The pro-israel argument is that hamas are almost entirely to blame for those numbers (as they use civilian infrastructure for war purposes)
Almost all Israelis are IDF members, members of various intelligence and defense companies. If we plotted a map of a suitable attack radius around all valid combat targets in Israel, almost the entirety of their "civilian" regions would be covered.
The idf doesn't fight near civilian infrastructure - it deploys to the borders. Military bases in israel are far from civilian infrastructure. I think you're probably just wrong here.
I shouldn't even engage with this since you've been spamming the entire thread with pro-Israel hasbara, but Ashkenazis are native to Europe not the Middle East, and yes they should return to their homeland -- mainly Eastern and Central Europe.
I think you're wrong - ashkenazis consistently have strong DNA traces back to the levant
Pro-tip (observe what the UK does closely): Don't call it a genocide and then you don't need to do anything about it.
> Don't call it a genocide and then you don't need to do anything about it Personally speaking, the is-it-a-genocide debate makes me tune out. It’s hyperlegal, clearly a moving target and selectively prosecuted by each side to the point of, often, absurdity. If two people want to debate it, fine, but I have no obligation to pay attention. If we want to talk about harms and harm reduction, that feels more concrete and…
I love this point, invoking "genocide" will only derail you. The conversation benefits by being framed simply in terms of ethical validity / harm.
> If the effect of your actions is a war crime, you are a war criminal. war crimes usually defined by intent: were civilians targeted intentionally.
Were civilians targeted intentionally on 9/11? Or was it just a targeted assassination strike on some bankers? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_July_2024_al-Mawasi_attack ) If I am attacked and legally have the right to self defense, but kill the neighbors "in the process of" defending myself because I fired 300 rounds at the attacker. Is that okay? I didn't do it "intentionally". But it is convenient that I hate t…
We likely agree that individual military strikes ought to aim for collateral damage proportional to their war value. For example a strike with potential to kill enemy leadership (rapidly accelerating the end of the overall war) can justify high collateral damage, much higher than would be justified by a strike against frontline troops.
With this in mind, I don't follow your example at all. Are those bankers of wartime value? And if they are, is the collateral damage proportional to that value? It's possible there's a lot I don't know about those banker's links to military!
Many of the companies in that list have essentially zero link to the events in Gaza. E.g. a Swiss company that supplies coal to Israel is considered complicit in genocide. Because Israelis having electricity means complicity in genocide, apparently. Hyundai is included because it sells vehicles to Israel, allegedly those machines were used to destroy Palestinian building but the cited source doesn't mention Hyundai:…
It makes sense to me. Of course Israel not having electricity would make it difficult for them to wage war and thus is a valid tactic for someone wishing to curtail their belligerence. And yes, boycotting business with countries is a perfectly normal procedure? It was done to Russia, it was done to South Africa. Where is the problem?
The opening of the page claims that these companies' goods and services are directly being used in Gaza:
> Their products, services, or infrastructure have been used extensively in military operations in Gaza resulting in mass civilian casualties, widespread destruction that amount to war crimes, and genocide.
But this is untrue for many of the companies listed.
But of course you're not arguing that collateral damage proves war crime?
I would expect the UN to investigate what the IDF defines as collateral damage and draw their own conclusion. Their conclusion is genocide. I'm not sure all the facts are in yet in relation to Ukraine, but I do not anticipate that Putin will be getting his yacht back in the immediate future.
Note "the UN" has no unified voice on an absence or presence of genocide - instead it's voiced by individual UN inquiries. Only the ICJ can legally convict a state of violating the genocide convention.
It makes sense to me. Of course Israel not having electricity would make it difficult for them to wage war and thus is a valid tactic for someone wishing to curtail their belligerence. And yes, boycotting business with countries is a perfectly normal procedure? It was done to Russia, it was done to South Africa. Where is the problem?
The opening of the page claims that these companies' goods and services are directly being used in Gaza: > Their products, services, or infrastructure have been used extensively in military operations in Gaza resulting in mass civilian casualties, widespread destruction that amount to war crimes, and genocide. But this is untrue for many of the companies listed.
Doesn't have to be direct military use,if it is at all being used by Israel then Israel is benefiting from it. And if Israel ends up profiting from the transaction we are directly enriching Israel. So to someone opposed to the Israeli actions, it makes natural sense to boycott them in a similar manner to a state sanction. Take Iran itself, whether Iran profits or loses, American businesses are prevented from basically any dealing with Iran. If sanctioning Iran makes sense, then to someone opposed to the Israeli campaign sanctioning Israel makes sense to.
Yes for example if a religious extremist British faction were trying to colonize Native American america today, I'd gladly support funding and arming them against the invaders. Whats centuries past is past, what is happening today is important.
This positions israel as the invader, but pro-israelis (like myself) will argue that historically israeli jews+arabs are the indigenous population, and have been the target of invasion, and israeli territorial expansion has been through arguably defensive wars. In your example I immediately think "you'd never support a native movement that willfully and indiscriminately murdered a bunch of british citizens". And to m…
I don't mind the jews already living in the region. If European whites had immigrated peacefully and with consent of those already living then none of these problems would exist or would be much smaller. But no, we have Europeans forcibly carving out a chunk of that land and today we have classic "Levatine tribes" like the...Milejkowskis lording over that patch and killing the actual peoples who lived for centuries before them. These people are mostly Poles, Russians, Germans not natives.
Almost all Israelis are IDF members, members of various intelligence and defense companies. If we plotted a map of a suitable attack radius around all valid combat targets in Israel, almost the entirety of their "civilian" regions would be covered.
The idf doesn't fight near civilian infrastructure - it deploys to the borders. Military bases in israel are far from civilian infrastructure. I think you're probably just wrong here.
That's another fun one. Israel doesn't seem to mind launching missiles at non-serving non-military officers who are living in neutral countries like Qatar, and killing unrelated Qatari civilians in the process. So I would say by the same precedent, anyone has served or is serving in the IDF, which obviously would live in the cities as most of the population is a valid target.
The opening of the page claims that these companies' goods and services are directly being used in Gaza: > Their products, services, or infrastructure have been used extensively in military operations in Gaza resulting in mass civilian casualties, widespread destruction that amount to war crimes, and genocide. But this is untrue for many of the companies listed.
Doesn't have to be direct military use,if it is at all being used by Israel then Israel is benefiting from it. And if Israel ends up profiting from the transaction we are directly enriching Israel. So to someone opposed to the Israeli actions, it makes natural sense to boycott them in a similar manner to a state sanction. Take Iran itself, whether Iran profits or loses, American businesses are prevented from basicall…
If that's the standard you want to draw, that's fine, but the page description should reflect that.