Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

Thats not what I am saying. Im asking what you are advocating for and against?

Are you saying we need more wars to prevent wars? Economic solidarity in sanctions against bad actors?

It is easy to say "wars bad, peace good", but more difficult to articulate an actual plan for preventing them and promoting peace.

>The Times reports: “Britain’s military is preparing to launch a wave of air strikes against the Iranian-backed Houthis…Under the plans the UK would join with the US and possibly another European country”

> What is that "pro-Israel" side?

I just mean random people on the internet siding with the state of israel.

> One of the five acts constituting genocide as defined by the UN Genocide Convention is "imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group".

Yes i agree that is part of the definition.

While i find a lot of the statements you mentioned concerning, for it to be genocide i would think they would have to come from people participating in the conflict or those who command them (since intent is required for genocide). I don't think statements by people not in charge of Israeli war planning count for much when trying to establish the intent behind the israeli war machine.

The amalek statement of course came from someone in command. The actual statement is at https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/statement-by-pm-netan... . I agree its concerning, but i'm not sure in context it is really a smoking gun. It seems like it could be interpreted as meaning remember the existential threat hamas poses. There have been other statements by people in charge saying that the enemy is hamas not palestine.

> what more do you want?

Generally the bar would be proof that the intent of the military operation is to destroy the ethnic group. Showing intent is difficult, but that is generally what the crime of genocide requires.

To quote wikipedia:

>"The specific intent element defines the purpose of committing the acts: "to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such". The specific intent is a core factor distinguishing genocide from other international crimes, such as war crimes or crimes against humanity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Intent

> Anyway, I would suggest you to research the anti-American movements all over the world and you will see that Americans(the state) are actually treated as evil by many people who are affected by the American atrocities or sympathetic with those affected. Americans lost most of their credibility even in UK and Europe.

I'm well aware. And for sure much of the Muslim world hates the US as much as Israel ("Big Satan to Israel's Little Satan").

That said, mass demonstrations against Israel started on October 7th, before any Israeli response, and while invaders were still within Israel. In Western countries. Can you imagine anything like that happening on September 11th?

> It's really a sad situation because there's a lot to admire about Israel and its people. They were able to build a progressive and prosperous society in a desert but unfortunately turned into genocidal oppressors.

I think it's a sad situation because so many people are dying. This would've been just as sad if Israel hadn't done much.

The said, I highly disagree with your characterization of Israel as "genocidal". That's just not true. There is no intention to cause a genocide against the Palestinians.

> You should be able to draw conclusions from your experience of a single attack that took lives of thousands Israeli and extrapolate to what those people are going through over the years and this latest fight and think about what will want to do to you and what they think about you.

I think it is incredibly sad to think that Palestinians cannot find a way to live in peace, or that Israelis can't. Somehow Germany and Japan suffered far worse in WW2 but this didn't cause an endless cycle of violence against the Allies. Why can't the same be true here?

As for what I want to do to "them" - if you mean Hamas, I'd want to take apart the organization. If we can capture every single member of Hamas, I'd be all for it. If not, we need to kill as many of them as we have to to stop the organization.

If we could do that without a single innocent Gazan dying, we should. No war can be conducted in this way though, and Hamas is making that even harder to do by embedding themselves in civilian areas. I sure as hell don't want any "revenge" that comes at the cost of innocent Gazans, and neither do most people.

Btw, you call this a "single attack". It wasn't, it was an invasion that lasted two days, and a bombing campaign that is ongoing for three months. Including the daily worry of other countries joining and attacking Israel.

I think it would be delusional the think that war never results in peace. History is full of countless violent conflicts, revolutions, separations that were followed by relative peace. Of course that doesn't mean that going to war is a good thing.

>we have the institutions, playbook, everything. Why would we throw that away? Why aren't we building on that for the next generation, just like they did? We almost can't be stopped if we choose to do it; only if we inexplicably quit. Who would want us to do that?

It seems like you think there are clear and obvious solutions to conflict. Im asking what those are? Do you think they are working? why or why not?

What is the obvious playbook solution for resolving Ukraine or Gaza conflicts that we threw away instead of following?