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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…