1260
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Putting aside the lack of evidence of this, and the Israeli government's history of being caught lying about this kind of thing, how many civilians is it defensible to kill per Hamas militant, and does the calculus change if they're children?

...or are we taking the super credible IDF line and saying the infants are Hamas militants?

[-] kSPvhmTOlwvMd7Y7E@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Putting aside existing evidence for it

There isn't a specific count. Just like there is no count for "how many Russian civilians has to die for each Ukrainian soldier". Israel didn't ask this war, Hamas did. Hamas is in charge of Gaza, not Israel.

[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

You understand that the Israeli government funded Hamas over the PLO, don't you? Netanyahu signed the death warrant on his own citizens to create the pretext for the genocide he's now accelerating - Netanyahu and the Israeli government did ask for this war.

[-] kSPvhmTOlwvMd7Y7E@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Okey that is a valid argument! Second one in a dozen of comments or so

Yes i know this mofo funded hamas and hope he ll pay for it. However, the attack on 7 October happened on Israeli territory, not the opposite. That's still a "defensive operation" in my understanding.

[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I really don't like this argument (defensive genocide? Come on.), but it's one for Palestine in any case - look at the Israeli operation of Palestine as an open air concentration camp, and look at the casualty stats - between a dozen and five hundred Palestinian casualties per Israeli casualty, depending on your datasource and the way you slice it. This would justify the 7 October attack as defensive - which they weren't.

Again, if you combine all that with the fact what Israel have backed the IDF, and the fact that Israel are a nuclear power with an advanced military, and f35s (compared to a paraglider and small-arms) how do you conclude that this is defensive?

[-] kSPvhmTOlwvMd7Y7E@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I reject your second argument: the fact that one army is light years ahead of their opponent does not automatically make «offensive» whatever they do, nor does it mean that the advanced army should not fight at all. Good for them to be advanced

Regarding your first point, and the fact that there are so many civil victims for so «few» Israeli victims: agreed there are many. With some gotchas:

  • a non zero number of those civilians are only «civilians» because Hamas said so. It is a known fact they count their own fighters as «civilians». I do not deny that there are indeed, true civil victims. Israel has a record of letting people know where they attack in advance, so they do have some good will credit.
  • When you have a terrorist nest, next to your house, I think it's pretty sensible to go in, and reduce their capacity to do harm. Most comments here reject even the fact that Israel had a right in first place to even enter the Gaza. I do believe they have total right to do so.
  • a genocide is a deliberate killing of civilians. Only Hamas deliberately targets civilians. IDF obviously could take more care in avoiding unnecessary death, but they don't kill for fun as much as I know
  • It strikes to me that not as much pressure is put on Hamas for taking care of their citizen as it is on Israel. Hamas is ruling there, maybe Gaza's citizens should somehow be involved in solving their problems?

I am not here to justify every death of every kid in Gaza, but I do say that Israel was provoked, and we are in «find out» phase of «fuck around», and yes, I reject the notion of «genocide»

[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

the fact that one army is light years ahead of their opponent does not automatically make «offensive» whatever they do, nor does it mean that the advanced army should not fight at all. Good for them to be advanced

It speaks to their moral culpability, the irrelevance of Hamas' genocidal intent, and the indefensible lack of proportionality in their response. I'm a 6'7" grown-ass man. If a 2 year old kicks me in the shin, after I've locked them in a cage and poked them aggressively with a stick, me beating their skull to a paste isn't a defensible response - same applies to Israel.

a non zero number of those civilians are only «civilians» because Hamas said so. It is a known fact they count their own fighters as «civilians». I do not deny that there are indeed, true civil victims.

Similarly, Israel has been caught lying about who is a Hamas militant (they're also making claims that every Palestinian is Hamas) - I don't think you're dumb or bad faith enough to argue this is at a level that changes things, so unless you're going to argue otherwise, there's not a point to engage here.

Israel has a record of letting people know where they attack in advance, so they do have some good will credit.

"Sure - I bombed all those schools, but I called on a bomb threat on a few of them first, so aren't I really the good guy?" No.

When you have a terrorist nest, next to your house, I think it's pretty sensible to go in, and reduce their capacity to do harm.

Can you define terrorist in a way that implicates Palestine and not Israel? I ask because Israel is killing far more innocent civilians than Hamas in addition to indiscriminately fucking over Palestine by cutting movement, trade, water, power, and rendering it uninhabitable with deadly consequences.

a genocide is a deliberate killing of civilians.

You're disagreeing with the UN definition

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; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Only Hamas deliberately targets civilians.

No. Even if this were true, how many civilians are they killing per militant? 100:1? Knowing the proportion of kids killed is pretty squarely in line with the broader population, what makes you think they're targeting Hamas? They've also killed 100 journalists and 48 aid workers. This is indefensible - please don't try.

It strikes to me that not as much pressure is put on Hamas for taking care of their citizen as it is on Israel

Israel is responsible for Hamas - they propped them up over the PLO, created the oppressive conditions that would lead to sympathy for their goals - Fatah/the PLO would be in power if Israel didn't decide to create the pretext for this genocide at the expense of Israeli lives. What would Palestine pushing back against Hamas look like when half the population are children? They're not responsible for taking away Israel's flimsy justification for driving them from their homes and slaughtering them.

I am not here to justify every death of every kid in Gaza, but I do say that Israel was provoked, and we are in «find out» phase of «fuck around», and yes, I reject the notion of «genocide»

That toddler kicked me after I tortured them, so I was justified in stomping their skull into a paste - fuck around and find out... What's proportionality? You're doing a lot of work to defend a genocide for someone that's opposed to genocide - but you disagree with the UN on the definition, and think this is justified, so that shouldn't come as a surprise.

[-] Sparlock@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

He's been bad faith all over this thread while pretending to be genuinely discussing things.

He's not gonna give any response that isn't either apologetic clap-trap or straight up BS.

It takes a special kind of vile to defend genocide...

[-] Sparlock@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

a genocide is a deliberate killing of civilians. Only Hamas deliberately targets civilians. IDF obviously could take more care in avoiding unnecessary death, but they don’t kill for fun as much as I know

Genocide is any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

    (a) Killing members of the group;
    (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
    (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Sure seems like Israel is trying to get a full bingo card on this one even if you reject the notion of «genocide».

And before you go for the "intent" get out of jail free card...

Israel's Public Diplomacy Minister: "Erase all of Gaza from the face of the earth. That the Gazan monsters will fly to the southern fence & try to enter Egyptian territory or they will die & their death will be evil.

Gaza should be erased!"

Still questioning a genocidal intent?

How about Bibi Netanyahu saying “You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. 1 Samuel 15:3 ‘Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass’," .

Defense Minister Yoav Gallant called residents of Gaza, about half of whom are children, "human animals" as he ordered a "complete siege" on the enclave including a total blockade of food, fuel, and electricity.

Former military officer Eliyahu Yossian said the IDF must enter Gaza "with the aim of revenge, zero morality, maximum corpses," and toldChannel 14 in Israel on Monday that "there is no population in Gaza, there are 2.5 million terrorists."

Earlier this year, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said at an event in Paris, "There's no such thing as Palestinians because there's no such thing as a Palestinian people." He also said the West Bank town of Huwara should be "wiped out" by "the state of Israel," while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented a map of what he called "The New Middle East"—without the illegally occupied West Bank, Gaza, or East Jerusalem—at the United Nations General Assembly just weeks before the onslaught in Gaza began.

Sure seems like a pattern of intent. I could find you that video of Bibi back in 2002 saying much the same if you like. This isn't new.

[-] FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

up to 2005 UN, EU, America, Russia, Israel and a host of middle east intermediates like Qatar: provide aid to Gaza to encourage economic growth, is inevitably siphoned off by Hamas and others for military purposes

2006: UN, EU, America, Russia, Israel: "dear Hamas totes congrats on winning an election, wonder if you could abandon your pledge to genocide Israel and pick up the two state solution discussions where Fatah got up to? Else..y'know.. we'll have to cut aid and stuff coz that's a bit terroristy"

Hamas: "Fuck you infidel! We look forward to strangling your children in their bed" incoherent yelling

UN, EU, America, Russia: deep sigh

Israel: cuts aid, blockades Gaza

Egypt: also blockades Gaza Yo you Hamas bois are batshit insane, no way we're having an open border with you "Muslim brothers"...

Western social science students: why would Israel do this?

[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I'll keep this simple.

You have a bunch of genocidal dipshits welding small arms embedded in a civilian population, propped up by a genocidal nuclear power with a modern military and F-35s.

  • Which has the ability to deliver on that genocidal intent, and has been wiping out the other at a rate of between a dozen and five hundred to one over the past few decades?

  • Why did Israel prop up Hamas over the moderate, secular PLO, who wouldn't murder Israelis?

[-] dx1@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It's interesting how this leaves out 17 years of choking supplies of food and water to the civilian population of Gaza, the Israeli occupation and settlements in Gaza prior to 2005, the fact that that illegal occupation had been ongoing for 38 years despite international outcry, the naval blockade amounting to an act of war of its own, and really the whole broader context of the population of Gaza being displaced by ethnic cleansing by Israel since 1948.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I must have missed the part of the Geneva Conventions that says, "unless they started it."

Oh wait, no I didn't. Because it's not fucking there.

[-] lud@lemm.ee -3 points 1 year ago
[-] kSPvhmTOlwvMd7Y7E@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago
[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Why would you defend the maintenance of an open air concentration to house millions of children (among others)?

[-] Cannacheques@slrpnk.net -1 points 1 year ago

Israel at least has a government and a democracy, and the government even has been somewhat honest with the NSO group and their crappy spyware tools - though I'm not sure why any of this needs to involve bombing hospitals or why "a functional democracy" has to be defended with such fervour, but hey at least we can hold onto the hope that democracy itself will mean that there will be a degree of accountability for those in power

[-] smooth_tea@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

A government with officials who openly admit to wanting to eradicate what's left of the Palestinians.

this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
1260 points (87.9% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

9771 readers
158 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS