, and governance, creating communities and territories with armies and defined identities and practices that can be analogous to the functions of a country. The spirit of the comparison lies in their influence and organization, not in the technicality of the term 'country.' Point is that they had armies and it was very common and expected to clash with other armies.
>Hear, hear, now hardly a day passes without another UN resolution against Israel, sponsored by the same elements, who then accuse Israel of not complying with the resolutions. If the resolutions are non-binding, why do they keep accusing Israel of not heeding them? On the other hand, do we get to pick and choose which resolutions we will heed or not?
You are just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point and it's a waste of time to entertain your dishonesty. Israel does not even follow international law so it's pointless to argue about other cases.
>Was Egypt not massing troops in preparation for an attack on Israel? Or are we living in separate universes.
Nope, busted! According to declassified israeli documents there was NEVER such a threat and this was also explained in the documentary I've linked you which you clearly didn't even bother to study. Israel made up lies after the fact, like they always do, that's why the documentary is also called "The Conflict based on a lie" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy56Q1a0Flc
>You are avoiding my question: In your opinion, is the conflict not be resolvable until Israel is obliterated? And, what does the fact that I'm black have to do with anything?
You really have to ask me about the relevancy of a black man defending apartheid? Having a conversation with you is completely pointless, but that's pretty much the case with all zionists. To answer your question, yes, the only realistic outcome for peace is for israel to suffer a complete defeat, because israeli society is so drunk on decades of impunity that its racism and bloodthirst have reached unfathomable levels. The "2 state solution" is and was always a lie and netanyahu and his ilk have confirmed repeatedly the last days but they stated this for decades. It was theater all along, that's why they always kept expanding their illegal settlements.
>Oh, so you don't want a proper solution for now. You just you want a ceasefire that gives Hamas a reprieve to continue to build up their capacity to massacre Israeli civilians again.
no, I want to simply stop the ongoing genocide that israel is committing, like any sane human being would want, which zionists like you clearly arent.
>Again, you don't answer my question: How do you live with, or negotiate, with an adversary who is only seeking your total destruction? What exactly does Hamas want again?
I did answer your question, you clearly just lack reading comprehension skills. Khamas actually, contrary to your insinuation, has indicated that they would be interested in a 2 state solution, which will never manifest anyway, it's a lie that has been perpetuated by settlers to give them time to expand their illegal settlements. And again, every Zionist accusation is a confession, it's Israel that has always sought the total destruction of Palestine which they have repeatedly stated. Palestinians having this desire is not the "gotcha" you think it is, because any sane human being would want their land back in full, so it's hilarious that zionists are thinking that this realization is some deep insight and good talking point of theirs.
> You have called me a liar, cold-blooded, not mentally sane, and the like.
And I fully stand by it, anyone who is a neutral observer can read the full discussion and testify to it.
From reading your comments in this thread, you are clearly over-invested in this conflict and this doesn't do anything to help anyone, nor your own mental health.
HN is a place for curious discussion and insults like you have been throwing around don't contribute to that environment in any way.
If someone is justifying genocide and you question their sanity then it's them being hostile and you being reasonable.
>From reading your comments in this thread, you are clearly over-invested in this conflict
I'm not over-invested, no one can ever be over-invested in trying to prevent genocide. I will call a spade a spade, participating in fake civility to entertain someone's bad faith behavior is also not something conducive to a "curious discussion".
Well, personally attacking someone goes against the guidelines, no matter how strongly you feel about something. This is something the mods are very concerned about. But I'm not surprised, because reason goes out the window whenever the anti-Israel crowd are in the room. Unable to convince by rational argument, they resort to personal attacks.
At this point, I don't believe you are arguing in any good faith, and you seem not to realize your own biases and contradictions. You have no factual responses to my comments other than personal attacks, so there is no basis for further discussion.
Ignoring 99% of the rebuttal on which you have been exposed as a crude propagandist just to focus on a point which helps you live out your eternal victimhood.
>Unable to convince by rational argument, they resort to personal attacks.
You are literally skipping and ignoring every argument of mine to regurgitate your washed up hasbara and are then surprised when people call out your behavior in a candid manner.
>At this point, I don't believe you are arguing in any good faith, and you seem not to realize your own biases and contradictions. You have no factual responses to my comments other than personal attacks, so there is no basis for further discussion.
100% projection, you perfectly described yourself here and any neutral observer can testify to it.
Zionism did not exist until the late 19th century and was based in Berlin at the time england suggested splitting up the middle east.
The who “our history from God” thing is a retconn.
Regardless, your narrative is false because we know exactly what the founding father of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, wrote about Zionism in great detail in his book "Der Judenstaat" and it was a colonial project from day 1. They even considered colonizing Alaska or Uganda before they decided to colonize Palestine.
There is no hasbara you could tell me that I haven't heard before in my 20 years of dealing with zionists. All of your narratives contradict each other and try to deflect from the reality that "israel" is and was a colonial project from its inception.
Israelis/Jews ARE indigenous to Palestine. If they didn't want to live scattered amongst other peoples who regularly subjected them to pogroms, that is prerogative; It is not for me or you to judge. A substantial part of the Israelis are Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews, not the Ashkenazi who are being derided as "colonialists" (although that is also quite a suspect argument).
Israel's dishonesty is exceptional, it perpetually lies about pretty much everything from its origins to its motivations and its history. They want to be the perpetual victim and simultaneously the great conquerors, their politics are riddled with contradictions and deceit to the core.
>Israelis/Jews ARE indigenous to Palestine.
Nope, that's a lie. The overwhelming majority ~98%+ of Israelis are NOT indigenous to Palestine. Israel tried to manipulate people for years with this talking point but failed, most of their strategies are very well documented here[0].
>If they didn't want to live scattered amongst other peoples who regularly subjected them to pogroms, that is prerogative;It is not for me or you to judge. A substantial part of the Israelis are Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews, not the Ashkenazi who are being derided as "colonialists"
Well now jews regularly subject Palestinians to pogroms[1] isn't that wonderful, the colonialists behaving like colonialists do, so it's not a derision, it's a fact. if it squats like a colonialist, steals like a colonialist and ethnically cleanses like a colonialist then it is in fact a colonialist.
[0] "Israelis Are Not 'Indigenous' (and other ridiculous pro-Israel arguments)" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhlUFPpXIVo
[1] "The Pogrom Against Palestinians That Brought the Occupation Home to Jewish Israelis" - https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2023-03-19/ty-article-opinio...
> Israel's dishonesty is exceptional, it perpetually lies about pretty much everything from its origins to its motivations and its history. They want to be the perpetual victim and simultaneously the great conquerors, their politics are riddled with contradictions and deceit to the core.
This is not a factual, falsifiable argument, so I can't even respond to it. But it demonstrates that your arguments are based on emotional opinion, with no basis in actual facts.
> Nope, that's a lie. The overwhelming majority ~98%+ of Israelis are NOT indigenous to Palestine.
So you're saying the Jews that lived there since BCE times are all mostly gone? I wonder why. Might it have something to do with the violent Islamic conquest of the Middle East? it is like saying the Copts in Egypt can be ignored as indigenous because they are small part of the Egyptian population now.
This is just infantile rhetoric, you're just regurgitating israeli propaganda but are accusing others of arguing based on emotions, keep projecting.
>This is not a factual, falsifiable argument, so I can't even respond to it. But it demonstrates that your arguments are based on emotional opinion, with no basis in actual facts.
Wrong, it is in fact a factual & falsifiable argument since there are many documented and contradictory ways zionists tried to justify their colonial project throughout history especially by regurgitating from a script which even the jidf[0] followed to convince people on social media of their false narratives.
>So you're saying the Jews that lived there since BCE times are all mostly gone? I wonder why. Might it have something to do with the violent Islamic conquest of the Middle East? it is like saying the Copts in Egypt can be ignored as indigenous because they are small part of the Egyptian population now.
And there we have it, when confronted with facts that are overwhelming you zionists always resort to reductionist and false islamophobic narratives. Too bad that your little hasbara story contradicts research of David Wasserstein - a Professor of Jewish studies who says "Islam saved Jewry. This is an unpopular, discomforting claim in the modern world. But it is a historical truth."[1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force
[1] https://jewishstudies.stanford.edu/events/david-wasserstein-...
This is just infantile rhetoric, you're just regurgitating israeli propaganda but are accusing others of arguing based on emotions, keep projecting.
>This is not a factual, falsifiable argument, so I can't even respond to it. But it demonstrates that your arguments are based on emotional opinion, with no basis in actual facts.
Wrong, it is in fact a factual & falsifiable argument since there are many documented and contradictory ways zionists tried to justify their colonial project throughout history especially by regurgitating from a script which even the jidf[0] followed to convince people on social media of their false narratives.
>So you're saying the Jews that lived there since BCE times are all mostly gone? I wonder why. Might it have something to do with the violent Islamic conquest of the Middle East? it is like saying the Copts in Egypt can be ignored as indigenous because they are small part of the Egyptian population now.
And there we have it, when confronted with facts that are overwhelming you zionists always resort to reductionist and false islamophobic narratives. Too bad that your little hasbara story contradicts research of David Wasserstein - a Professor of Jewish studies who says "Islam saved Jewry. This is an unpopular, discomforting claim in the modern world. But it is a historical truth."[1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force
[1] https://jewishstudies.stanford.edu/events/david-wasserstein-...
Wrong, it is in fact a factual & falsifiable argument since there are many documented and contradictory ways zionists tried to justify their colonial project throughout history especially by regurgitating from a script which even the jidf[0] followed to convince people on social media of their false narratives.
>So you're saying the Jews that lived there since BCE times are all mostly gone? I wonder why. Might it have something to do with the violent Islamic conquest of the Middle East? it is like saying the Copts in Egypt can be ignored as indigenous because they are small part of the Egyptian population now.
And there we have it, when confronted with facts that are overwhelming you zionists always resort to reductionist and false islamophobic narratives. Too bad that your little hasbara story contradicts research of David Wasserstein - a Professor of Jewish studies who says "Islam saved Jewry. This is an unpopular, discomforting claim in the modern world. But it is a historical truth."[1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force
[1] https://jewishstudies.stanford.edu/events/david-wasserstein-...
Noticed how little sympathy the people in Palestine get compared to people in Ukraine? Why do you think that is? If I was to say the Palestinians are Arab savages I would be reprimanded for being prejudice but making excuses for their continuing genocide isnt prejudice?
These commenters are just articulating the same venom that their parents and grandparents did, in a different way but its the same bile fundamentally. Preaching logic to hateful people that think they are superior makes as much sense in 2024 as it did in Malcolm X’s day. Dont bother trying to talk logic to people like that, they dont listen to your kind.
Thanks for clarifying. Most European Zionists, including Theodor Herzl, were and still are secular. These false post hoc narratives about religious motivations are a deflection from the real reason why Zionists wanted to colonize Palestine and it had nothing to do with religious folklore. It only became a talking point later when colonialism became a "bad word" and they were trying to legitimize their colonial project via other means.
>Noticed how little sympathy the people in Palestine get compared to people in Ukraine? Why do you think that is? If I was to say the Palestinians are Arab savages I would be reprimanded for being prejudice but making excuses for their continuing genocide isnt prejudice?
You could say that arabs or muslims are savages without facing any serious repercussions in most cases assuming that you live in Europe or America. In theory Islamophobia, like any other form of bigotry like antisemitism or homophobia, is supposedly not acceptable but in reality it is and there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for it one of which you already stated.
In reality there is an hierarchy of victimhood, where the validity and impact of different groups' experiences are often weighed and measured differently by those in positions of power or with societal influence.
The biggest irony is that the same people who are quick to shut down any form of criticism of israel, by intentionally conflating a political entity with jewish people itself, by screaming antisemitism, also engage in the most viscous Islamophobic tropes to defend their apartheid ethno-state while seeing absolutely no irony in their own bigotry. So it's obvious that it's not really about being tolerant or civilized, but rather about cleverly weaponizing narratives to reshape politics in one's own best interest.
>These commenters are just articulating the same venom that their parents and grandparents did, in a different way but its the same bile fundamentally. Preaching logic to hateful people that think they are superior makes as much sense in 2024 as it did in Malcolm X’s day. Dont bother trying to talk logic to people like that, they dont listen to your kind.
You're correct, but they are also assisted by the fact that geopolitical dynamics provide them with impunity such that their psychotic behavior compounds over time because it never gets checked and thus mutates into worse behavior over time.
For well over 100 years ago England was messing with the region. (Sykes picot)
Getting european and american nation state influence and support of genocide out of the middle east is completely appropriate.
we were attacked by 'thugs' on 9/11.
afghanistan was still a predictably disastrous war.
Anyway, hope the football game or something went well.
As for the current situation, my point was to clarify that the Houthis didn’t just randomly wake up in the morning one day and start attacking commercial ships for no reason. They communicated their reasoning and demands from the very start, and made it clear that this was their response to the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
The US response was to simply ignore their demands and just bomb Yemen. This is a mistake. The Houthis (and Iran by proxy) are no strangers to conflict. Bombing Yemen will do nothing to stop attacks on commercial shipping - in fact, it probably will escalate them. Worse yet, starting a new conflict doesn’t help the negative reputation the US has built up over the past few months in the eyes of the so-called global south. Instead, this gives China an excellent opportunity to step in as a (actually) neutral power.
> Bombing Yemen will do nothing to stop attacks on commercial shipping
This is bully logic. It can escalate the conflict, yes, but destruction of artillery and missiles works
About being white, as far as I know I am not considered white both in the 19th century scientific racism sense and even in its modern extension of dividing the American population by the extension of that original theory.
But if I am considered white, do you think it undermines my arguments?
You could argue Israel evacuating the northern of Gaza strip is ethnic cleansing, but that would only be valid if they are not allowed later on to return.
The difference between Palestinians civilian deaths in Gaza is that these were not systematic, not concentrated in a single space (for example all houses in a location) and were done mostly for a military purpose (attacking a defacto non-uniformed military). Choosing to evacuate the population before attacking was done to minimize casualties, although they are still massive even when removing the Hamas members from the statistics and their inflated nature.
That's clearly a military operation with some war crimes thrown in, which is about expected. Then went in and out, there's no systematic intent in the mission to destroy israel for the simple reason that Hamas can't. Hamas is physically incapable of committing genocide despite what the preach.
VS Israel's systematic destruction of Gaza with enough dogwhistles from senior leadership that can credibly push Israeli campaign into genocide territory. Whether that matters under international law is another Q, but the difference when it comes to international opinion (well, global south), is Hamas can't genocide Israel because they don't have the capabilities vs IDF can actually genocide Palestine/Gaza and optic wise, is looking well on their way as mass starvation as systemic blockade settles in. Like if west can delude themselves into thinking Uyghurs are being genocided despite very few systemic killings and leaks from leadership that intent is counterterrorism/deradicalization, then case for Israel doing a genocide is much stronger considering the actual destruction, body count and mask off rhetoric from Israeli politicians.
Is that a universal thing that what politicians say is being taken in such a high regard? Especially the many Israeli ministers of nothing that have no actual ability to affect the situation. Judging by how the war is going on, I don't see any scenario where the Palestinian population disappears from Gaza, and I don't see any Israeli action that is advancing that.
However, you are right that due to the sheer cruelty of Oct 7 there is a major process of radicalization in Israeli society, and if Hamas dreams of recreating this attack 'again and again' materialize, I do think the Israeli side will begin to level its moral base to that of its enemy, which might end in actual genocide. Which is why I believe removing this organization is in the best interest of both people, even though it is causing much suffering currently, it is not impossible it can turn very much worse yet.
IMO they're trying to make situation so dire that other parties capituate to resettling Gaza. The intention is expulsion not nessicarily genocide, but that doesn't mean current actions and rhetoric, even if flippant, can't be used against Israel in international court / opinion. I'm not saying what Israel is doing IS genocide, but there's probably enough bits and pieces for interested parties to weave genocide narrative, especially the longer war drags out and more dire Gaza situation becomes.
> removing this organization is in the best interest of both people
I don't disagree, for short term. But without Israel expressing interest or some effort at making 2 state solution work, it's kicking can down the road. The fundmental problem, as seen with Hamas, and Houthis is technology proliferation of not garbage tier weapons is making Israel's lack of strategic depth less and less defendable by the day. General arab acrimony is not going to go away after this, and US+Israel can only maintain their military advantage for so long before rest of region catches up or surpasses due to sheer scale. Each generation is more capable than the last and ultimately there's 400 muslims in MENA vs 10m jews in Israel on sacred lands. And this war is just setting up for blowback down the road, especially as US FP will likely change as new gens are much more sympathetic to palestine.
As for Palestinians, they will not forget this. Hamas/resistance will come back in one way or another. The other reality, which makes this problem intractable is poor Gaza with 90% literacy rate and limited access to modern tech / resources was enough to overwhelm Israel on Oct 7th. Israel can barely live with a semi capable Gaza, and definitely can't live with a capable (free) one. Given how weapons are proliferating, Hamas rockets likely a few iterations from taking out existential Israeli strategic targets like desalination plants. There isn't isn't enough geographic buffer for both people to exist on the same land, not without one permenantly keeping other down. Hence IMO Israel will try to make Palestinians disappear from Gaza, one way or another.
I completely agree though that a lack of a two state solution will lead to catastrophe for either people or both eventually. However, I do not share your pessimism about US/Israel regional prospects. Remember that this is mainly due to self-inflicted restraints, which is how asymmetric warfare really works. As seen in September 11 in the US and October 7 in Israel this can change rapidly when faced with an external threat
But killing tens of thousands, marketing it as “mowing the lawn” and cutting off power, food, safety, hospitals, religious facilities… is a f-ing genocide.
Stop pretending israel is just “responding” to 10/7 attacks. No response, even if the real “responses” began in 1916/7 and later in the 40’s… no “response” ever deserves a genocide.
but care to explain what is the meaning of the dates? what do you refer to in 1916/1917 and 40s?
The 40’s was the standard “zionists get israel for real this time” after England got its butt kicked by the very same folks it helped in the teens.
But that’s irrelevant to the point that nothing, ever, makes a genocide ok. Stop pretending it’s not just because the fascist and gaslighting zionists claim it’s “not a genocide we promise.”
England did a genocide on the Irish. Zionists are doing on in the Palestinians. There have been plenty of US backed ones over the years too.
Any nation state who says “they’re not doing a genocide” .. totally is.
Depending on what you mean by the word "nation", there were not in fact "already nations there". Sykes-Picot partitioned the Ottoman Empire in the Levant. What there was, historically, prior to Sykes-Picot, was the administration of provinces under the Ottoman Sultan.
I mean, look at what happened to France in Vietnam. They were “happily” appreciated while pretending they knew what was best for the people that lived there already.
Y’all will do anything to pretend it’s “ok” for white people to tell folks what to do with their land. Ottoman empire or not.
Bottom line is: Zion != Israel. Zionism is making the call in today’s era and that call is to genocide.
It is wrong.
If you're asking me for a long thread about why British, French, and Russian colonialism in MENA was good, sorry, I don't have that for you. But somehow, it only ever seems to be Israel we're talking about when we discuss this stuff. Israel is no less legitimate than its neighbors, some of which have in the last 5-10 years laid a much stronger claim to the word "genocide" as well.
I would suggest maybe you not lead with Sykes-Picot next time you try to formulate this argument.
That’s kind of important.
Still doesn’t justify Zionists doing a fucking genocide against people who have been overrun by the same zionists given “power” by … that nation doing the sykes-picot and balfour thing.
Stop pretending these are separate events.
You might be surprised how preoccupied they are with ‘preventing’ civilian death
THESE particular bombings were because the blockade and sanctions that they did in the region and they justify with the genocide happening in Palestine.
Of course, another way you know they're full of shit is that they were shooting rockets at cargo ships in the Red Sea years before the Gaza war.
I think a pretty mainstream and reasonable way to look at Ansar Allah is:
What they say: meaningless agitprop about Palestinian liberation.
What they intend: A Zaydi Shi'a imamate with racial and bloodline governance.
What they are: A chaos agent managed by Iran in order to keep Saudi Arabia, which operates a military with one of the world's worst ratios of capacity and funding to competence, perpetually on the wrong foot.
The Houthis are not the only one blocking Maritime trade, there are also activist groups in e.g. Oakland and Tacoma which have blocked freight traffic from respective ports with the aim of disrupting shipment to Israel and the stated goal of stopping the genocide.
What the Houthis and these activist groups in America do after they’ve succeeded in stopping the genocide, that is another question which we can tackle at the time. As of now there is an emergency situation in Gaza, and we must treat it as such. Stopping the genocide is at utmost importance.
Campism is a hell of a drug.
As for effectiveness, we do know that protests do work if they are disruptive enough. But we also know that rulings by the ICJ have a tendency to be ignored if a powerful enough nation disagrees with them. Both the cities of San Francisco, Oakland and Seattle are among the nations largest cities who are calling for ceasefire. Barbara Lee and Pramila Jayapal are among very few members of congress calling for ceasefire.
We will see in the days after Friday whether the actions at the ICJ were enough, and that actions against international shipping were indeed unnecessary. However, I’m gonna remain pessimistic about that.
There's a further irony to appealing jointly to the ICJ, an instrument of international law, and piracy, opposition to which is the literal original basis for all international law.
You seem to take issue with the methods the Houthis are employing, but I would like to point out that blockading international shipping is also a method which the Israelis use against Gaza. This blockade by Israel has manifested it self in direct assaults on cargo vessels and murders of their crew members (see e.g. Gaza Flotilla Raid[1]).
I think the targets of the Houthis is not the IDF directly, but rather the international community, particularly nations which are aiding and enabling Israel in the genocide, such as the USA. That the tactic here is to be disruptive enough that it won’t be worth it for these nations to support Israel in its crimes any longer. However, I’m not a member of the Houthies, so I can be wrong about that.
I recommend that you do some additional reading about the Houthis. Rasha Al Aqueedi and Nadwa Dawsari are good starting points. I think you're unlikely to find a credible reported account of Ansar Allah that is sympathetic to them.
I don’t dispute this. However by that logic, Israel has been at war with Gaza (and everyone that trades with Gaza, including Turkey) since 2008. And if we follow that logic further—which we shouldn’t—we can explain Oct. 7 as a particularly horrendous war-crime in a war full of war crimes committed by both sides, but again, we shouldn’t do that.
I also don’t dispute the irony. It most definitely is there, I just find it unimportant. On a global issue, you will always find very different groups with vastly different goals, and it just so happens that one of their goals intersect. They don’t need to be united behind that goal (and they seldomly are) but what you will see is every group has most likely very different means towards that goal.
These actions may even be counterproductive. You may believe that this is the case for the Houthi actions, I don’t, and for that we’re just going to have to disagree.
Finally I would like to note, I’m not sympathetic to the Houthies as a group, merely their stated goal of a ceasefire. I’m also of the believe that we are going to have to be way more disruptive if we are to achieve ceasefire. I believe—and I may be proven wrong about this—that the ICJ case is not gonna be enough, as any enforcement may—and I believe it will—simply be blocked by the USA.
Expect to see much more disruptive actions from all groups if (when?) the international community fails to enforce the orders from the ICJ.
Further: your logic doesn't cohere. Were Israel to blockade international shipping lanes, countries would declare war against them, as Israel did when Egypt blockaded the Tiran Straits. The discussion wouldn't be "can Israel do this"; it would be "has Israel provoked a war with another seafaring country", the way Ansar Allah has.
What you can't do is supply an analysis like "since Israel blockaded Gaza, Ansar Allah can blockade the Red Sea". Well, they can do that, but then the UK and the US will be applauded by the Security Council when they aerosolize Ansar Allah with cruise missiles.
You have repeatedly defended the actions of Ansar Allah in this discussion, most importantly by accepting their explanations at face value despite a (recent!) historic context that gives the lie to all of them, pretty bluntly and objectively. I understand you'd rather just focus on making a case against Israel, and I get why, but the reason you're conversing with me on this thread and not a supporter of Israel is that I'm not prepared to let sail by the idea that the Houthis are a legitimate actor. They are precisely the opposite of that.
This is why I think the only thing that will work are disruptions, these disruptions may include boycotts, blocking of highways, shipping, etc. divestments, etc.
I keep in perspective the urgency of stopping the genocide. And the scale of the disruptions I find justified are proportional to that urgency.
EDIT: Just to prevent this from being read wrong. I still support South Africa’s case for the ICJ. Including because the off chance their rulings will be enforced, but also because I think it will persuade more actors to pursue more disruptions, e.g. for the EU to ignore the USA and issue sanctions against Israel, for broadcasters across Europe to kick Israel out of Eurovision, etc.
If you follow the subthread back to the point where I joined it, you'll see that's been my consistent point throughout.
You need to show that the intent of Israel is to destroy the Palestinian people in Gaza, even partially. What I see is the attempt of Israel to prevent more October 7 attacks, which Hamas declared it is going to repeat. The actual goal here is to protect Israel's own citizens from genocide, which Hamas has shown willingness to commit and ability (albeit in a smaller scale currently).
I think it is perfectly valid for a country to protect its own citizen from being burned alive among many other atrocities that were committed, which is also one of the reasons the genocide convention was created in the first place.
As this is war, it's also causing immense suffering in the Palestinian side. Which is why a war to remove Hamas from power was constantly deferred in the past, knowing they are highly entrenched in the civilian population. However, I don't think they left Israel any other way this time.
> I think it is perfectly valid for a country to protect its own citizen from being burned alive among many other atrocities that were committed, which is also one of the reasons the genocide convention was created in the first place.
Also wrong. The genocide convention was created to prevent genocide. There is nothing in the convention mentioning that you should not act if the victims are from other countries. On the contrary, the convention says that you must act to prevent and has an extraterritorial scope (as was established in a previous judgement in UN).
How exactly killing children, reporters, women and people holding white flags, attacking UN shelters, as well as destroying hospitals and universities prevent more October 7 attacks!? In fact, it will create more attacks because of the anger from an oppressed people. Which was the cause of October 7 attacks, by the way. Sorry, declaring war is not a free pass to commit war crimes. If the war crimes are frequent, and they are not opposed (or if they are encouraged), this is a serious evidence of genocide.
About the common western trope of “you should never fight terror because it will only bring more terror” that’s false. There is no way the palestinian population would be more radicalized, they are at the end of the spectrum. It wasn’t like there was any type of atrocity known to man on October 7 that was stopped short due to being too extreme.
Also, israel had shown that when fighting palestinians organizations in the second intifada 2001-2004, it succeeded in greatly reducing the amount of terror and achieve deradicalization
Now, about those tunnels in Gaza – they're everywhere, right? But Hamas doesn't let ordinary folks use them for safety. That's pretty different from Israel, where new apartments have had to include bunkers since the 90s, and you can find bomb shelters all over the place. So, the sad truth is, the high number of civilians dying in Gaza is mainly because of how Hamas operates, using its own people as a shield.
Get real. The weapons that kill gazan children are fired with Israeli hands. That's blood you can't wash off.
1 in 100 gazans has been murdered. 70% of those murdered have been women and children.
Humanitarian aid has had to coin a new acronym because of how often it occurs: WCNSF -- wounded child, no surviving family.
Even if you don't think there is a Genoicde, Hamas is doing a much better job of furthering their goals by "forcing" Israel to kill children. If Israel is the kind of country that can so carelessly kill women and children at such scale, maybe Hamas aren't the bad guys. Maybe they didn't just decide to randomly slaughter Israelis. Maybe there was a reason they did it. Maybe that reason is valid.
From where I sit, Hamas may be evil, but they have proven that Israel is WAY more evil.
I haven't been this ashamed to be an American since Iraq. It's like we're selling gas to Germany. I don't have a single American friend that supports Israel.
First off, nobody's saying that the loss of innocent lives, especially children, isn't tragic. It's heartbreaking, and every life lost is a huge deal. But saying that Israel is intentionally targeting children and women oversimplifies and misrepresents the reality.
You mentioned feeling ashamed, like back during the Iraq war, but consider this: have you ever been in the shoes of a country under constant threat from a radical militant group? Imagine if 1,200 of your citizens were attacked, with the clear intent of causing as much harm as possible. What would you expect your country to do? Most people would say: stop the threat, make sure it never happens again.
Hamas (and many of its supporters in the west) claim that the attack is a response for Israel making Gaza "an open-air-prison" – it's inaccurate to say the least. Yes, Israel did enforce a blockade on Gaza, but it's crucial to understand why. It wasn't to make life miserable for Gazans. The main goal was to prevent weapons from getting to Hamas, a group that's openly committed to destroying Israel. And it's not like everything else was blocked – food, medicine, and other essentials were still getting through after security checks.
Hamas makes their goals regarding Israel very clear in their covenant. It's not just about land or politics; it's about an ideology that doesn't recognize jews right to exist in this tiny piece of land.
Sure, Israel isn't perfect. Mistakes happen in war, and they should be acknowledged and dealt with. But calling it genocide? That's a stretch. Genocide involves the deliberate, systematic attempt to wipe out a group of people. In all the conflicts, Israel has actually taken enormous efforts to minimize civilian casualties, like warning civilians of upcoming attacks, especially in this ongoing conflict.
I'm curoious to get your perspective - how do you think a country should react to attacks from a group like Hamas? It's a tough question, right? What's the right balance between defending your citizens and ensuring minimal harm to the other side, especially when that side uses civilians as shields?
How about you tell me the Gazan perspective as if you were a Gazan? Then tell me the the Hamas perspective as if you were Hamas?
You are losing a bit of nuance by saying I think Israel is intentionally targeting women and children. I did not say Israel is intentionally targeting children and women. I think Israeli leadership is expanding south much like Germany expanded east with Lebensraum and America west with manifest destiny. I think they are doing this while promoting a culture of dehumanization of gazans which results in Israeli soldiers not experiencing gazan deaths as much more significant than mowing the lawn. "Regrettable but necessary" I wonder if that's what the Khmer rouge thought when they were smashing babies against trees.
I hear "tragic," but there's an awful lot of telling and not showing.
I would find Israel's sales pitch more convincing if they had journalists on the ground and with soldiers showing why they had to make the decisions they made, but that's not what happens is it? Instead journalists are bombed, imprisoned, or controlled. Israels actions against journalists is clear Mens Rea. All of the liberal leaning journalism in America (NPR for example) have shown that Israel is the bad guy. WCNSF is showing the damage Israel is doing.
> Hamas makes their goals regarding Israel very clear in their covenant. It's not just about land or politics; it's about an ideology that doesn't recognize jews right to exist in this tiny piece of land.
Israel is making a very compelling case that they are right. I am not convinced this stone isn't thrown from a very glass house.
> But calling it genocide? That's a stretch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Stages,_risk_factors,...
The 8th (persecution) is unarguably clear. You are textbook in denial which is stage 10. I think the case for 9 (extermination) can be made.
Genocide:
Any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
Intent of destruction follows from dehumanization. I can't say it's clear Israel has intent to exterminate, but if I ask "are Israel's actions consistent with slow extermination" my answer is most definitely yes.
> Sure, Israel isn't perfect.
70% of deaths being women and children is pretty far from "not perfect". Judicial coups and strongmen leaders are far from "not perfect."
> "open air prison"...
Based on what I've seen and read, the case that Gaza is an open air prison has been made. I think Gazans have a right to attack Israel in the same way I think Americans had a right to attack the british. No Taxation without Representation. Israel exercises tyrannical control over gaza. Tyranny breeds terrorism.
> In all the conflicts, Israel has actually taken enormous efforts to minimize civilian casualties, like warning civilians of upcoming attacks, especially in this ongoing conflict.
If you listen to American news, this is just not true. Factually incorrect. Is it more likely American news (NPR) is lying to me, or that Israeli news is lying to Israelis?
> Most people would say: stop the threat, make sure it never happens again.
you're not wrong because that is in fact what happens. "We have a conflict with this group, lets solve it by killing them all" is certainly the easiest solution. Genocides wouldn't happen if they didn't have popular support.
> how do you think a country should react to attacks from a group like Hamas? It's a tough question, right? What's the right balance between defending your citizens and ensuring minimal harm to the other side, especially when that side uses civilians as shields?
It's a hard question. I can say for certain not like Israel or like America after 9/11.
My senators won't even ask if Israel is committing war crimes, they don't want to know the answer. My president is called Genocide Joe. I don't know anyone who disagrees with that name.
With the money that was supposed to go to development being used to build hundreds of miles of tunnels?
Gaza before the war had an HDI higher than many nations (look it up). It had areas described as wealthy.
It seems critical thinking has gone out the window.
The claim of Lebensraum is far-fetched. Israel withdrew from Gaza nearly two decades ago. This conflict isn't about land; it's about security. For Hamas, even Tel Aviv is considered a settlement.
Regarding journalists: incidents have occurred, but suggesting systematic targeting oversimplifies the complexities and dangers inherent in conflict zones. Not every unfortunate event is part of a larger scheme.
The genocide accusation often seems politically motivated, used by pro-Palestinian groups. This rhetoric can trivialize historical genocides, which were real and horrific. I'm not denying civilian casualties in the conflict, but to say Palestinians are systematically dehumanized, discriminated against, and persecuted is an overstatement. If Palestinians committed to disarmament and ceased targeting civilians, peace could be achievable very quickly.
Consider what would happen if Israel laid down its arms. We saw a hint of this on October 7th. The situation is complex, and simplistic narratives don't capture the reality on the ground.
Post people with guns on the borders. Investigate what caused the extremely sluggish response by the IDF, too.
Don't use it as an excuse for war crimes and ethnic cleansing, while talking about the hostages that are paraded around as an objective in public, as "pawns" to be sacrificed behind closed doors.
https://twitter.com/UncapturedNews/status/174516348183630682...
While IDF soldiers make TikToks literally showing off and bragging about war crimes, in the hundreds by now, given licence by hundreds of people from highest ranks of politicians to generals to "journalist" talking about how there are no innocent people, no civilians in Gaza, just "human animals" and so on. And how everyone who talks back is a Hamas supporter and/or antisemitic.
In a self-righteous fury that gets worse, no less. Which isn't explained by grief over a past event or even a knee-jerk "security" reaction, but rather by the increasing guilt: people painting themselves into a corner by running away from crimes they already committed by doubling down on them, and projecting the guilt as hatred onto those who call it out. That's as old as criminals and mobs, and it leads to war crimes in Gaza just as predictably as it emboldens settlers in the West Bank to up attacks, as it does to attacks on people elsewhere:
https://theintercept.com/2024/01/22/columbia-university-pale...
> Regarding journalists: incidents have occurred
That way one can dismiss anything. "brutally killed", "grim reality" on the one hand, "incidents", "oversimplification" and "politically motivated rhetoric that trivializes real and horrific genocides" on the other.
https://rsf.org/en/israeli-politicians-call-journalists-gaza...
and don't forget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shireen_Abu_Akleh
> On October 26, 2023, a memorial erected at the site of her killing was bulldozed by the Israeli army during a raid.
And this is how they acted during her funeral: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y11CVGz7toM
These are not mere "incidents", they're a criminal habit.
> This rhetoric can trivialize historical genocides, which were real and horrific.
As if this one isn't real or horrific?
https://www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-website/alerts-archive/issue...
"This is the highest share of people facing high levels of acute food insecurity that the IPC initiative has ever classified for any given area or country."
The last number I heard was that 80% of the catastrophically hungry people in the world right now are in Gaza.
Israeli Holocaust Scholar Raz Segal says it's a "textbook case of genocide". Omer Bartov says it might be genocide, but that there are "clear signs of ethnic cleansing" and likely war crimes. To just shrug them and many more off as politically motivated or skimming the surface seems ironic.
> If Palestinians [..] ceased targeting civilians
What does that even mean? As if all Palestinians, instead of starving and freezing, are still holding a rifle pointed at civilians, while IDF soldiers hell bent on keeping innocent people from getting hurt say "drop the weapon"?
Collective punishment is a crime. Nothing you said and nothing anyone could say justifies it.
I’d love to see your analysis on what Israeli officials actually mean when stating - in no uncertain terms - that the ultimate goal is forced displacement (aka ethnic cleansing) of Palestinians in Gaza.
Really? That seems to be funny for a group that is actively promoting another kind of genocide as part of their political manifesto:
> The group's slogan reads as following: "God Is Great, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan_of_the_Houthi_movement
If you had such neighbors they might just decide to kill you if you are not of their tribe. Not sure why people would whitewash such a group of extremists.
The West things they know Islam, specifically radical Islam, better than we do, because they did two semesters worth of courses on Middle Eastern studies at their local university.
One could argue that the Shia Houthis are fighting for their independence, but there's a clear distinction between an independence war and a war calling for destroying the West. That is also a distinction between the Hamas and Fatah factions in Palestine.
I'd have thought that here of all places people would be able to differentiate between words and actions (though we can go to the founding document of Likud and statements by various politicians next, if you like).
They've been the defacto government in a large part of Yemen for a number of years, yet they haven't attacked shipping till now.
When they started they were operating using cruiser rules, they escalated to using missiles without attempting to board/warn first only after the US Navy turned up. They have largely been selective with their choice of targets, which is why the Chinese are very reluctant to get involved.
There's a good analysis of their current position in the latest episode of the Foreign Policy podcast Ones and Tooze ("The War on Global Shipping").
It would undermine a lot of Israel’s international support. At the end of the day, the Houthis aren’t in Gaza. Them raising random asks is orthogonal to the security threat they pose. Piracy is piracy.
And as for the Iranian-backed warmongerers including Hamas, they can all pound sand.
We should avoid collectivizing the motives and capabilities of heterogeneous individuals, many of them children, and many of them adults who do not support Hamas's atrocities but had no ability to stop them without being killed themselves.
It's one thing to say that the civilian deaths in this war are unfortunate collateral damage, it's another thing to do away with the concept of collateral damage entirely and pretend that every single individual bears moral culpability for Hamas's actions, just for the crime of being born on the wrong side of the fence.
Furthermore, Hamas was elected by the population under popular vote, and it is a palestinian organization entrenched in every facet of civilian organizations and life, and strongly stems from palestinian cultural norms (e.g. islamism, martyrdom, etc)
You cannot completely act as if Hamas is not the defacto government in Gaza, and in any war in history, especially urban warfare in civilian setting with non-uniformed combatants, you cannot truly hurt only the military apparatus without also hurting civilians. This is simply a fact of life.
It is a Western trope going as far back as the Nazis to act as if governments have no representation of their citzenship, especially authocratic ones. Even to this day for example, the German government of 1933-1945 are called 'the nazis' rather than germans, as if they came from outer space, and returned to their planet on 1945, leaving none of their members in the Western/Eastern Germany governments.
I know. But that doesn't change the fact that ~25% (number is probably wrong) don't support what Hamas did. You can't group up those 25% with the 75% as if they're all morally culpable and "Palestine" is one thing and "Palestine" deserves moral guilt. If you support Israel you probably see the other side do it where "Israel" is evil as if Israel is a single entity and there aren't different views inside Israel. Every single person is a "settler" who deserves it because they are all equally culpable by virtue of their existence inside a particular geographic region. This is a dehumanizing approach of looking at the conflict.
I think Gaza is going through an enormous tragedy, but Israel did undertake efforts to reduce civilian casualties (such as evacuation), although much less so than previous conflicts. Having said that, war is still terrible and having to fight in such a population dense area with an enemy who is embedded into the population has a huge toll.
About the dehumanizing approach, I agree. I think one of the results of the October 7 attacks is that it heightened that sentiment in the Israeli population, especially among most of the population who did not feel that way previously about the Palestinians. This is due to some of their actions which are frankly inhumane: decapitation, genital mutilation, baby kidnapping, child rape, live burning, and focus on civilian areas
And as for the American-backed warmongers including IDF, they can all pound sand."
It did not start on 7.10 and people will not let that false zionist narrative slide without pushback.
Israel's modus operandi is to commit warcrimes, which they did by killing Palestinian civilians on every other day before 7.10, hasbarists don't want to acknowledge this reality because it exposes them as the actual terrorists.
Israel's enemies modus operandi is to bide their time and attack Israel whenever they feel strong enough, rinse and repeat. They have done this several times already.
> which they did by killing Palestinian civilians on every other day before 7.10
I don't think Israel was killing Palestinian civilians every single day, and certainly not for no reason at all.
(1) Force Israel to end their textbook genocide being carried our against gazans because their genocide is an abomination and stopping it is the right thing to do. We should stop it, not just because it might prevent decades of international embarrassment, but so that all of Blinken's pretty words about "Rule of Law" spoken against Russia aren't hollow and meaningless. Genocide is illegal. Israel is enacting a genocide. Israel should be stopped because of Rule of Law demands it. Rule of law for your enemies, but not for your friends is called "spheres of influence," and it directly supports Xi's international sales pitch and contradicts that America has any principles other than realpolitik.
This is off topic.
(2) Force Israel to end their genocide because the allies of Gazans demand it with the use of force against an impactful, but not particularly guilty, third party. Said differently: we should do what is pragmatic.
This is wrong.
I down-voted the other reply, not because I disagree with the action, Israel should be stopped from continuing their expansionist genocide, but because the Houthi's attacks against merchant vessels is a non factor in what should be happening in Israel. What is happening in Israel should not alter our response to Houthis.
Stopping the genocide is the right goal. Doing it because it is strategically convenient is absolutely not the right thing to do. The Houthi's actions are not justified. The Houthis are guilty and we have every right to military action against them. Israel's actions don't justify Houthi actions. A change in Israel is no guarantee of a Houthi change.
When you show weakness to an enemy, you are telling your enemy what they are doing works and promote more of that behavior.
So, is Hamas in on the ceasefire? Do they commit to cease all the attacks on Israel henceforth? That would be good news, and I'm very sure Israel would like to end the war on such terms. But, alas, the so called "ceasefire" called for is about Israel retreating back to their territory, while Hamas recovers and uses funds earmarked for the rebuilding of Gaza to acquire more weapons, as they plan their next genocidal attack.
I'm not sure that is a "ceasefire" that leads to anything good.
The conflict in Yemen is an old one, and one that the US has always indirectly played a part in, given their seemingly unwavering support of the Saudis. Every power player in the region has been a part of this conflict. It's why there still is civil war in Sudan(!). It's a conflict so complex that makes the Palestinian conflict look trivial in comparison.
We will look back on the escalation of the conflict in Yemen as a strategic blunder. The Biden administration is digging itself deeper & deeper into a hole of its own making.