Yeah! Who would we become if we would condemn terror organizations?
this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
52 points (100.0% liked)
Socialism
2844 readers
55 users here now
Beehaw's community for socialists, communists, anarchists, and non-authoritarian leftists (this means anti-capitalists) of all stripes. A place for all leftist and labor news and discussion, as long as you're nice about it.
Non-socialists are welcome to come to learn, though it's hard to get to in-depth discussions if the community is constantly fighting over the basics. We ask that non-socialists please be respectful and try not to turn this into a "left vs right" debate forum by asking leading questions or by trying to draw others into a fight.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Nobody is saying you can't. Read the article.
It's somewhat misleading to call one side of a war a 'terrorist organisation' though. That's not really how war works.
one side of a war a ‘terrorist organisation’
Are you shitting me? The group that has the destruction of Israel in their founding charter and that massacred more than 1000 civilians is just a regular war party? They are fucking war criminals according to International Humanitarian Law.
You understand how many civilians Israel has massacred this week?
Both sides have committed war crimes but Israels are more numerous even if we talk about the current conflict and ignore the past decades of torture, cruelty and invasions.
Having said that, there's been an acceptance of war crimes recently since America committed a lot.
So you claim that Israel deliberately targeted the civilians in the same way Hamas did?
If Hamas or Islamic Jihad have their launch sites anywhere close or in civilian structures, those structures become legitimate military targets. Civilians have to get protected as good as possible, but not at any cost. The attacker only has to make sure that civilian deaths are not „excessive“ compared to the achieved military advantage. So valid military targets can be pretty much ANY civilian structure, if the structure is abused by the enemy. Abusing civilian structures, like putting launch sites close or into Schools, Hospitals or similar, makes those usually protected structures military targets.
And no - I do not like that - but it is war after all - and this is International Humanitarian Law.
So many things you probably consider war crimes, because civilians died in a Israeli attack against Hamas, are no war crimes. The only criminals in this equation is Hamas. Hamas started this war and also brought those attacks on the Palestinian people.
They are trying to eliminate Gaza. They have openly said that. They are purposely trying to kill every single civilian.
Yes the war is being fought from a populated area because Israel have created a tiny ghetto where everyone is living toe to tail. There is no nice rural area they can go to here, they've been kettled in.
You have a complete misunderstanding on what constitutes a war crime and a misunderstanding of the war currently ongoing. This is an occupied nation trying to fight back against generations of war crimes.
Israeli war crimes have their own wiki page and it is long - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_war_crimes_against_Israel
They are trying to eliminate Gaza. They have openly said that. They are purposely trying to kill every single civilian.
That's a biiiiig claim. Big claims like that need big evidence to back them up. Unfortunately, I'm unable to find what quote you're referring to. There's a lot going on and most generic searches return fairly basic news sources. Care to specify exactly what you are referring to?
Have you not been following this? They've announced their intentions to eliminate gaza followed by cutting off food and water to the area and refusing to let people leave. They've then started systematic bombing from north to south. The very north is flattened already. All residents dead if they didn't move south.
This is genocide.
Just noting that if arguing with Zionists feels particularly mind-numbing, this is one of the reasons:
I saw a doc about this earlier in the year. It is ridiculous. A lot of the people to talk to seem to be totally uneducated on the conflict but full of Israeli talking points.
yeah like wtf
Read the article before posting please. This is a serious and complex issue.
I have struggled this time to engage with some of my friends. I have learned that many of them are not as supportive of oppressed people as they claimed to be. Tribalism is a deep current in the human psyche. I think the author does a good job of laying out some of my thoughts. Particularly, about the pressure that social media engaged people feel to declare things as if they were tiny heads of state.
I love my friends, but the fact is, they are incredibly underqualified and undereducated on these issues, as am I, and most people. This doesn't mean we shouldn't have opinions on these things, but making these opinions in such absolutist "I'm going to end this friendship if we don't agree" way doesn't help. I have never once heard them speak about Israel and Palestine, and all of the sudden they can't stop pontificating. Social media makes some people so self obsessed they can't help themselves from seeking the validation they get from seeing their words on a screen.
In more aggressive terms, I don't need to know your opinions on geopolitics Becky. The last time I saw you, you were doing lines of what you hoped was coke that you got from a stranger dressed as a unicorn. I don't trust you to watch my houseplants.
At any rate, saying Palestine should be free is not antisemitism. Free Palestine!
Your aggressive TL;DR is gold.
P.S. Becky killed my houseplants too.
What does this have to do with socialism anyway?
I'm not OP but the author's starting point is about the expression of solidarity with a group of ordinary people, and how this is being undermined by media. Pretty sure this kind of solidarity is part of socialist praxis?
In a recent interview, Yara El-Ghadban (Palestinian-Canadian novelist, with a PhD in anthropology) made an interesting answer to this recurring question: by asking her "do you condemn Hamas?", the interviewer was questioning her humanity, and she didn't have to prove or justify her humanity.
I find this point of view interesting, because it turns the question on its head. Since the answer is obvious, what does it mean to ask this question, and why is it only asked of certain people?
It's likely asked as a "gotcha" sort of question; a question that the asker is using to prove the answerer is on the side of the terrorists. There's no nuance in that question.
It's meant as a leading question to derail legitimate discussion.
It’s meant as a leading question to derail legitimate discussion
aka arguing in bad faith.
Pretty much like the "you pretend to have an ecological conscience but you have an iPhone and a car".
It's a super complex issue. I honestly think the article makes it one step more complicated since it asks to not condemn Hamas. "Free Palistine" is one thing, "I stand with Hamas"... That's a totally different animal.
Make me
Pleeeeeeeease? 🥺