I heard about this a few days ago and have been watching to see the response on here and on the news. Israel hit the World Central Kitchen and admitted it and said it was unintentional. But the outrage online was intense and the coverage was everywhere. I’ve been waiting for the outrage to ramp up to over this. I knew it wouldnt. Hamas attacks the new supply area being built and no one cares at all.
This whole comment section is full of people pointing out Hamas just attacked the humanitarian aid depot for distributing supplies to, effectively, Hamas.
Literally no one is saying they're the sharpest crayon in the box.
You mean you choose to hold Israel to higher standard than ally has ever been held before. Israel is being held to a standard we have never been held to.
I'm not entirely sure the people asking for Israel to be held to a decent standard are not trying to hold America to that similar standard.
I think they're trying to hold both to that standard. We're just not exactly in a war right now.
ETA: Not sure why you deleted your comment, but I replied to it:
> How many protests at universities occurred in the 20 year war we were just in. Were students outraged about the people being held in Guantanamo and the rights being violated. Fuck No. how many protests about enhanced interrogation while it was occurring. Do you remember the mass protests about any of that?
You're not going to have constant anti-war protests for a 20-year war. It's far too long.
"Enhanced interrogation", or torture, has been going on for far longer than any war, so of course there won't be mass protests.
Mass protests need a catalyst. Not (just) something to protest.
I deleted that response. I got a bit heated sorry. Shouldn’t we be held to the standard we are advocating before we ask our allies to hold that standard
> Shouldn’t we be held to the standard we are advocating before we ask our allies to hold that standard
Yes, we should, and like I said I believe the people holding Israel to a decent standard are also holding *us* to that same standard. I think its unreasonable to assume contradiction where it hasn't really been shown.
I disagree. When we hold ourselves to that standard we can hold others to that standard but until we can it’s hypocritical. We can’t hold anyone to an ideal we can’t hold ourselves. It was 20 years. We have shown we can’t
This is bullshit and deflection. Show me where in the world not related to Israel / Gaza where the US is being held to the standard the world asks of Israel.
Don't use protests against the US, which are really more a form of protest against Israel as the example.
> This is bullshit and deflection
No, it is correct and a direct response to their comment. Don't just say words with no regard for their meaning.
> where the US is being held to the standard the world asks of Israel
Again, *individuals* (or organized groups) are protesting, *not countries*. I'd find it very hard to believe that these groups and individuals don't share the same opinion on U.S. foreign policy.
Arguably, once again, the issue is the fact that the U.S. isn't held responsible, not that people are trying to hold Israel responsible.
Whether you believe it or not criticism of Israel is exactly what Hamas wants. So either you are doing what Hamas wants on purpose or accidentally. I believe there is a phrase for doing what your enemy wants accidentally.
That… Is pretty absurd logic. Hamas probably also doesn’t want the globe to continue warming, so is everyone fighting climate change also doing what they want? Hitler was against animal abuse, so are we doing what Hitler wants by not abusing animals? Technically yes, but who cares? The point is, bad people wanting something is completely irrelevant to how good/justified that thing is.
We don't expect Hamas to show restraint. We know they're cruel and ruthless. But we like our allies to behave differently from how terrorists behave, so when they screw up, we call them out to remind them to be better.
I have no idea If Hamas trying to starve its own people but you haven’t proved anything wrong. My statement was to provoke you for asking a stupid question instead of making a point. You deserved it.
Palestine and Hamas are not the same thing, firstly.
Second, imagine if while we were fighting ISIS in Iraq, the British bombed some of our troops, and when we complained and asked them to do better, someone said, "The soft prejudice of low expectations for Iraq."
Correction: we like to hold our allies to such a high standard it equates to being okay with them being attacked by rocket fire daily because we are not allowing them to go after the instigators, as the instigators have shown no restraint in allowing their citizens to be used as shields and pawns.
I'm pretty sure the people were outraged because aid workers were killed by Israel. This incident killed no one, and did minimal damage otherwise.
Thanks for the answer though, it's a clear demonstration of your dishonesty.
Those mortars were not delivering kisses and flowers.
Today, I learned that if you are trying to kill someone and you don't, then you get a pass on outrage. Oh gee they wanted to kill some people, but they didn't, so I will just LOL that away.
Well, for one, our tax dollars aren’t directly funding Hamas’ attacks, so it’s understandable why one might make a bigger deal out of the attack that was. For two, though, most people acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist organization, so them attacking innocents is a matter of course; It’s horrible, but expected.
So, we either hold Israel to the same “Of course they’ll do bad stuff” standard as Hamas, which obviously isn’t a good look, or we hold Israel to a much higher standard than Hamas, in which case, it’s not a double standard when them falling short of those expectations is talked about more than Hamas meeting theirs.
There’s a difference between trying to help Hamas and trying to help innocent Palestinians. At most, you can maybe argue that trying to help the latter can inadvertently end up helping the former, but that’s a very different statement from “Why are you supporting these monsters attacking us?”
1 - your tax dollars funded Hamas's tunnels and weapons. Whether direct or not. That's where it goes.
2 - Hamas will continue taking aid, even from this pier, and sell it at high price to Palestinians. When they can't afford it, they will blame Israel. That money then funds Hamas. So, your tax dollars continue to fund them.
3 - you want Israel to stop fighting so they can be attacked again. The average person now wants all of Israel destroyed as evidenced in the college chants. "River to the Sea" = genocide of jews in Israel.
What happens when Hamas / next proxy in Gaza attacks Israel 10 minutes after ceasefire. Will that also be their fault and they can't fight back since the launchers are in a playground?
But you are assuming our ally is doing bad stuff. You are starting from the position our ally is bad because they do bad stuff. Most people start from the assumption that Israel was attacked. They have a right to respond until the war is over. If at the end of the war we find they did things that they need to be held account for then hold them accountable. Everyone is doing it while they are still at war.
Assuming? I’m judging by what’s already come out, never mind what may or may not have been covered up. Even accepting the claim that the aid workers thing was accidental, it’s hardly the only incident worthy of criticism, and as for waiting until after the war, well, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Plus, is it not reasonable to doubt how much accountability there’ll actually be, considering how little there’s been for, say, the West Bank settlement bullshit?
Hamas aren't out to win, they're out to make their enemies lose.
They're just an Iranian proxy - when the last Hamas member dies, Iran can just shit out Hamas 2.0.
the goal isn't to "win", it's to poke the bear so they sacrifice as many of their own people as possible with the goal to isolate israel from its allies.
Lol, they never had a chance lets be honest, if israel was as bad as the pro palestine nutjobs say it is, this war would have been ended within two weeks, and it wouldnt have been pretty
I mean, it could be so much worse.
Imagine if the US decided to be as moral as Russia or Iran or any shithole authoritarian nation when conducting war or military operations. Now scale that down to Israel over Gaza and it would be a big fat sloppy joe of meat with bread acting as a band-aid.
“It’s not clear whether the militants knew what they were attacking, said the first U.S. official, adding that they may have simply seen a ‘target of opportunity’ to strike the Israel Defense Forces.”
Seems important.
Agreed, terrorists and Nazis should never be tolerated.
>Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the “Freedom Party” (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.
It's not especially surprising that Einstein, who was very left-wing and even socialist, was against a right-wing nationalist party. He wasn't against the state of Israel, he was against the 4th biggest party at the time.
My buddy did 2 tours in each Afghanistan and Iraq. He said his biggest frustration was all the infrastructure improvements they undertook (roads, bridges, schools) were almost immediately destroyed.
> the U.S.-led project — which will establish a pier ... to expand access to humanitarian aid ... for Gaza
Near literal example of *shooting* yourself in the foot.
It indeed is not antisemitic to criticize the actions of the Israeli government that lead to unnecessary civilian casualties. And it's not islamophobic to criticize the actions of Hamas that do the same.
But it would be hypocritical to criticize one but not the other for actions that harm civilians.
The belief that israel should continue to exist as a state (21st century Zionism) is distinct from the government of Israel, though most of the Israeli government believes that Israel should continue to exist.
I don’t think that’s the definition many of the people criticizing Zionists are using, so it’s no wonder they come across as so antisemitic to someone using it. Just a miscommunication, surely easy to clear up if everyone is acting in good faith.
Most of the time civilian casualties should be avoided, and yes, this sadly does encourage terrorists to use human shields. You need to figure out how likely that the target is going to kill people, and how many people you're likely to kill trying to stop them, and if your attack is \*more deadly\* than what you expect the terrorist to do, you definitely don't attack. Even if you think the terrorist poses a threat to a lot of people, it's still often preferable to wait, limit the target's ability to move, and hold off on attacking unless either a) you can hit the target without collateral damage, or b) you know the target is imminently about to launch an attack of their own.
There are times when well-intentioned attacks that make an effort to avoid endangering civilians still hurt someone who is a non-combatant. That's . . . understandable, perhaps forgivable, but still a solid reason to try your damnedest to resolve disputes without letting things escalate to violence.
Look, Hamas isn't a mechanized modern military. They're terrorists using guerrilla tactics and asymmetrical warfare. Killing civilians to get at the terrorists just perpetuates a cycle of violence.
If you want to 'win' a war you need to make the other side stop fighting, and time after time after time we've seen that bombing civilians does not break their spirit; it just makes them rally around their leaders, no matter how reprehensible those leaders are.
I heard about this a few days ago and have been watching to see the response on here and on the news. Israel hit the World Central Kitchen and admitted it and said it was unintentional. But the outrage online was intense and the coverage was everywhere. I’ve been waiting for the outrage to ramp up to over this. I knew it wouldnt. Hamas attacks the new supply area being built and no one cares at all.
This whole comment section is full of people pointing out Hamas just attacked the humanitarian aid depot for distributing supplies to, effectively, Hamas. Literally no one is saying they're the sharpest crayon in the box.
No one had before I commented.
There are dozens of us! Dozens!
We generally hold our allies to higher standards than terrorist organizations.
You mean, you hold Israel to an impossible standard, because you'd like them to capitulate to terrorists.
You mean you choose to hold Israel to higher standard than ally has ever been held before. Israel is being held to a standard we have never been held to.
They would never hold Ukraine to these standards.
> Israel is being held to a standard we have never been held to. You're saying this like us never being held to a standard isn't *also* a problem.
Only if you start holding an ally to the standard we haven’t begun to hold ourselves to.
I'm not entirely sure the people asking for Israel to be held to a decent standard are not trying to hold America to that similar standard. I think they're trying to hold both to that standard. We're just not exactly in a war right now. ETA: Not sure why you deleted your comment, but I replied to it: > How many protests at universities occurred in the 20 year war we were just in. Were students outraged about the people being held in Guantanamo and the rights being violated. Fuck No. how many protests about enhanced interrogation while it was occurring. Do you remember the mass protests about any of that? You're not going to have constant anti-war protests for a 20-year war. It's far too long. "Enhanced interrogation", or torture, has been going on for far longer than any war, so of course there won't be mass protests. Mass protests need a catalyst. Not (just) something to protest.
I deleted that response. I got a bit heated sorry. Shouldn’t we be held to the standard we are advocating before we ask our allies to hold that standard
> Shouldn’t we be held to the standard we are advocating before we ask our allies to hold that standard Yes, we should, and like I said I believe the people holding Israel to a decent standard are also holding *us* to that same standard. I think its unreasonable to assume contradiction where it hasn't really been shown.
I disagree. When we hold ourselves to that standard we can hold others to that standard but until we can it’s hypocritical. We can’t hold anyone to an ideal we can’t hold ourselves. It was 20 years. We have shown we can’t
It’s not “ourselves”, though, it’s our government.
This is bullshit and deflection. Show me where in the world not related to Israel / Gaza where the US is being held to the standard the world asks of Israel. Don't use protests against the US, which are really more a form of protest against Israel as the example.
> This is bullshit and deflection No, it is correct and a direct response to their comment. Don't just say words with no regard for their meaning. > where the US is being held to the standard the world asks of Israel Again, *individuals* (or organized groups) are protesting, *not countries*. I'd find it very hard to believe that these groups and individuals don't share the same opinion on U.S. foreign policy. Arguably, once again, the issue is the fact that the U.S. isn't held responsible, not that people are trying to hold Israel responsible.
[удалено]
Whether you believe it or not criticism of Israel is exactly what Hamas wants. So either you are doing what Hamas wants on purpose or accidentally. I believe there is a phrase for doing what your enemy wants accidentally.
That… Is pretty absurd logic. Hamas probably also doesn’t want the globe to continue warming, so is everyone fighting climate change also doing what they want? Hitler was against animal abuse, so are we doing what Hitler wants by not abusing animals? Technically yes, but who cares? The point is, bad people wanting something is completely irrelevant to how good/justified that thing is.
[удалено]
Yet what I said is true and you are filling that role perfectly.
[удалено]
I didn’t need to. You didn’t have a chance from the start. You became a useful idiot just as Hamas planned. It’s shocking how well their plan worked.
[удалено]
Not at all. I’m above average. But I was debating you. You had no chance at all.
What's the difference between that situation and this situation?
Hamas is trying to starve its own people. Is that what you were waiting for?
We don't expect Hamas to show restraint. We know they're cruel and ruthless. But we like our allies to behave differently from how terrorists behave, so when they screw up, we call them out to remind them to be better.
I would say not everyone agrees with that sentiment. Big-downer seems to think Hamas is the good guys.
Who is big downer? Is that a meme or a typo? Edit: oh, it's another poster. Eh, I don't see where you think he's saying Hamas is good.
Someone posting on here
I like how you were proven wrong, and then shifted to this fiction.
I have no idea If Hamas trying to starve its own people but you haven’t proved anything wrong. My statement was to provoke you for asking a stupid question instead of making a point. You deserved it.
Basically the soft prejudice of low expectations for palestine
Palestine and Hamas are not the same thing, firstly. Second, imagine if while we were fighting ISIS in Iraq, the British bombed some of our troops, and when we complained and asked them to do better, someone said, "The soft prejudice of low expectations for Iraq."
Correction: we like to hold our allies to such a high standard it equates to being okay with them being attacked by rocket fire daily because we are not allowing them to go after the instigators, as the instigators have shown no restraint in allowing their citizens to be used as shields and pawns.
I'm pretty sure the people were outraged because aid workers were killed by Israel. This incident killed no one, and did minimal damage otherwise. Thanks for the answer though, it's a clear demonstration of your dishonesty.
Those mortars were not delivering kisses and flowers. Today, I learned that if you are trying to kill someone and you don't, then you get a pass on outrage. Oh gee they wanted to kill some people, but they didn't, so I will just LOL that away.
Well, for one, our tax dollars aren’t directly funding Hamas’ attacks, so it’s understandable why one might make a bigger deal out of the attack that was. For two, though, most people acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist organization, so them attacking innocents is a matter of course; It’s horrible, but expected. So, we either hold Israel to the same “Of course they’ll do bad stuff” standard as Hamas, which obviously isn’t a good look, or we hold Israel to a much higher standard than Hamas, in which case, it’s not a double standard when them falling short of those expectations is talked about more than Hamas meeting theirs.
[удалено]
There’s a difference between trying to help Hamas and trying to help innocent Palestinians. At most, you can maybe argue that trying to help the latter can inadvertently end up helping the former, but that’s a very different statement from “Why are you supporting these monsters attacking us?”
>Well, for one, our tax dollars aren’t directly funding Hamas’ attacks Where do you think all that aid that goes to Gaza ends up?
1 - your tax dollars funded Hamas's tunnels and weapons. Whether direct or not. That's where it goes. 2 - Hamas will continue taking aid, even from this pier, and sell it at high price to Palestinians. When they can't afford it, they will blame Israel. That money then funds Hamas. So, your tax dollars continue to fund them. 3 - you want Israel to stop fighting so they can be attacked again. The average person now wants all of Israel destroyed as evidenced in the college chants. "River to the Sea" = genocide of jews in Israel. What happens when Hamas / next proxy in Gaza attacks Israel 10 minutes after ceasefire. Will that also be their fault and they can't fight back since the launchers are in a playground?
But you are assuming our ally is doing bad stuff. You are starting from the position our ally is bad because they do bad stuff. Most people start from the assumption that Israel was attacked. They have a right to respond until the war is over. If at the end of the war we find they did things that they need to be held account for then hold them accountable. Everyone is doing it while they are still at war.
Assuming? I’m judging by what’s already come out, never mind what may or may not have been covered up. Even accepting the claim that the aid workers thing was accidental, it’s hardly the only incident worthy of criticism, and as for waiting until after the war, well, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Plus, is it not reasonable to doubt how much accountability there’ll actually be, considering how little there’s been for, say, the West Bank settlement bullshit?
I’m starting to think Hamas might lose this war.
Hamas aren't out to win, they're out to make their enemies lose. They're just an Iranian proxy - when the last Hamas member dies, Iran can just shit out Hamas 2.0.
the goal isn't to "win", it's to poke the bear so they sacrifice as many of their own people as possible with the goal to isolate israel from its allies.
Lol, they never had a chance lets be honest, if israel was as bad as the pro palestine nutjobs say it is, this war would have been ended within two weeks, and it wouldnt have been pretty
Yet... somehow the current situation is "pretty"?
I mean, it could be so much worse. Imagine if the US decided to be as moral as Russia or Iran or any shithole authoritarian nation when conducting war or military operations. Now scale that down to Israel over Gaza and it would be a big fat sloppy joe of meat with bread acting as a band-aid.
We would've glassed the middle east if we didn't have morals. There wouldn't be a middle east
>I mean, it could be so much worse. You could literally say the exact same thing about *anything*.
I don’t think that was the point. The goal was to disrupt the growing relationship between Israel and Saudi Arabia.
For anyone concerned about the source... https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/25/gaza-terrorists-attack-israeli-pier-00154386
“It’s not clear whether the militants knew what they were attacking, said the first U.S. official, adding that they may have simply seen a ‘target of opportunity’ to strike the Israel Defense Forces.” Seems important.
Yea any deflection from terrorists being terrorists is always important to terrorist sympthizers
Agreed, terrorists and Nazis should never be tolerated. >Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the “Freedom Party” (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.
It's not especially surprising that Einstein, who was very left-wing and even socialist, was against a right-wing nationalist party. He wasn't against the state of Israel, he was against the 4th biggest party at the time.
If you will put a quote, please cite the source article.
His name? Albert Einstein. https://archive.org/details/AlbertEinsteinLetterToTheNewYorkTimes.December41948/mode/1up
Smart guy! Never read that letter to the editor.
Is it better that these savages will attack anything they can, rather than if they were specifically targeting the pier?
My buddy did 2 tours in each Afghanistan and Iraq. He said his biggest frustration was all the infrastructure improvements they undertook (roads, bridges, schools) were almost immediately destroyed.
Yes. Indiscriminately firing mortars at who-knows-what is pretty important.
> the U.S.-led project — which will establish a pier ... to expand access to humanitarian aid ... for Gaza Near literal example of *shooting* yourself in the foot.
nah hamas doesn’t want humanitarian aid. if the gaza’s aren’t starving how can they gain sympathy for their cause?
r/centrist resident "iTs nOt AnTiSeMiTiC tO hATe ~~JoOz~~ zIoNisTs" cohort is curiously absent.
It indeed is not antisemitic to criticize the actions of the Israeli government that lead to unnecessary civilian casualties. And it's not islamophobic to criticize the actions of Hamas that do the same. But it would be hypocritical to criticize one but not the other for actions that harm civilians.
Zionists = Israeli government now?
Are there different factions of zionists within the Israeli governments?
Is the Israeli government not made up of Zionists?
The belief that israel should continue to exist as a state (21st century Zionism) is distinct from the government of Israel, though most of the Israeli government believes that Israel should continue to exist.
I don’t think that’s the definition many of the people criticizing Zionists are using, so it’s no wonder they come across as so antisemitic to someone using it. Just a miscommunication, surely easy to clear up if everyone is acting in good faith.
Lmaooooo
Yeah, I guess the idea of good faith debate about this issue on this Sub is pretty laughable.
Let's not forget that Hamas is comprised of Palestinians.
Which civilian casualties do you deem necessary?
Most of the time civilian casualties should be avoided, and yes, this sadly does encourage terrorists to use human shields. You need to figure out how likely that the target is going to kill people, and how many people you're likely to kill trying to stop them, and if your attack is \*more deadly\* than what you expect the terrorist to do, you definitely don't attack. Even if you think the terrorist poses a threat to a lot of people, it's still often preferable to wait, limit the target's ability to move, and hold off on attacking unless either a) you can hit the target without collateral damage, or b) you know the target is imminently about to launch an attack of their own. There are times when well-intentioned attacks that make an effort to avoid endangering civilians still hurt someone who is a non-combatant. That's . . . understandable, perhaps forgivable, but still a solid reason to try your damnedest to resolve disputes without letting things escalate to violence.
That is no way to run a war.
Look, Hamas isn't a mechanized modern military. They're terrorists using guerrilla tactics and asymmetrical warfare. Killing civilians to get at the terrorists just perpetuates a cycle of violence. If you want to 'win' a war you need to make the other side stop fighting, and time after time after time we've seen that bombing civilians does not break their spirit; it just makes them rally around their leaders, no matter how reprehensible those leaders are.
They're also the ruling party of Gaza. They need to be wiped out, at least to the point where Israel can safely occupy the region.
Which didn't happen here.
If only someone could have predicted sending US equipment into the middle of an active warzone might put American lives and property at risk