That there's a genocide in Gaza is objectively debatable. In the sense that people debate it.
> I can’t speak to specific details here, but Palantir software is partly responsible for stopping multiple terror attacks. I believe this fact alone vindicates this stance.
Defeating Hamas is a moral imperative. I am sure the engineers at Palantir sleep well at night knowing they are helping achieve that goal, and I commend them for it.
In that case what do you call the Netanyahu governament strategy of propping up Hamas?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up...
The reason it matters is that under the second one Israel has no moral legitimacy, so saying things like moral imperative show how fucked up your morals are.
With Hamas in charge, Israel could avoid making new peace agreements or concessions by saying that there was "no partner for peace". The more violent Hamas got, the more cover Israel had for expanding settlements. And now Likud is already talking about what they'll do with all the Gaza land they're taking.
create a separate state for palestine under the control of hamas would only legitimise them, allow them to easily get more weapons and go on another oct 7, which will again lead to the bombings currently happening.
Bombing them to death would lead to deaths of many, many women and children cuz gaza is 75% children.
You cannot have peace with hamas, only ceasefire, and even then they havnt stopped launching homemade missiles.
The most sane solution is defeating hamas, establishing a third party control over it to stabilise the region and then return it to democracy, but israel is too trigger happy to do any progress on this field and hamas wants all of israel.
You cannot have peace on the land without destroying hamas. Not even for moral reasons. Maybe there is another solution in ur mind?
I realise that this is not a perfect solution to the Israel/Palestine problem. It has many flaws in the long term and ignores a bunch of pressing issues. But it does have the benefit of not killing tens of thousands of people, and in that way is a hell of a lot better than the bloodthirsty rampage currently happening.
So after Hamas invaded Israel, massacred over a thousand civilians (and they don't have the "collateral damage" excuse they just gruesomely raped and murdered people because they were apparently subhuman...) and kidnapped hundreds of others, Israel should have just said "aw-shucks.. well they won't get us next time". Really?
That would have actually been worse than the US government doing nothing after 9/11 besides introducing stricter TSA checks.
Now one might legitimately argue whether the reactions in either were necessarily that effective. But not doing anything would have been insanely absurd. You just can't except any non entirely dysfunctional government to behave that way.
It's a horrible situation.. but any suggestion or proposed alternative that wouldn't result in the destruction or significant weakening of Hamas is just not particularly useful (long-term at least).
Proportionality has nothing to do with self defense.
Hamas the org was involved, and the other ones too, they are the target.
But I do agree that Israel's policies regarding air strikes are fucked up
The vast majority of the people who are killed in those strikes are not Hamas.
300 is clearly a bigger number than 40, so was the attack wrong? india used it as an excuse to kill more people than what should be considered a good proportional response!
Since that attack[and other operations], JeM and others became fairly inactive and terrorist attacks have gone down by an insane number, what used to be a daily occurrence and a reason to not attend local festival celebrations due to threat of bombs is now a rarity.
Proportionality has nothing to do with defence. Why on earth would u kill only a few terrorists as a response? Israels actions are fucked up but proportionality does not apply to defence. If a state is retaliating to a threat, why would it leave the threat alive, which would only cost lives of more of its people?
Israel's airstrike policy is bad and roof knocking is not enough, the way israel conducts war is wrong and there needs to be intervention that is able to chain israel while eliminating hamas, demilitarising palestinian jihadist groups and stabilising the region.
But proportionality has nothing to do with defence. you can be disproportional if that means the threat ceases to exist.
> The Deir Yassin massacre took place on April 9, 1948, when Zionist paramilitaries attacked the village of Deir Yassin near Jerusalem, Mandatory Palestine, killing at least 107 Palestinian villagers, including women and children.[1] The attack was conducted primarily by the Irgun and Lehi, who were supported by the Haganah and Palmach.[3] The massacre was carried out despite the village having agreed to a non-aggression pact.
Another example for 20 years ago (way before October 7). Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/nov/16/israel2
> An Israeli army officer who fired the entire magazine of his automatic rifle into a 13-year-old Palestinian girl and then said he would have done the same even if she had been three years old was acquitted on all charges by a military court yesterday.
And why should they be different - their prophet was the first pogrom champion and the whole history of Islam is a history of obsession with Jews.
https://medium.com/@Ksantini/the-list-of-crimes-committed-by...
You can be pro-Israel without pretending to hold humanist values and so on.
https://archive.ph/2023.10.14-033824/https://www.haaretz.com...
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/hamas-israels-own-creation/
Anyway, the idea of embedding military targets within civilian populations is also not exclusive to one side:
https://www.haaretz.com/2012-06-09/ty-article/.premium/does-...
Neither is the use of terror:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing
https://web.archive.org/web/20121226235336/http://www.foreig...
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2019/02/no-justifica...
https://www.thetorah.com/article/israels-incomplete-conquest...
And if you don't just claim that you do anyway and keep bombing hospitals.
Nor does Israel build underground bunkers or areas to shoot rockets out of underneath civilian buildings.
Israel has already executed a proportional response to Oct 7, at least 100 times over. The additional 99+ times represent indefensible war crimes.
Israel has already executed a proportional response to Oct 7, at least 100 times over. The extra 99+ times represent unprovoked war crimes.
Human shields are easy to see, if you're remotely literate in military law: if you don't see the non-combatants clearly marked, as you can observe happening in Ukraine, for example, it's a human shield and a war crime. If you see firing rockets from civilian area, it a human shield because the other side cannot respond and makes more mistakes. If you prevent evacuation of civil population, it's a human shield. Etc.
In other words, if you read the article I would add one more bucket to the three categories the author provided to classify palantir's work - genocide assistance.
from https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-jd-vance-peter-thiel-f...
""" Not only did it provide information to the US military during the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, but over the past 10 months in particular, Palantir has provided AI-powered military and surveillance technology support to the Israelis in its war on Gaza.
It has, in the words of Palantir's co-founder Alex Karp, been involved in "crucial operations in Israel".
Palantir says it offers defence technologies that are “mission-tested capabilities, forged in the field” to deliver “a tactical edge - by land, air, sea and space”.
These capabilities include supplying Israel’s military and intelligence agencies with the data to fire missiles at specific targets in Gaza - be it inside homes or in moving vehicles. """