Hamas Attacks, Israel Responds

?

 

???

Are you sure you meant to write that?

I mean, the establishment of the state of Israel is LITERALLY Zionism. Y'know... that's kinda what it means.

There are elements of colonialism in the way Israe; was established and supported from abroad, particularly in the occupied territories, which have been voted against by about 190+ countries in the UN general assembly with only Israel itself and the US voting in support of it, (plus 2-3 islands in the Pacific like Tuvalu, IIRC).

As to the genocide 'bit', That's defined as 'The crime of intentionally destroying part or all of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, by killing people or by other methods:'. The way they were going before being brought up short by the international community, (mainly their backers, the US), would have meant life would have been unsustainable even if people in Gaza DID the onslaught which was planned to go on for several months AFAIK.

So whether it is technically genocide or not, if you're having to parse the meaning of a word like genocide with, frankly, lawyerly precision, that is ALSO not a great look, is it.

We can use another word or phrase if you like? Maybe, mass slaughter?

 

I pity him for being an inhumane person in support for the elimination of over 2 million people, of which about 1.2 million children by those he supports and blaming their possible death on a bunch of maniacs those people he joyfully sees exterminated have zero control over.
It saddens me someone is that inhumane.

 

If people make a rational argument that disagrees with opinion and supports it with facts and data you'd have to be pretty daft NOT to change your mind about something.

Also, bluntly, sometimes I can miss some important information which is vital to arriving at a correct decision. Why would I NOT want to change my mind in those circumstances?

 

Because of being biased?

 

No, he wrote he's completely okay with that, if that happens.

 

I guess you missed it but if one calls for Gaza to be wiped, it is basically calling for a genocide. That was posted on this thread and liked by a handful.

 

It's not giving credit. It's just not jumping to conclusions.

 

I was removed, I assume by the mods, and rightly so. It was basically he is fine if Israel wipe Gaza out....

 

It was a now-deleted line of comments where I responded to a bunch of hypothetical questions as to how far I'd be okay with Israel going to defend itself.

The situations were just that, hypotheticals. Genocide of Gazans is just hyperbole, it's not happening. Israel's response to the 10/7 massacres has inevitably resulted in civilian casualties in Gaza. Just like the Allies' efforts to defeat the Axis powers in WWII resulted in hundreds of thousands or millions of civilian deaths in Germany and Japan (among other countries). That's war, unfortunately.

 

That was the idea...if to destroy Hamas, Gaza has to be wiped out, so be it.
I can only take his words for it.
As Maya Angelou said, if people show you who they are, believe them.

 

What do you mean, "if it turns out?" Isn't that already abundantly clear? Right now the ratio of Hamas combatant to civilian deaths is worse than one to ten.

 

The Blitz caused 40000 civilian casualties, but that was over a seven month period.
We are currently at over 14000 in Gaza in under two months.
You cannot portray this level of devastation as at all normal. "That's just war". No, even in wars, this isn't something that has occurred very often. Especially not in recent conflicts.

 

1000-2000 Hamas combatants seems to be the estimate from the Israeli side, so it is clear that far more civilians have been killed than Hamas members.

 

Why would they minimize the number when it is a success for them and a win for Bibi? If anything I would expect them to exaggerate it.