this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2023
205 points (89.6% liked)

World News

38977 readers
3492 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

MiddleEastEye.net

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hh93@lemm.ee -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There is such a thing as a rule of international law that defines what's a valid target during war. A school is not, a music festival also not. Military bases are always a target even if they are within otherwise protected buildings.

I'm not dehumanizing Palestinians. I took part in protests for humanitarian aid in the past and even donated to their cause.

I feel people like you always see an ideal world where there are only perfect solutions. I've yet to read people arguing like that write what would've been a better option after the massacre. Just ignore that that group just slaughtered civilians and took hostages certainly is not an option as they'd feel motivated to do it again and it's only reasonable to seek out justice.
So what's a better option than telling people to evacuate and target bases used by Hamas afterwards? Going in with the army on the ground surely is far worse for everyone involved.

I know that Israel has the upper hand in this and it's always easier to support the underdog but in this both sites are shitty and Israel is by far less so than Hamas. The fact that civilians are there suffering inbetween is completely tragic - but a lot of them are supporting or at least enabling Hamas (which is why Egypt won't open their border for refugees).

The only reason for that attack by Hamas was to end the official talks between Israel and Saudi Arabia for peace in the region - that alone should tell you who has the moral high ground in this conflict. There's a reason Iran is financing Hamas like this since they can't accept a country like Israel existing and if they manage to make peace with more of the surrounding countries then it'll be very hard to change that fact that Israel has a right to exist.

Sure Netanjahu is an asshole and the radical settlers are only pouring oil in the fire but in the end it was Hamas that officially made it their target to eradicate Israel which made them quit any peace talks.

My heart is with the civilians there but in the end it's kind of similar to the allies bombing Germany after their people first supported the Nazis and then at least stayed complicit. Sure there were civilian deaths of innocents, too, but in the big picture it seems justified doesn't it? And I say that as a German living in one of the cities that was hit hardest.

If people are supporting or at least accepting a regime like the one in Gaza that's using them as shields there is only so much you can do if the target is to get rid of that regime.

[–] snek@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Proximity shielding is bullshit and used to justify killing and DEHUMANIZING Palestinians. The idea of people being human shields in their own homes is genocidal bullshit used to justify killing them. Israel tops this list.

I will keep that in CAPS, thanks. I don't care how many times you donated or protested. It doesn't change what Israel does which you sit here defending.

[–] hh93@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

The idea of people being human shields in their own homes is genocidal bullshit used to justify killing them.

So how do you call it if hamas is building their bases of operation in civilian buildings or launch their rockets from schools and hospitals exactly because they KNOW it's impossible to target them there without also hitting civilians?

Why is egypt not accepting refugees? Because they know that a big part of the palestinians are actually supporting hamas and are not just victims here and they don't want to deal with the risk of those people radicalizing themselves further within Egypt and having to deal with that.

And as for the dehumanizing part: which party did deliberately chose to deliberately attack civilians and not "just" accepted them as collateral damage? Sure the latter is also horrible and should be kept to an absolute minimum but the first is absolutely indefensible. There's a reason why at every other pro-palestine rally right now there are people shouting to exterminate all the jews and why jews are scared wearing their kippah again: this whole thing is not just about standing with civilians in gaza but actually coming from an anti-semitic point a lot of the time.

[–] GONADS125@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Do you even realize that you failed to refute my entire argument? You just wrote a long Red Herring.

Everything you said here is 100% irrelevant to the fact that your logic used to justify the genocide of Palestinians is the same logic used to justify the terror attacks on Isreali citizens.

That was my argument.

Logic doesn't care what your feelings are or what international laws dictate. Your argumemt's framework used to justify Isreal's genocide can be flipped and used in the very same way to justify Hamas' actions. I've already demonstrated that above.

I could argue against your other points here, but that's not necessary when you're breaking the sacred law of non-contradiction. You're argument can't be true for Israel and false for Hamas. Your argument is invalid.

No matter what new claims you stake, it won't change the fact that the core of your argument is invalid. You don't keep adding onto a compromised foundation; you rebuild.