you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -31 points 1 month ago* (67 children)
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    You're just straight up being a fascist. Like you deadass are justifying genocide. There already were tons of hospitals and infrastructure! Israel levelled all of them! And that's despite the fact that Israel regularly restricted access to electricity and food BEFORE October 7. Also most of Gaza's population wasn't even old enough to vote when Hamas was elected. Also If you think collective punishment is acceptable for electing someone deemed bad enough then I guess you'd be fine if Israelis and Americans were being mass murdered?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 19 points 1 month ago (9 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    “We’ll see what is remembered 50 years from now” is a remarkable thing to say while defending collective punishment, considering we already have a thorough and tragic historical record.

    The last century gave us genocide, mass civilian killing, collective punishment, and entire populations being blamed for the actions of governments and armed groups.

    The humanitarian laws written in response explicitly rejected the exact moral logic you are invoking here.

    You are not offering some hardheaded lesson from history. You are resurrecting an argument the last century already taught us to reject.

    Instead of predicting how history will remember this, maybe you should read some.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago

    “I made no such prediction.”

    That is semantics after the fact.

    “We’ll see what is remembered 50 years from now” is plainly an appeal to future historical judgment. You used it to wave away criticism in the present.

    You do not get to hide behind the fact that you left the prediction deliberately vague. The implication was the entire point of the sentence.

    If you meant nothing by it, then it was meaningless. If you meant what any ordinary reader would understand it to mean, then yes, you were invoking how history would judge this.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    No. The fact that people still commit atrocities does not mean those atrocities were never rejected.

    People still murder. People still torture. People still commit genocide. That does not make murder, torture, or genocide accepted principles.

    Collective punishment was explicitly rejected in international humanitarian law after the horrors of the last century.

    And “but the Muslim world” is not a defense of your argument. It is just pointing at someone else.

    You defended collective punishment. You minimized the suffering of innocent civilians. You justified that suffering as the consequence of political decisions made by a population decades ago.

    Those were your words. They are still sitting there for everyone to read.

    You cannot erase what you argued by pretending you argued something else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Now that is a defensible argument.

    Yes, these principles are violated constantly. But I think that is precisely why it matters that we continue to insist upon them.

    You started by arguing that collective punishment is simply how international politics sometimes works. You pointed to Germany, to Gaza, and now to the prevalence of atrocities around the world.

    But there is a danger in that reasoning. When “people do this all the time” becomes our answer to an atrocity, we begin normalizing the atrocity instead of opposing it.

    Article 33 does not say collective punishment is prohibited only when the world is behaving itself. It prohibits it precisely because history demonstrated what happens when we accept collective guilt and the punishment of civilians as ordinary features of war.

    Laws are only as meaningful as our willingness to uphold them.

    It requires more than writing them down.

    It requires the willingness to condemn violations where they occur, when they occur; friend or foe.

    We must confront the scale of the destruction Israel has inflicted across Gaza. More than 170,000 structures, roughly 69 percent of Gaza’s prewar buildings, had already been damaged or destroyed by January 2025.

    We should confront the conclusion reached by the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry after examining the broader pattern of killing, deprivation, destruction, displacement, and official conduct: that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.

    “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” - Frederick Douglass

    Do not look at the frequency with which these principles are violated and conclude that resistance to them is futile. Draw the opposite conclusion.

    Their violation is the reason we have to keep insisting upon them.

    Demand better. Do not concede what is right simply because others have.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (12 children)

    This is wrong on many levels. Comparing a nation that went to war and the unfortunate reality of civilians getting caught in the crosshairs to civilians being massacred over a terrorist act is nonsensical.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (10 children)

    Blaming civilians not involved in a war for a terrorist act is not the same. Furthermore, Netanyahu funded the said terrorist group. Perhaps you should get your vision checked?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I appreciate you do not blame the civilians.

    I will repeat it was never a war.

    Collective punishment isn't a thing in modern warfare and is definitely a crime against humanity.

    This is an example of a corrupt politician getting a shit ton of civilians killed to stay out of prison. Not something you get to respond with an ongoing civilian massacre to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    Israeli voted for genocidal leaders. Aren't you justifying october7 attrocities with your logic?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I don't agree that Israe's leaders are genocidal, so that makes the remainder of what you said completely moot in my mind.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago*

    https://www.isdglobal.org/digital-dispatch/no-innocents-the-collective-blame-of-palestinians-online/

    'ISD analysis found that public figures contributed disproportionately to dehumanising ‘no innocents’ discourse, particularly in Hebrew. Of the top ten most reshared posts in the Hebrew-language dataset, three came from high-profile politicians supportive of ‘no innocents’ rhetoric, including a sitting member of the Knesset (MK)."

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago (18 children)

    How many times can Israeli soldiers murder Palestinian children for the crime of "rock-throwing" before you decide enough is enough?

    Just pick a number. Any number.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (4 children)

    Dude you should lose custody of your children for saying shit like this.

    I hope you are one day oppressed by the same shit you support for others.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago*

    Dude you should lose custody of your children for saying shit like this.

    I'm sorry? Him calling out how children are abused in wars (this isn't exclusive to Hamas and has been documented around the world, especially African conflicts) means you should lose custody of children? What the fuck is wrong with you?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [+] -6 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    How about we condemn both Hamas AND IDF for their crimes?

    I know it's a very novel approach but I think there might be a method in that madness.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

    Some of us do. The problem is that only Israel has the capacity to and is committing genocide.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago* (4 children)

    Wrong. Israel is the only one with the capacity to do it successfully.

    (and let's ignore here for a moment the fact that "Palestinian Genocide" has been on the tongues of people for at least 30 years, and during that time the population of Gaza has nearly doubled, that's besides the point right now)

    Hamas is absolutely attempting to commit genocide, and if given the tools, they wouldn't bat an eyelid before pulling the trigger. It just so happens that the best they can do is murder some kids on a concert or fling rockets at crop fields and cities.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

    So in other words, only Israel has the capacity to and is committing genocide and Hamas doesn't.

    Why don't you just admit you want to whatabout into justifying genocide? It would be more honest with yourself. A group who fantasizes about committing genocide is very different from a group capable of and actively committing it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Why don’t you just admit you want to whatabout into justifying genocide?

    Yeah, it might look like that if you're stupid or also a fundamentalist.

    My position is that both Israelis and Palestinians have a right to live there and since they can't figure it out on their own, the UN should have the capacity to step in, provide a buffer, and kick out the settler criminals, ideally hang Netanyahu and whoever is in charge of Hamas, and then ensure both sides sit separated for as long as it takes for Palestine to normalise as a country.

    You, I take it, are of the opinion that since Israel is the stronger of the two, Hamas has the right to murder them indiscriminately in their "fight for freedom"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    Your gaslighting is bad and you should feel bad. You don't need to commit a genocide to handle a terrorist group. There are people who have rescinded their support for Israel after initially giving it to them after the 7th of October.

    To paraphrase myself from other comments:

    Israel won’t let the UN step in. UN buildings, programs, and investigators were some of the first targeted, and the US has veto power within the UN. One side has the capacity and is committing genocide, and when you bother to look at what they are saying in Israeli social networks, they are not shy about it. Israel also killed the alternatives for Hamas, bolstering it over the PA to prevent the possibility of a legitimate Palestinian state from rising.

    To be completely honest, one, I've blocked you now, and two, I find your arguments to be several years out of place. Ask most of the UN members who stepped out if they still work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Your gaslighting is bad and you should feel bad

    Where gaslighting?

    Are you gaslighting me right now?

    You don’t need to commit a genocide to handle a terrorist group

    Agreed. Never said otherwise.

    There are people who have rescinded their support for Israel after initially giving it to them after the 7th of October

    While this is correct, how is it relevant to the discussion?

    To paraphrase myself from other comments: (...)

    Which parts of "UN should" did you not understand?

    Like, what are you even arguing here? Which specific points I made you disagree with and how?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago (17 children)

    Oh please. Acting like Israel hasn't been killing Palestinians for decades. Imagine how Palestine could look now if Israel hadn't been subjugating and oppressing them for the last 60+ years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 month ago (16 children)

    Both sides have been killing each other for decades. Palestinians killing Israelis, Israelis killing Palestinians. Neither side has clean hands in any of this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago

    Yes, Israeli soldiers murder children, and then get attacked, and then go murder more children.

    Never do the pussies bother to fight anyone in a uniform or anyone armed.

    It's always, "Oops, I had to blow up a children's hospital again." Fucking despicable.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    Yea in a ratio of about 10 Palestinians per 1 Israeli. Neither side has clean hands. But one side sure is hell bent on completely genociding the other. This both sides shit you're spewing is disgusting. Recognize that a genocide is taking place and is killing tens of thousands of innocents.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (6 children)

    In your opinion it would've been OK for Israel to retaliate if the ratio was closer to 1:1?

    Neither side has clean hands

    100% true.

    But one side sure is hell bent on completely genociding the other

    You mean the side that had the "obliteration" of the other side mentioned multiple times in its charter?

    Recognize that a genocide is taking place and is killing tens of thousands of innocents.

    Agreed. The UN should've stepped in a long time ago and provided much needed security.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Israel won't let the UN step in. UN buildings, programs, and investigators were some of the first targeted, and the US has veto power within the UN. One side has the capacity and is committing genocide, and when you bother to look at what they are saying in Israeli social networks, they are not shy about it. Israel also killed the alternatives for Hamas, bolstering it over the PA to prevent the possibility of a legitimate Palestinian state from rising.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Israel won’t let the UN step in. UN buildings, programs, and investigators were some of the first targeted, and the US has veto power within the UN.

    I know, it was wishful thinking.

    when you bother to look at what they are saying in Israeli social networks, they are not shy about it

    Checking social networks is pointless. Hell, check German socials and you'd think that AfD has 99% votes already. Check US networks and it's a literal civil war. Check Polish socials and half the country is already surrendered to russia.

    Too much disinformation for socials to be any source of information.

    It's better to look at what was going on just before the attack - and that is: Netanyahu having around 30% support and multiple lawsuits being prepared against him, with people protesting on the streets.

    Israel also killed the alternatives for Hamas

    When was that? I know that Hamas won general elections in 2006 and no other elections have happened in Gaza ever since and, from what you're saying, it seems that I missed another conflict that happened between then and now, where Fatah was eliminated.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    We agree, only the UN could enforce a "two-state solution".

    Left to their own devices, Palestinian or Israeli, (HAMAS vs. Zionist, Islam vs. Jew), genocide is their end goal per their own words. Not everybody. But the fundamentalists don't respect the opinion of "anybody" or the rule of law, and they don't negotiate in good faith, ever.

    They both want dominion from the river to the sea. Neither will submit to the rule of the other. It's time for us to give up that fantasy.

    A lot of international troops would be required to "keep the peace", and even then, murders will continue, just at a slower pace.

    If the UN (not the USA) won't keep the peace, we need to get Palestinian civilians out of there. This is an international war, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Iran, the Islamic Republic, HAMAS, Hezbollah, et al. aren't going to negotiate peace, there are no terms the other would accept.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

    You will be "disciplined" for this point of view on Lemmy. Many here don't even realize that all fundamentalist parties involved are dedicated to the total obliteration of the other. They don't understand that this is international, not Israeli vs. Palestinian, but more Jews vs. Islam (which is in itself a gross simplification).

    Others want all of these millions of Israelis to "disappear", as if they have somewhere to go. Others want... more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    I know from their standpoint the Jews were "chosen" for certain things that's recognised by almost all christian religions due to the suffering in egypt. The thing that should really alarm people about israel though is that they wouldn't let the gazans leave the area to seek asylum elsewhere and even international citizens in the strip got caught up in this as well. I agree that it's an extremely complex situation due to the history going back Millenia, not 80+ years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    While I agree with the theology standpoint, unfortunately that & history (regardless of recognition, if it was most western countries that occupied the space they would have declared it theirs a long time ago) has made it complicated in the minds of people that occupy both regions.

    The palestinians are treated as less-than and while there is a few people over there that could do with a firing squad personally I don't think the population should be responsible for the decisions of their leaders, Instead of just bombing endlessly on civilians israel could have instead allowed humanitarians in to not only allow people to seek asylum but to let the international civilians out.

    Either way while I agree that there isn't always an option for peace, we will never have peace as long as we keep causing the terrorism feedback loop that just creates more terrorists. It's like when you send a kid into prison, he just learns to become a better criminal.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)