Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

The website has a clear purpose: News on maritime shipping. It doesn't report on geopolitics. You might think that screaming propaganda at anything that doesn't read the way you want it to makes you look smart, but it really does quite the opposite.

>they are not apathetic

Not trying to single-out a particular country but

"Post-9/11 wars have contributed to some 4.5 million deaths, report suggests"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/05/15/war-on-terro...

Doesn't get talked about much nowadays despite being close to the Holocaust, people just move on and focus on the next bad guy like Putin

> I mentioned the above scenario to my wife and she said she thinks the majority of people would take the $100

I would of course decline, both on general morality grounds and also because I saw the episode "Button, Button" from the '80s revival of "The Twilight Zone".

Summary: a couple in a low-rent apartment who are having serious financial trouble receive a delivery of a locked box with a button on top. That night a man arrives and gives the wife the key to the box, and tells them that if she presses the button someone she does not know will die, and she will receive $200 000. The man leaves.

The couple debate whether or not the offer is real or just some weird joke, and weather or not press the button. They unlock the box and lock inside and find that it is empty. The button is not connected to any machinery or electronics, and they toss the box in the trash but later the wife retrieves it.

The next day the husband sees the wife just staring at the button. He tells her to push it just to get it off her mind. She does so.

The next day the man from the first day returns, hands them $200 000 cash, and takes the box. He tells them that the box will be reprogrammed and offered to some other person with the same conditions, and tells the wife that the person it will be offered to will be someone the wife does not know.

Look, you obviously care a lot about this topic, but I think you're really wrong on your facts. For the record, I'm Israeli, so take what I say with your appropriate level of skepticism - but I'm going to at least try to get across what I think you're wrong about. I hope you approach what I say with an open mind, though many people tend not to (in any discussion of anything, not just about this).

> And when you say "other side of the conflict" does that include the 1+ million of children, or are they just not relevant at all here?

They're incredibly relevant as human beings. They're far less relevant in the context of what the discussion is - they're not out there making propaganda, or fighting Israelis, or whatever. They are, simply, civilians of a country that's currently at war.

And to be clear, any death is tragic - far more so when it's civilians that only want to live peacefully.

> Because as Bill Hicks said, a war is when two armies fight. This is genocide, reducing Gaza to rubble, taking smug selfies in homes and mosques all along the way.

First, this is two armies. I don't agree this is genocide, but let's put that aside for a minute - this really really is two armies. They're mismatched, Israel obviously is stronger - but the day to day fighting that is happening now (as opposed to the initial bombing) is militants with weapons attacking soldiers, and soldier attacking militants, mostly. It's a ground operation between a state military and a quasi-governmental insurgent force.

Just look at the videos put out every single day from Hamas themselves, showing their militants attacking the IDF. If you want a good non-Israeli source for this, you can watch Preston Steward on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@PrestonStewart.

> We don't even hear about this [referring to classifying Gaza as food insecure]. The little facts that are brought up are all all couched between bringing up Hamas 50 times. No, we're expected to be content, admiring and grateful even, when Israel stops bombing little kids in a barrel -- and that the genocide will, predictably, continue without bombs via the inflicted wounds will barely get a mention, just like nobody really cared the last few decades.

Firstly, Hamas is brought up 50 times because they are the government, as well as one of the active participants in the war.

Secondly, this is not a genocide, by any definition of that word (I normally go by the official UN definition here). Israel is not trying to kill all of the Gazans - the reason civilians die is because this is war. And it's horrible, and regrettable, and every civilian death is a tragedy - but it just isn't proof of genocide.

Third, you imply that this genocide has been going on for the last few decades - which even further underlines my point that this is not a genocide. There have been several tragic genocides in the 20th and 21st centuries - and in all of them, the populations decreased, because that is the point.

Israel has the means to kill far more people, if it wanted to - it just doesn't.

If you have another definition of genocide that you're thinking of here, or some reason I'm wrong - please tell me what it is, so we can at least know we're talking about the same thing.

--

I don't think you're wrong about most of your last two paragraphs - of course you (assuming you're from the US) have more control over Israel (via US government policy) than over Hamas, and of course you have moral complicity in whatever Israel does.

But, I think you're getting something wrong here:

> However, a nation that pink-washes genocide says "hi fellow human rights enjoyer" to me and gives me all that horse crap about even knowing what a nation recognizing human rights would look like, much less being one, they need to either a.) stop what they're doing b.) or be told in no uncertain terms they are deluding themselves.

The thing is, this isn't about a nation "pink washing" or claiming they are fellow human rights enjoyer. First, it is a nation that really is closer in values to the US - which implies a lot of things, some of them making Israel's position harder (e.g. the fact that Israel has free press, as opposed to Gaza, means that far more Israelis are openly critical of Israel - there's a reason you don't hear more Gazan voices speaking out against Hamas!)

But more importantly, Israel isn't just a nation - it's full of people, who do share your values. I personally share Western values. So do most Israelis.

We are not saying "we share your values, so let us do a genocide". We're saying "we share your values, and we know more about what's happening than you do - our lived experience is much richer about this - therefore you should trust us more than you do".

I would never condone a genocide, and for the record I am highly critical of a lot of Israel's actions. But a genocide is just not happening, nor anythign clsoe to it.

What is happening is a war that Israel never wanted, but that most Israelis feel must be fought, because there is just no alternative that anyone has offered.

So I'll leave you with this question - what would you do in Israel's shoes? How would you guarantee that an invading force intent on killing as many of your citizens as possible, isn't able to do this again? Or would you just accept that your friends and family dying is OK?

I'm looking for a a realistic answer btw of what to do on October 7th, not how you would've changed Israeli policy in the past. Like I said - I'm also highly critical of Israeli policy for the last fifteen years at least - but I still agree this war is necessary (regrettably).