41–50 of 54 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> One side also said nuke them. Good point. What happened was that one loud-mouth politician said that, and was immediately censured by their party. Remember: one side is minimising, the other side is maximising civilian deaths. Guess what would have happened if someone on the maximising side had suggested nuking the other side. Would they be censured, or applauded?
Weird to see all these comments calling the army generous. They didn't have to bomb a civilian block at all.
Especially given the Israeli government's historical role in both initially fostering the development of Hamas and more recently continuing to work to strengthen it as a means of dividing Palestinians and having a less sympathetic enemy to, particularly, secular Western nations than the less-Islamist, more-secular-Arab-nationalist PLO and later Fatah and the Palestinian Authority to serve as a pretext to avoid pressu…
If Israel didn't try to minimize civilian casualties, this would look very different. To say otherwise is not only cynical PR, it is actively malicious. Towards Israeli and Palestinians both.
One side is trying to minimise civilian causalities, and is failing to completely achieve that. The other side is trying to maximise civilian causalities, and is failing to completely achieve that. I'll let you choose which you think has the moral high ground. Use the up vote button if you think minimisation is good, and down vote if you think maximisation is good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The overwhelming majority of those being bombed were were not part of the 44.45% that voted for Hamas in the 2006 election. Certainly none of the ~ 3K children killed by the IDF in recent weeks voted.
There's this video from a woman reporter in Gaza taking a video, and casually a rocket flies out from behind her. Either from her building directly, and if not the launch site must have been very close by. She turns around, say "oh that happens all the time", and goes on, as if nothing happened. I can't find the video of the Palestinian reporter actually laughing it off, but there's these videos: https://www.youtube.…
> Obviously if this happens, you leave the area and don't come back. And if you don't leave, you don't complain about a rocket coming back.
I suspect that for the average Gaza resident, there aren't many places they can go that aren't right next to somewhere that rockets come from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Especially given the Israeli government's historical role in both initially fostering the development of Hamas and more recently continuing to work to strengthen it as a means of dividing Palestinians and having a less sympathetic enemy to, particularly, secular Western nations than the less-Islamist, more-secular-Arab-nationalist PLO and later Fatah and the Palestinian Authority to serve as a pretext to avoid pressu…
All wars Israel has been involved in were started by its enemies. You can start an argument about settlements and there is some merit to that. But no honest discussion can be started from your position. If Israel didn't try to minimize civilian casualties, this would look very different. To say otherwise is not only cynical PR, it is actively malicious. Towards Israeli and Palestinians both.
One side is trying to minimise civilian causalities, and is failing to completely achieve that. The other side is trying to maximise civilian causalities, and is failing to completely achieve that. I'll let you choose which you think has the moral high ground. Use the up vote button if you think minimisation is good, and down vote if you think maximisation is good.
Israel has been ethnically cleansing the Palestinians since 1948. They most definitely are not minimizing civilian casualties. They're maximizing them within the parameters that their US backing will allow.
Is that kind of localized warning available in the US ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can only say that America was the morally superior party in WW2 if in your mind Nazis = Germany. At that time, for purposes of the war, that was true, as the Nazis controlled Germany, just like Hamas now controls Gaza. That’s not to say innocent people aren’t sadly dying, but that’s the case in any war.
By the same token then you must agree that all Israelis are responsible for the horrific conditions that have prevailed in Gaza for decades, as well as the settler violence in the west bank, and apartheid. Which is obviously not true. To say otherwise and treat Israelis or Jews as a monolithic block is one of the classic anti-semitic tropes. So why is it different when it's the Palestinians?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All wars Israel has been involved in were started by its enemies. You can start an argument about settlements and there is some merit to that. But no honest discussion can be started from your position. If Israel didn't try to minimize civilian casualties, this would look very different. To say otherwise is not only cynical PR, it is actively malicious. Towards Israeli and Palestinians both.
That's completely incorrect. Every war has been the result of Israel invading Palestine in 1948 and ethnically cleansing the land. There's a reason Right of Return is the big issue here. Nakba is where the conversation about Israel's aggression needs to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba
One side is trying to minimise civilian causalities, and is failing to completely achieve that. The other side is trying to maximise civilian causalities, and is failing to completely achieve that. I'll let you choose which you think has the moral high ground. Use the up vote button if you think minimisation is good, and down vote if you think maximisation is good.
> One side is trying to minimise civilian causalities Israel has been ethnically cleansing the Palestinians since 1948. They most definitely are not minimizing civilian casualties. They're maximizing them within the parameters that their US backing will allow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba