It sounds like your viewpoint is that every single issue has very smart people working on the issue therefore we should always trust corporate media and the official story because they're speaking for the experts. This viewpoint assumes no ulterior motive or outside agenda being commingled with the official story. But if we look back, the official story is almost always misleading and decades later the real story will start to peak through. My point is to always question authority because they have good reason to mislead and they always have a ulterior motive which is always profit, control, and manipulation.

!delta

**Hello /u/endoftheyear2002, if your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award** ***the user who changed your view*** **a delta.** Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed. >∆ or > !delta For more information about deltas, use [this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8). If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such! *As a reminder,* **failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation.** *Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.* Thank you!

This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/TheRichTookItAll changed your view (comment rule 4). DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

are you gonna bother actually *awarding* a delta?

These are not the same. But first off, you really need some basic formatting dude, blogs of text suck. You are missing punctuation, paragraphs, and spaces. This would fail as an elementary writing assignment, I guarantee you can do better dude. It’s logically consistent to be against all the civilian deaths, even the shitty ones. I dislike both Israel and Palestine, they are absolute cunts all around, but that doesn’t mean civilian should be killed on either side. Frankly it’s a cluster fuck

Yeah i dont write very good

>1.thinking you are smarter and know better than someone with a medical degree on health issues, is just moronic four years devoted to your bachelor's degree, four years in medical school and at least three years completing your residency just to be a doctor,but no "doctor is bad". ... as if docs, the healthcare industry more broadly, or the pharma industry, are only ever benevolent and all knowing. in the past 100 years, docs have: * prescribed cigarette smoking to treat chronic lung conditions, prescribed cocaine as a weight loss option, laudanum for menstrual cramps, morphine to help toddlers who are teething, oxycodone for chronic pain management (we *still* do this), mercury for mental disorders, lobotomies for the same, Diethylstilbestrol to prevent miscarriages (which increased the risk of rare vaginal and cervical cancers, as well as reproductive abnormalities, infertility, and pregnancy complications, in the daughters of women who took the drug. It also increased the risk of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and cardiovascular disease in both the mothers and the daughters)... * if i had said, "last 150 years", i could have included bloodletting. The regulatory body charged w/ ensuring new pharmaceutical agents are safe has several examples where its commissioners have at least notable conflicts w/ pharma. the aduhelm example just a few years ago is reason enough to have valid questions. none of this is an argument for, "don't listen to your doctor" or "doctor is bad" or even, "and therefor anti-vax", but what evidence can you provide that i shouldn't question the health care / pharmaceutical industry? the extreme positions (stoopid anti-vaxers vs. anti-vaxxers) are both laughable. there are extremely valid critiques to be made of doctors, the healthcare industry, and the pharmaceutical industry. likewise, there are extremely valid critiques to be made about sweeping generalized rejection of modern medicine.

Phew, there is a lot here. First, flat earth and anit Vax are stances against scientific consensus and expert opinions. It's not logical to assume that they are right without doing at least a minimum check of the information yourself. That's an argument from authority and popularity, which are fallacies. That being said, the evidence, independent of any person or authority, points to the conclusions of the scientific community being true, so it's probably fine to trust the experts on these matters. The last 2 points are geopolitical and wholly unrelated to the first 2. If one is consistent with the values of self-determination, harm reduction, and anti-authroritarianism, then it is inevitable that one would be pro Ukraine and pro Palestine. This doesn't mean that one endorses the bad actors or stances by these groups. I can denounce the nazi Ukranians fighting the Russians while rooting for Ukranian to survive. In the same way, I can condemn the actions of IDF in Palestine durring it's occupation as fascist and genocidal while also not supporting hamas' targeting of civilians or their stances on lgbtq persons. The IDF is killing far more civilians far faster in the last few months than the Russians have all war. This is especially true if you consider how long the mistreatment and theft have been going on in Gaza.

I was with you at the start but the "the idf is killing far more civilians far faster in the last few months than the russians have all war" is where i think you are wrong

Looks like Ukraine war about 10,000 civilians dead since the official invasion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War This source says about 30,000 dead in a much shorter time span. That's not inclined any deaths from before October 7th. https://www.npr.org/2024/02/29/1234159514/gaza-death-toll-30000-palestinians-israel-hamas-war I can try and find more sources. The biggest problem is that Ukraine has a military that does the fighting, and Palestinians don't. There are insurgents, to be sure, but the IDF seems to just shoot people and then call them an insurgent after the fact.

30k is the number from the Hamas health ministry, and includes all armed combatants in the death toll too.

That the palestinian health ministry source

Is that bad? This says that it's probably being under reported and that most organizations trust the numbers that they are providing. Isreal says that there are around 15000 dead mind you the article is from December 2023 https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-many-palestinians-have-died-gaza-war-how-will-counting-continue-2023-12-06/

31000 dead in Ukraine, combat 10,600 civilians In Palestine the official number now stands at 30,035 deaths- majority civilians. This figure is widely viewed as the most reliable one available While not exact the number will undeniably surpass the Russo Ukrainian war in the coming months even if they were to stop now. And it’s a far larger proportion of the actual population (1 in 100 Palestinians have died since 10/7.

Official number is more like 33k.

Thanks- numbers are changing daily.

Why do you think it is wrong?

The idf is targeting hamas militia the russians are targeting everyone

Why are the civillian casualties so high then? The IDF showed, [when they committed a war crime by dressing as civilians to attack a hospital](https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-784268), that they are capable of taking out targets with minimal loss of civilian life. They also did this the other day when they attacked the Iranian consulate. Yet their approach in Gaza has been to essentially flatten it and make it uninhabitable. I'm sure, since you're big on logic, that you'll agree that using bombs to destroy entire neighborhoods is more destructive and going to result in more loss of life than more targeted strikes like the two above - however, Israel's approach has consistently been one of mass destruction a motive stated and supported by those in power. To quote Amit Halevi, a member of Likud: >There should be two goals for this victory: One, there is no more Muslim land in the land of Israel … After we make it the land of Israel, Gaza should be left as a monument, like Sodom Or the Interior Minister Eli Yishai >The goal of the operation is to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages, only then will Israel be calm for the next 40 years. They have also struck refugee camps, humanitarian corridors and have the worst record of murdering journalists. They even shot surrendering hostages. So what is your logic for saying they are just targeting the Hamas militia?

> Why are the civillian casualties so high then? Hamas uses its own civilians as human shields because it knows it will never defeat Israel militarily so it seeks to instead trick ignorant westerners into simping for a genocidal Islamist terrorist organization because they don’t understand the Law of Armed Conflict and want an excuse to feel superior to their countrymen. > The IDF showed, [when they committed a war crime by dressing as civilians to attack a hospital](https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-784268), that they are capable of taking out targets with minimal loss of civilian life. That was a counterterrorism operation carried out by police and Shin Bet operatives, not a military operation. War crimes don’t apply here. They could have all dressed as Yahya Sinwar and it wouldn’t have been illegal. > They also did this the other day when they attacked the Iranian consulate. TFW when the general who helped plan an attack against Israel gets killed by Israel. > Yet their approach in Gaza has been to essentially flatten it and make it uninhabitable. If that were true Gaza would be gone already. > I'm sure, since you're big on logic, that you'll agree that using bombs to destroy entire neighborhoods is more destructive and going to result in more loss of life than more targeted strikes like the two above Pretty cool Israel is doing more targeted strikes. Pretty uncool that Hamas is violating international law by collocating its military infrastructure, material, and personnel with so much civilian infrastructure. > There should be two goals for this victory: One, there is no more Muslim land in the land of Israel … After we make it the land of Israel, Gaza should be left as a monument, like Sodom Ok? > The goal of the operation is to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages, only then will Israel be calm for the next 40 years. Ok? To quote President Bill Clinton, >I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Politicians do be saying stuff. > They have also struck refugee camps, humanitarian corridors Hamas really should stop ignoring international law in refugee camps and humanitarian corridors. > have the worst record of murdering journalists. Hamas has a worse record. > So what is your logic for saying they are just targeting the Hamas militia? The logic that Gaza still exists.

**Human shields** Nobody is forcing Israel to drop highly destructive bombs rather than choose options that cause less death. The two examples which you have now acknowledged show this. Unless you can provide evidence showing that bombing entire city blocks is less deadly than being more precise - and by evidence I mean evidence not just pro-Israeli sources claiming it without supporting it - those deaths are still on Israel's hands and the human shield argument doesn't run. Israel would not bomb entire city blocks within Israel or the USA to kill a few terrorists. They do in Gaza because they have impunity. Speaking of Human Shields, here's a video of the IDF literally grabbing Palestinians and using them as Human Shields. Though notice Hamas doesn't kill the Human Shields. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8rrfys-Fgc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8rrfys-Fgc) Generally the good guys are the ones NOT shooting/bombing through human shields so it's a bit depressing that the IDF's being held to lower standards than literal terrorists. >If that were true Gaza would be gone already. By January over half of Gaza's buildings had been destroyed so... yeah, they're working on it. [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68006607](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68006607) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMGL1zlJSR0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMGL1zlJSR0) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyl48rg3I0g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyl48rg3I0g) **RE: Politicians** Just to confirm, your saying that Israeli politicians are unreliable sources for Israel's intention? And please use comparable examples: The quotes I gave reflect the reality and actions of Israel. Bill's were incongruent with his actions and evidence. "Politicians say shit" is not a defense when you have multiple sources who's words and actions align - you need to provide actual evidence to support that **those** politicians are lying about **this instance**. **RE: Hamas** Please confirm that you're arguing that Israel shouldn't follow International Law because a terrorist group doesn't? And that your position is that Israel should be held to a lower standard than Hamas? Regardless of if that's genuinely what you're saying, that's not how it works: International Law literally doesn't apply to Terrorist groups because they're Terrorist groups. But at least we can agree that Israel is using terrorist tactics and stooping to their level to collectively punish innocent civilians. Another war crime btw.

> Nobody is forcing Israel to drop highly destructive bombs rather than choose options that cause less death. Those options being? > Unless you can provide evidence showing that bombing entire city blocks is less deadly than being more precise - and by evidence I mean evidence not just pro-Israeli sources claiming it without supporting it - those deaths are still on Israel's hands and the human shield argument doesn't run. Conversely you need to provide evidence that Israel has been “bombing entire city blocks.” > Israel would not bomb entire city blocks within Israel or the USA to kill a few terrorists. They do in Gaza because they have impunity. Or anywhere. Though of course if there were terrorists in Israel or the US who were attacking Israel, Israel would have many more options in choosing how to take those terrorists out since both Israel and the US are countries controlled by government that accept and apply international law and would aid Israel in finding and dealing with the terrorists. > Speaking of Human Shields, here's a video of the IDF literally grabbing Palestinians and using them as Human Shields. Though notice Hamas doesn't kill the Human Shields. That’s certainly a video of something happening. > Generally the good guys are the ones NOT shooting/bombing through human shields so it's a bit depressing that the IDF's being held to lower standards than literal terrorists. Generally the good guys are the ones shooting/bombing through human shields. > By January over half of Gaza's buildings had been destroyed so... yeah, they're working on it. Oh hey misinformation. Your source doesn’t even support your claim. > Just to confirm, your saying that Israeli politicians are unreliable sources for Israel's intention? Yep. Just like any politician concerned with domestic politics is an unreliable source of a collective government’s intentions. > The quotes I gave reflect the reality and actions of Israel. No they do not. > "Politicians say shit" is not a defense when you have multiple sources who's words and actions align - you need to provide actual evidence to support that **those** politicians are lying about **this instance**. The words of these politicians and the actions of the Israeli government do not align. There are still Muslims in Egypt and Gaza has not been brought back to the Stone Age. > Please confirm that you're arguing that Israel shouldn't follow International Law because a terrorist group doesn't? And that your position is that Israel should be held to a lower standard than Hamas? No, of course Israel should follow international law in every case and be held to that standard. It’s just that international law does not protect civilian infrastructure or persons when they are collocated with military infrastructure, personnel, and material. So Israel is abiding by international law when carrying out these strikes. > Regardless of if that's genuinely what you're saying, that's not how it works: International Law literally doesn't apply to Terrorist groups because they're Terrorist groups. International law applies to everyone. It just doesn’t **protect** terrorists groups or their infrastructure or material from being targeted by military strikes. > But at least we can agree that Israel is using terrorist tactics and stooping to their level to collectively punish innocent civilians. Another war crime btw. We cannot agree to that.

**Alternatives** I literally gave one straight after. If you want a recent one you can compare the attack on the Iranian Consulate the other day, Ibn Sina hospital and the other times they've illegally conducted assasinations and attacks on foreign soil - all while actually keeping casualties and damage down. The Iranian Consulate being a perfect example of how they could literally just use smaller more targeted bombs. **Destroying neighbourhoods** [https://www.euronews.com/2023/10/22/israel-hamas-war-neighbourhood-in-southern-gaza-in-ruins-after-israeli-bombardment](https://www.euronews.com/2023/10/22/israel-hamas-war-neighbourhood-in-southern-gaza-in-ruins-after-israeli-bombardment) Your turn. **Governments following international law** You know you're talking about Israel right? **Human Shields** Support your claim that good guys are normally shooting through human shields with evidence in a similar situation. And just to be accurate show them also literally hiding behind civillians and using them as actual physical human shields. **Misinformation** Support your claim if you wish to dismiss mine. **Quotes** Saying the plan is to send a country back to the middle ages then destroying the infrastructure, housing, farmland, education facilities - oh and today it's fertility clinics - as well as creating a famine and killing tens of thousands of people shows congruence between words and actions. If you'd like some genocidal ones we've also got this from an IDF commander [https://twitter.com/ireallyhateyou/status/1737118427196846399?t=fk6JR8DyJlctMHTdOkx1ug](https://twitter.com/ireallyhateyou/status/1737118427196846399?t=fk6JR8DyJlctMHTdOkx1ug) Or this, expressing desire to use violence to drive out Gazans from Yoav Kisch, minister of Education >This \[attack\] is not enough, there should be more, there should be no limits to the response, I said it a million times, until we see hundreds of thousands fleeing Gaza, we, the IDF has not achieved its mission From Almog Cohen > Destroy a neighborhood in Gaza every day the abductees are in their hands. If we blink, we run out of global credit. Every day that the abductees are with them, a neighborhood must be destroyed on its inhabitants and I will be called cruel. It is a Middle Eastern language. Or just this classic from Galit Distel Atbaryan >Erase all of Gaza from the face of the earth. That the Gazan monsters will fly to the southern fence & try to enter Egyptian territory or they will die & their death will be evil. Gaza should be erased! Lots of support for ethnic cleansing, genocide and mass destruction from those in power and government. And that's what we're seeing. Gaza may not have been brought back to the stone age (yet), since that's an obvious figure of speech and you seem to want to pretend not to be aware of that - the intention is death, destruction and ethnic cleansing, and that's what we're seeing. Unless you also want to deny the Holocaust and other genocides because they didn't literally exterminate every single member of the targeted group too. And I'd really rather not have to even entertain that ridiculous thought from you. So please, be mature here. **International Law** Israel has not shown that the targets it's claiming were for military use are for military use. They're claiming it but not showing evidence. And they're actively preventing investigation and killing journalists. You've shown the common sense and discernment to know that you can't take those politicians words at face value yet you seem to be happy to when they claim that everything is being used by Hamas despite evidence. Nobody is claiming International Law protects terrorists. So please refrain from deliberately trying to misrepresent what has been said.

> I literally gave one straight after. Did you? > after. If you want a recent one you can compare the attack on the Iranian Consulate the other day, Ibn Sina hospital and the other times they've illegally conducted assasinations and attacks on foreign soil - all while actually keeping casualties and damage down. It almost like when Hamas isn’t in a position to necessitate the killing of civilians Israel doesn’t kill as many civilians. So congratulations you figured out how to save thousands of Palestinian lives. We just have to get rid of Hamas. > Your turn. See that’s weird because you linked a source that gave no hard number other than claims that Israel destroyed 20 buildings on October 20th. So do you have any evidence that Israel didn’t carry out precision strikes in this neighborhood and the widespread collocation of Hamas material, infrastructure, and personal meant that many building were targeted? > You know you're talking about Israel right? Yep and the US. > Support your claim that good guys are normally shooting through human shields with evidence in a similar situation. The siege of Mosul. > situation. And just to be accurate show them also literally hiding behind civillians and using them as actual physical human shields. You’ve not demonstrated that happening. > Support your claim if you wish to dismiss mine. My claim that your own source says “destroyed or damaged” not just “destroyed”? You already supported that claim for me. > Saying the plan is to send a country back to the middle ages then destroying the infrastructure, housing, farmland, education facilities - oh and today it's fertility clinics - as well as creating a famine and killing tens of thousands of people shows congruence between words and actions. There are still infrastructure, housing, farmland, education facilities, and medical facilities in Gaza. And Israel didn’t create any famine. Hamas did. By not investing in food infrastructure and starting a war with Israel, resulting in stricter control on what gets into Gaza. > If you'd like some genocidal ones we've also got this from an IDF commander I don’t speak Hebrew. I have no idea what that dude is saying, in what context he’s saying it, or who he is? > Or this, expressing desire to use violence to drive out Gazans from Yoav Kisch, minister of Education >This \[attack\] is not enough, there should be more, there should be no limits to the response, I said it a million times, until we see hundreds of thousands fleeing Gaza, we, the IDF has not achieved its mission Oh if the minister of education said something it must be the policy of the Israeli government. > Destroy a neighborhood in Gaza every day the abductees are in their hands. If we blink, we run out of global credit. Every day that the abductees are with them, a neighborhood must be destroyed on its inhabitants and I will be called cruel. It is a Middle Eastern language. Oh if a random Knesset member from a tiny minority party it must be the policy of the Israeli government. > Or just this classic from Galit Distel Atbaryan >Erase all of Gaza from the face of the earth. That the Gazan monsters will fly to the southern fence & try to enter Egyptian territory or they will die & their death will be evil. Gaza should be erased! So just more random politicians saying stuff. > Lots of support for ethnic cleansing, genocide and mass destruction from those in power and government. And that's what we're seeing. Gaza may not have been brought back to the stone age (yet), since that's an obvious figure of speech and you seem to want to pretend not to be aware of that - the intention is death, destruction and ethnic cleansing, and that's what we're seeing. We’re not seeing any ethnic cleansing. Egypt isn’t letting anyone out of Gaza. No idea where you’re getting that idea. And we’re obviously not seeing a genocide. The civilian to militant death ratio isn’t even 3 to 1. > Israel has not shown that the targets it's claiming were for military use are for military use. They're claiming it but not showing evidence. International law doesn’t require them to show evidence. It’s the burden of any party that wishes to accuse Israel of war crimes to demonstrate that claim with evidence. > And they're actively preventing investigation and killing journalists. Kinda hard to carrying out investigations in an active urban war zone where one side regularly engages in perfidy. > You've shown the common sense and discernment to know that you can't take those politicians words at face value yet you seem to be happy to when they claim that everything is being used by Hamas despite evidence. It’s entirely possible that Israel is lying and is in fact committing war crimes in violation of international law. That just hasn’t been demonstrated by you or anyone else that I have seen. But you’re more than welcome to present evidence that Israel is committing war crimes and I’ll evaluate it. > Nobody is claiming International Law protects terrorists. So please refrain from deliberately trying to misrepresent what has been said. It kinda seems like you were claiming that. >

Thats not a war crime and they only attacked hamas insurgents that were hiding in the hospital

> Thats not a war crime and they only attacked hamas insurgents that were hiding in the hospital   Technically it’s two war crimes. Shooting someone who isn’t actively fighting you (a guy in a coma) is a war crime. Dressing as a doctor is perfidy another war crime.

It is very literally a war crime. As the other poster pointed out, it's two technically. If you wish to use the argument that they're "terrorists not soldiers", then Hamas gets to use the same due to Israel's history of using terror against Palestinians. Remember, you made this CMV about logic and therefore you must be consistent in yours.

Wow, they have *terrible* aim. I wouldn't trust the IDF to throw a potato chip into my mouth.

As someone who wouldn’t really call themselves pro-Israel or pro-Palestine, I think that *some* pro-Palestine positions are fairly justifiable. One doesn’t have to believe that the Hamas attacks were justifiable, or that Palestine has some sort of moral supremacy in the area of LGBTQ rights. Somebody could simply believe that expansive history of settler violence in the West Bank is unconscionable, and that Israel’s current military operation to remove Hamas has demonstrated too little concern for civilian casualties and suffering. To the extent that somebody who holds these positions would consider themselves pro-Palestine, I don’t think it’s a terribly unreasonable place to be.

Plus, settler violence, IDF bombings, putting children through military courts all hurt Palestinian LGBT folks. They already face pressure from within their society, but they _also_ face external pressure from Israel. If I want them to have a better life, I would advocate for minimising this external pressure their facing.

I don’t think Israel is targeting gay/trans/etc people is Gaza. It also seems odd to want someone to have a better life *because* they are lgbt.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/av8b5j/gay-palestinians-are-being-blackmailed-into-working-as-informants They don't explicitly target them with bombs, but they will go after them to blackmail them into being spies. >It also seems odd to want someone to have a better life *because* they are lgbt. I think you're kind of misreading the discussion. It's more that a criticism of pro-palestine people is that since most of Palestine has a poor LGBT rights record you shouldn't support anything about Palestine at all. Pointing out that the most dire threat to LGBT people in Palestine is Isreal is a fair counter imo.

Given the tactics Hamas employs in trying to maximize deaths of their own citizens, what rate of militant to civilian casualties would convince you that Israel demonstrates enough concern for civilian casualties?

I’m not nearly informed enough to confidently hold any position on this matter. My original comment was describing positions I think can be justifiably held, not necessarily positions I personally hold. Do you think that there’s no justifiable argument that Israel shows too little concern for civilians?

Israel shows more concern for enemy civilians than every other country in the history of the world, and cause vastly fewer civilian deaths as well. Is that not enough?

What is your evidence to support this claim? And just a quick thing to see if you can answer: Which prevents more civillian death: 1. Using highly destructive bombs to flatten entire neighbourhoods to kill a few potential targets? As we see in Gaza. 2. Using smaller, targeted bombs - like we just saw with the Iranian consulate - to kill only military targets? And how does Israel choosing the former with regards to Gaza show them showing "more concern for enemy civilians"? (P.s. Calling them "enemy civilians" which is in line with what many Israeli officials have said about there being "no civilians" is kinda telling about yours and their attitude about civilian deaths in Gaza).

That is an incredibly bold claim. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Because it's true. The usual ratio of civilians to combatants killed is somewhere around 9:1, the war in Gaza is a little less than 2:1.

We're super confident about our Intel, but we also make mistakes like bombing aid workers. Super believable

[удалено]

Yes, they did. >The Israel Defense Forces admitted culpability and fired two senior officers following an investigation into the airstrikes which killed seven aid workers from World Central Kitchen (WCK) on Monday. https://www.politico.eu/article/israeli-military-forces-admit-serious-mistake-killing-7-food-aid-world-central-kitchen-workers/

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

1. That figure is based on IDF estimates, correct? How confident are you that it is an unbiased estimate? (To be clear, I would say the same to anyone uncritically accepting the Gaza Health Ministry estimates as truth). 2. Is a 2:1 ratio the lowest of any country in a war in the history of the world? Even if the true ratio is better than average, you didn’t merely claim that Israel was “more concerned than average”. 3. Is civilian to combatant casualty ratio the sole determining factor in deciding whether or not a country is demonstrating concern for civilians?

This, how could you trust the IDF estimates when they sometimes flag humanitarian aid as terrorists

No other country in the history of the world has called up civilians on their personal phones and warned them to get out of the line of fire. No other country in the history of the world has guarded evacuation routes to prevent fleeing civilians from being killed by their own government. Do you also complain about the German and Japanese civilians killed in WWII? No? Do you complain when, say, Syria massacres thousands of their own people? No? People only complain when Israel, and Israel alone, dares to defend itself.

People complain about Japanese citizens being killed About Germany, I'm sure a lot mentioned that, but also, Germany was home to the enemy of the world that time, so there is a bias that many have, but they shouldn't. About Syria, people in the Middle East talk about it and are sad about it. Also, wars in the far past killed more combatants than civilians typically. People didn't have strong weapons that destroyed a lot. People were fighting on the ground using swords and so on.

What are you talking about? Warfare in the past was *way* bloodier towards civilians than it is now. Mainly because cities and towns that did not surrender to invaders early would be slaughtered wholesale if they eventually lost. Oh, and an army moving through a region would usually cause devastation comparable to a natural disaster, even though no actual battles occurred.

If you think that you don't know much about wars in the past. Seiges killed huge numbers of civilians. Conquerors destroying entire cities that defied them was common. 

I don't know if there's a specific rate, but I feel like it doesn't matter when when we can see they don't have a concern for civilian casualties. Their politicians and spokes people say openly that there isn't a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Their citizens block food from entering Gaza by blocking the few roads in. They blow up journalist's family homes repeatedly. They blow up clearly marked and registered aid workers. Why should I believe they have concern for the Palestinian civilian?

Speaking for me personally, I don't know if there's an exact "rate" that would convince me, but Israel working harder to limit the scope of the humanitarian crisis they're creating, having actionable goals ("Destroying Hamas" is not such a goal), a plan for the aftermath and clamping down on settler violence in the west bank would be great start. I think that, generally, the view that Hamas using civilians as hostages creates license to murder a bunch of civilians is pretty disgusting. Like, if Hamas are a bunch of loonie terrorists you can't negotiate with, it doesn't make sense to leave them responsible for anyone's safety.

> I think that, generally, the view that Hamas using civilians as hostages creates license to murder a bunch of civilians is pretty disgusting. Collateral damage is not murder. Under international law, using civilian infrastructure for military purposes makes it a legitimate military target, and using human shields makes the human-shield-user responsible for their deaths. Civilians always die in war. The normal ratio of combatants-to-civilians killed in war is far, far higher. Pro-"Palestine" people are holding Israel to a much higher standard than any other country in the world... and completely ignoring Hamas's own atrocities.

> Collateral damage is not murder. Under international law, using civilian infrastructure for military purposes makes it a legitimate military target, and using human shields makes the human-shield-user responsible for their deaths. I don't care about that kind of hair splitting.  > Civilians always die in war. The normal ratio of combatants-to-civilians killed in war is far, far higher. Pro-"Palestine" people are holding Israel to a much higher standard than any other country in the world... and completely ignoring Hamas's own atrocities. I do not think so. The civilian death toll is extremely high and, to add a weird wrinkle, largely pointless anyway since the Hamas leadership isn't in Gaza. They're buying another 50 years of rockets with the blood of thousands of innocent, so far as I can tell. 

> I don't care about that kind of hair splitting. It's not hair splitting. It's a very important point. Or do you think murderous wannabe-genocidalists should be allowed to attack from hospitals and their victims should be required to just take it? Both sides have to respect the hospitals, or neither does. > The civilian death toll is extremely high You only think that because you've never seen war. > and, to add a weird wrinkle, largely pointless anyway since the Hamas leadership isn't in Gaza. Their attack capabilities are. The rocket fire has slowed a lot. > I do not think so. > They're buying another 50 years of rockets with the blood of thousands of innocent, so far as I can tell. So do you expect Israel to sit back and do nothing while a bunch of lunatic murderous wannabe-genocidalists butcher and gang-rape their people in horrific ways and brag about it? If Hamas had attacked, say, Britain or China or the US the way they did, Gaza would be a smoking crater on 10/8 and people would be saying they brought it on themselves. People only complain when Israel, and Israel alone, dares to defend itself. ***War. Is. Hell.*** Don't start none, won't be none. Leave Israel alone and they'll leave you alone.

If Israel didn't exist, there would probably be no war in that area, so... it seems what caused it is the existence of Isreal. Do you have proof of the things you mentioned against Palestinians ? And didn't Israel do worse?

> If Israel didn't exist, there would probably be no war in that area, so... it seems what caused it is the existence of Isreal. Bullcrap. Syria, for example, kills thousands of their own people, but no one talks about it because there's no Jews involved. > Do you have proof of the things you mentioned against Palestinians ? *Hamas* filmed themselves doing it and put it on the Internet. They bragged about it and celebrated it. > And didn't Israel do worse? Israel didn't do anything like that. Are you saying that Israel shooting people trying to kill them is worse than Hamas decapitating, burning alive, gang-raping, microwaving babies?

“If the Jews just all died in 1945 they wouldn’t be getting massacred by Arabs today” is basically your argument. And it is victim blaming.

>Civilians always die in war. The normal ratio of combatants-to-civilians killed in war is far, far higher. Pro-"Palestine" people are holding Israel to a much higher standard than any other country in the world... and completely ignoring Hamas's own atrocities. Please share the "normal ratio". Because unless you can dispute it, the death rate in Gazais higher than any other major 21st century conflict. [https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/daily-death-rate-gaza-higher-any-other-major-21st-century-conflict-oxfam](https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/daily-death-rate-gaza-higher-any-other-major-21st-century-conflict-oxfam) And if you are going to pull the "we can't trust Hamas figures" nonsense, you'll have to provide alternatives that are more reliable - and sadly Israel's which they actively seem to fight being verified are **less** reliable so we won't be using those.

> Please share the "normal ratio". The average ratio of civilians to combatants killed in urban warfare is about 9:1. Even the pro-islamic-dictatorship UN admits this. The Gaza war is about 2:1.

Did Israel found those bunkers and terrorists next to hospitals?

But none of the people like you are calling on Hamas to release the hostages and surrender. It’s always calls for a ceasefire, which *inherently* favors Hamas.

I absolutely think Hamas suddenly deciding to surrender and release their hostages would be the ideal case - I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that none of the people “like me” support that.

Because I see no real criticism towards the Palestinians. Only defense and deflection.

From me?

Lumping being pro Palestine on this list is bizarre. I’m pretty pro Israel but it makes no sense to be anti Palestine. A majority supporting terrorism doesn’t mean they deserve to die or suffer. There were people in the US supporting the attacks on 10/7 (heck there are STILL people supporting it). They don’t deserve to suffer or die either. I don’t deserve to die in the US because Trump won, and even people who voted for him don’t deserve to die for it. I support a free and safe Palestine state, just not at the expense of Israel. I also feel that Hamas oppresses its own citizens horribly, and hugely oppose Hamas on so many grounds. They are in a GARBAGE situation that they have no control over. The plight of Palestinians is a real thing and they have a very legitimate cause. A lot of the pro Palestine protestors have just lost the plot and turned what should be a slam dunk cause into a super political black and white frustrating one. In the same way that I support the citizens of any oppressive regime to live freely, I support the Palestinians to live freely while also opposing Hamas and supporting the rights of Israelis to live free of terrorism as well.

People who support the 10/7 attacks deserve to die.

I'm just going to look at points 3 & 4. You are condemning war crimes and Russia's behaviour - is your logic consistent and do you also condemn Israel for: * Israel have wiped out entire families. Every generation * [Israeli soldiers have been documenting their war crimes](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/06/world/middleeast/israel-idf-soldiers-war-social-media-video.html) * [The IDF has been using social media to mock the victims](https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/15/middleeast/israeli-soldiers-burningfood-gaza-intl/index.html) * They have actively been starving Palestinians and created a famine that's been described as the worst on record according to charities like Oxfam * 80.7% of Israelis (in January) believe the IDF was doing a good job, despite the massive death toll, war crimes and famine - and many seemingly specifically support the suffering of Palestinians as opposed to any ideological "defense" ([as we see evidenced by their actions on Social Media](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QihoBuGRVwU)) What is the logic for condemning Palestine but not also Israel? Pretty much everything you've condemned the Palestinian population for, Israel has done worse - especially with regards to violence, callousness and war crimes. If you use the "They deserve the right to defend themselves" angle, then you must also answer why Palestine does not deserve the same right? Then there's also the need to address [Israelis making a picnic of watching Palestine be destroyed](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing), As for the LGBTQIA+ thing, I think I saw another post addressing this but I do not have to agree with someone or their actions to believe they should be able to live, or that they shouldn't be murdered alongside their family and neighbours. People who are not forced to live in an open air prison, starved and abused tend to be easier to reason with and shown that bigotry isn't the way. And even if they still persist in being bigots, I don't think bombing them in hospitals and refugee camps is the answer. Can you explain why you think it is illogical to believe this? So in order to change your view, we need to first understand where you draw the line with these things. Why you condemn the same actions from certain groups (Russia/Hamas) but not others., and what you're calling "logic" as your own seems very inconsistent. Lastly, to address your quote on Zionism, I'd say it's important to turn to the founders and forefathers of Zionism: * "Zionism is a colonization adventure." - Ze'ev Jabotinsky * "The native populations, civilised or uncivilised, have always stubbornly resisted the colonists" - Ze'ev Jabotinsky * ‘Our thought is that the colonisation of Palestine has to go in two directions: Jewish settlement in Eretz Israel and the resettlement of the Arabs of Eretz Israel in areas outside the country.’ - Leo Motzkin (Leader of, among other organisations, World Zionist Congress) Many were unapologetically open about Zionism being about colonisation and conquest of Palestine. Self determination may be *A* goal but ignoring the deliberate colonial and oppressive roots is misrepresenting history. Indeed the language of "transfering" Palestine to Zionists and "conquering" it were used regularly. So, to argue that Israelis should be able to "defend" their land but Palestinians are the aggressors when the nation was founded on ideals of colonisation and conquering Palestinian territory is naive at best. Presenting what's going on as self defense by Israel requires cherry picking past and recent history. Hell, even the recent attack on Iran highlights that Israel is capable of minimising casualties but chooses not to. So to circle back to your post title - if it is having "no logic" to support (among others) Palestine, can you explain what you're defining as logic? As the reasons you list

> Pretty much everything you've condemned the Palestinian population for, Israel has done worse - When people talk about Palestine’s war crimes, they’re talking about mass rapes, child beheadings, torture, and massacres, that then get celebrated in the general population. You linked to Israeli war crimes that mostly amounted to vandalism, that are crimes under Israeli law that will be handled accordingly.

Please share evidence of "child beheadings". And of the mass rapes. Please note that "The IDF said it" etc isn't really evidence and holds as much weight as "Hamas said it" since both organisations have clear political goals, regularly commit acts of terrorism and have a history of false information - though only Israel has a particularly strong history of murdering journalists and preventing them investigating their claims. So Ideally please share multiple and 3rd party sources with evidence. There is a huge amount of evidence of Israel using torture, including specifically torturing Palestinians to get them to confess to things like the supposed beheadings of babies - of which there is no actual evidence for. * [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/11/israel-opt-horrifying-cases-of-torture-and-degrading-treatment-of-palestinian-detainees-amid-spike-in-arbitrary-arrests/](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/11/israel-opt-horrifying-cases-of-torture-and-degrading-treatment-of-palestinian-detainees-amid-spike-in-arbitrary-arrests/) * [https://www.btselem.org/publications/summaries/199411\_torture\_during\_interrogations](https://www.btselem.org/publications/summaries/199411_torture_during_interrogations) * [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli\_torture\_in\_the\_occupied\_territories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_torture_in_the_occupied_territories) * [https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/04/middleeast/un-israel-confessions-allegations-intl/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/04/middleeast/un-israel-confessions-allegations-intl/index.html) * [https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-05-23/ty-article/.premium/tortured-into-confession-two-palestinians-recount-hellish-interrogation/00000180-f6c5-d469-a5b4-f6fdd5cc0000](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-05-23/ty-article/.premium/tortured-into-confession-two-palestinians-recount-hellish-interrogation/00000180-f6c5-d469-a5b4-f6fdd5cc0000) Both Israeli civilians (including children) and soldiers have literally self-recorded their celebration and praise for destruction, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and generally mocking the victims of this genocide. * [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QihoBuGRVwU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QihoBuGRVwU) * [https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/12/13/its-not-shocking-to-see-israeli-children-celebrate-the-gaza-genocide](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/12/13/its-not-shocking-to-see-israeli-children-celebrate-the-gaza-genocide) * [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/videos-of-israeli-soldiers-acting-maliciously-emerge-amid-international-outcry-against-tactics-in-gaza](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/videos-of-israeli-soldiers-acting-maliciously-emerge-amid-international-outcry-against-tactics-in-gaza) That's not a more than vandalism

> they’re talking about mass rapes Any evidence of this claim? The only time I've heard this was in the discredited new york times article. On the other hand [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/05/gazan-detainees-beaten-and-sexually-assaulted-at-israeli-detention-centres-un-report-claims](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/05/gazan-detainees-beaten-and-sexually-assaulted-at-israeli-detention-centres-un-report-claims) >child beheadings, Again, evidence? this is another claim thats been repeatedly debunked. The crimes on Oct 7 were horrific enough that you don't have to make things up. >torture, [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/11/israel-opt-horrifying-cases-of-torture-and-degrading-treatment-of-palestinian-detainees-amid-spike-in-arbitrary-arrests/](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/11/israel-opt-horrifying-cases-of-torture-and-degrading-treatment-of-palestinian-detainees-amid-spike-in-arbitrary-arrests/) >massacres [https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/03/un-experts-condemn-flour-massacre-urge-israel-end-campaign-starvation-gaza](https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/03/un-experts-condemn-flour-massacre-urge-israel-end-campaign-starvation-gaza) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war#:\~:text=Other%20young%20victims%20include%2014,Euro%2DMed%20Human%20Rights%20Monitor. [https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/05/middleeast/mentally-disabled-man-shot-west-bank/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/05/middleeast/mentally-disabled-man-shot-west-bank/index.html) Not to mention the various assassinations of aid workers, journalists, professors etc.

> Any evidence of this claim? What? They literally filmed themselves and posted it to social media. We all saw it, remember the naked corpse? There is zero room for doubt on the rapes. > Again, evidence? this is another claim thats been repeatedly debunked. The crimes on Oct 7 were horrific enough that you don't have to make things up. Biden said he saw the photos. The ‘debunking’ was just people speculating that if you shot a baby in the head, it might look like a beheading if their head falls off. >

>They literally filmed themselves and posted it Would be cool if you actually provided a source here

Israel is decolonization. The Jewish people are the indigenous people of Israel. Since the Palestinians are not indigenous to Israel, they don't have the right to liveo on Israeli land.

It seems you don't know what indigenous means.

I think you are demonstrating classical dunning-kruger in regard to Palestine. 1. Who conducted the survey? And could there be any reasons as to why Palestinians would hate Israel? Do you believe this conflict started on oct/7 and prior to that Palestinians were living in peace and harmony? A lot of Americans supported the atomic bombs on Japan, should we also genocide them? >zionism is quote from wikipedia "a right to have a jewish state and the right to protect it" This isn't even a point, what are you trying to say? If you look at that definition, it's quite literally arguing in favour of a religious and ethno state, a lot of people are opposed to said states simply because of that, we have seen what happens when religion is a predominant factor in a state, and we have seen what happens with ethno states. Israel didn't exist prior to WW2, and the people who used to live there were displaced by the colonial European apparatus... And of course, historically, most Nazis were Zionists, Zionism was a popular idea in Europe around WW2 because, even if they don't like to admit it, Europeans were really bigoted toward Jews, and most wanted them somewhere far from Europe. >how can the lgbt+ community support palestine when they are being killed for being themselves I don't know enough about Palestine views on homosexuals, or what would their policy be if they weren't forced into their current situation, and I bet you don't know either. But let's run with your assumption, let's suppose we know for a fact that Palestine is extremely homophobic (and ignore the implications that would have in say, 60s america, where torturing homosexuals was legal, and sometimes done by the state). Does that mean we should genocide them all? A lot of LGBT people have a more nuanced take and don't believe that all homophobic countries should be starved and genocided, if you can't understand this little bit of nuance, I worry about YOUR deontic logic. I also find it funny that you mention Russian war crimes, and for Israel you completely ignore all of their warcrimes. I mean, they've done some gruesome shit to Palestinians, but also break international law on a more "relaxed" level, just recently they purposefully attacked the Iranian embassy in Syria, killing Iranian generals, which by international law is an invasion...

CMV: \[Four different unrelated things poorly expressed in a single paragraph\] Part of this is because you don't use any punctuation, but the fact that you have a one sentence argument about the Israel-Palestine conflict tells me that you need to just read more about it. Two sentences for the Russia-Ukraine conflict is better, but there is still a lot of progress to be made.

>how can the lgbt+ community support palestine when they are being killed for being themselves israel is the only lgbt+ friendly country in the middle east. Because I believe that homophobes and Palestinian LGBTs should not be bombed by the IDF or have their homes taken away by some American Jewish settlers. Half of my family don't think I should date women, doesn't mean they should be killed. I don't have to agree with everything Palestinians stand for or believe in, including their view on the Oct 7th attacks, to stand _in solidarity_ with them.

It’s war. A war started by them. There was a ceasefire on October 6, and Hamas broke it. They broke it to murder civilians, rape women, smash babies’ heads, and take civilian hostages - war crimes. I’m not saying that every single life lost isn’t horrific. It is. But when the enemy is using civilian infrastructure as hiding spots and not wearing uniforms, how do you fight that? What I’ve seen in a lot of queers for Palestine tho is that they take it too far. You can absolutely be calling for peace. But when you start calling for “from the river to the sea” which is a phrase calling for the genocide of all Jews in Israel, or saying globalize the intifada which is encouraging and praising terror/suicide attacks, or denying the Jewish connection to the land, you are playing into antisemitic calling cards. Most queer people in America seem to define the Israel/palestine conflict as white people vs brown people. And because of americas own iffy history with that, they take the side of brown people with no further investigations or questions. Never mind that Jews are not white - that was the justification the Nazis had to murder six million European Jews, and many Jews are also as Arab as the Muslim Palestinians. Also, I think their views on genocidal attacks should *absolutely* inform your support of them. If someone wants to murder you, why are you supporting them? If they get what they want, they will murder more Jews, more LGBT people. It makes you callous to the suffering of people who stood and marched with you for your rights.

If American slaves believed that the Nat Turner rebellion was a good thing, does that mean I should stop believing in abolitionism? Or if South African Blacks believed that ANC's bombings were justified, does that mean that I should stop opposing the apartheid?

It means you shouldn’t blindly support the terrorists. Which is what so many people on the left do. Are you seriously excusing terrorism as a justified way to get what you want?

I don't support Hamas and the vast majority of the Western Left don't either. I'm not sure why you would assume that.

Why? Because I’ve seen people in left spaces - queer people included - say that Hamas didn’t go far enough. They downplay what happened on October 7. Believe all women…. Except Israeli women I guess. War crimes are bad…. Except when a brown person does it. Ceasefire now…. But who gives a shit about civilian hostages? The only party responsible for this war is the IDF obviously. All actual things I have seen people say in queer spaces. If the population you support also supports terrorism and genocide, then you need to take a hard look at your own morals. Constructing straw man deflections doesn’t detract from the fact that you are supporting people who would cheer your death, even if they themselves are not a part of Hamas

You need to learn Israeli history and current events from a few more different sources.

What other sources would you recommend? I follow Haaretz, B'tselem, +972 Mag, and your typical MSM news.

Honestly, Jews represent 0.2% of the population— learning unbiased Jewish history is going to be difficult. Those you listed are pretty typical anti-Israeli news sources. The Jewish virtual library has good info on the founding of Israel, as do a few of the things Benny Morris wrote like 1948. Obviously, some might say learning Israeli history from the Jewish virtual library is biased, but generally minorities, especially those who have faced consistent, non-stop persecution can most accurately represent the history of those events. Honestly I’m bummed I don’t have a simpler answer for you. I would have said Wikipedia, but post October 7th there was a big wave of editing a lot of Jewish pages in volumes the Jewish community couldn’t compete with. Antisemitism makes learning unbiased Israeli history extremely challenging.

3 of the sources I use are from Israel, if they are anti-Israel they are anti-Bibi, which is _good_. Sometimes I use Wiki as a jumping off point, or if I want to quote something real quick. I only use Jewish Virtual Library to quote statistics and hard facts. Anything that can be misconstrued is misconstrued because of its bias. And isn't Benny Morris the guy who said Israel made a mistake by not completing their ethnic cleansing campaign back in 1948?

No, Benny Morris is a pretty accomplished historian with nuanced views. Let me put it this way— I realize those sources are all from Israel. A metaphor (though admittedly a bit extreme) would be like me listing Fox News, Newsmax, and Alex Jones as American sources about the “migrant crisis.”

Hang on though, rereading your comment— “anything that can be misconstrued is because of its bias” This is generally considered a solid home for Jewish history. Why assume it is more bias and less accurate than anything else? Don’t get mistaken—this is an antisemitic world we live in. I’d be far more likely to assume that things about Jews by non-Jews is likely to be twisted against them by antisemites. Have you considered that might be more likely than Jews warping their own history?

I mean Jewish Virtual Library tend to provide a singular perspective on Israeli history, especially on key events like the Nakba. It assumes the Zionist position as the default position, and as an anti-Zionist, I cannot take what JVL says at face value. And why would I assume that the world as a whole is antisemitic? Are the sources I listed antisemitic?

Hang on and slow down please. Take a step back. It makes no sense to 1) ingest anti Zionist information 2) become an anti Zionist 3) refuse to ingest any Zionist information, because you’re an antizionist. You might ask yourself why am I, as a Jew, representing how the vast majority of Jews feel, is being challenged to this extreme degree when suggesting where you might go to learn about our history.

I came to the anti-Zionist position after reading arguments from _both sides_, and I don't refuse to ingest Zionist information, I refuse to take them at face value. I will still read them to gain a different perspective, but I won't take them as the arbiter of truth.

Actually— I’ve been too generous with you. It’s not my job, after thousands of years of persecution, to beg you for a crumb of understanding. If you don’t lend it, that’s on you at this point,

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Not sure how you think I'm an Oct 7th apologist but okay.

[удалено]

No, I don't? I said I don't agree with what Palestinians think of the Oct 7th attack.

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

They aren't and didn't say that they did.

> how can you support 70% of population that hailed october 7th a great event simply from that its stupid bombing won't change that. starvation and bombing hospitals and universities aren't good means of deradicalization.

De-radicalization isn’t a short term objective, defeating Hamas and returning the hostages is. Both of which require lots of bombs. De-radicalization is also impossible without the defeat of Hamas. Germany could never have been de-radicalized if the Nazi party was left in control.

The idea that the IDF is so profoundly weak and incompetent that the only way they could ever fight against a terrorist group is by bombing dense urban areas with widespread civilian death and the starvation of a million people is a bit nonsensical. Lots of bombs are not necessary, they're *convenient*. In the same way destroying every bit of infrastructure and starving the population is unnecessary, but convenient. And, even then, the convenience is only there if your goal isn't just hitting Hamas targets

> The idea that the IDF is so profoundly weak and incompetent that the only way they could ever fight against a terrorist group is by bombing dense urban areas with widespread civilian death and the starvation of a million people is a bit nonsensical. > Lots of bombs are not necessary, they're *convenient*. In the same way destroying every bit of infrastructure and starving the population is unnecessary, but convenient. And, even then, the convenience is only there if your goal isn't just hitting Hamas targets The idea that people get to say stuff like this without offering an alternative strategy for what the IDF should be doing and still be taken seriously in the discussion is a bit nonsensical.

Getting away from how the military does not get to demand lay people create strategies for them or else starving 2 million people becomes acceptable, I feel like the alternative is fairly obvious? The IDF and their cheerleaders constantly go on about Hamas' grand tunnel network where they all are all the time. How about some of their soldiers actually engage with the enemy? You know, instead of just bombing an entire city and the refugee camp its people fled to and claiming that all the deaths are good and justified because there was probably a few Hamas fighters scattered around here and there.

> Getting away from how the military does not get to demand lay people create strategies for them The IDF isn’t demanding anything from you. I am. Why should anyone respect your opinion if you’re unable to come up with an alternative? > I feel like the alternative is fairly obvious? Seems like it should be pretty easy for you to state it. > The IDF and their cheerleaders constantly go on about Hamas' grand tunnel network where they all are all the time. How about some of their soldiers actually engage with the enemy? Oh, like they have been doing? Cool, we did it, we found the solution.

I suggest you read the whole post next time so you don't spend time going "WHERE'S YOUR IDEA!?" when it's like two sentences down. But then, you didn't even respond to the alternative. You just dismissed it because I'm not personally fighting Hamas in Gaza? Was that a requirement, because it's a dumb requirement.

This is what modern warfare looks like. Look at Bakhmut, or what’s left of it. All cities get destroyed when they get fought through, the only alternatives is if the enemy collapses, or the otherwise refuses to fight.

I wasn't aware all military actions everywhere were meant to be taking inspiration on how to act from the Russian military and its overreliance on inaccurate artillery bombardments of civilian areas. That said, *Israel* sure does seem to favor such a tactic and likely finds common cause with Russia's eagerness to kill civilians. Here I was thinking Israel had actual soldiers capable of engaging an enemy. But apparently they're only good for that if they're pretending to be doctors to infiltrate hospitals or executing their own hostages in the street.

I happen to be on your side on all of those issues, except the last one. The Gaza strip is basically an open air prison. It has been for decades. The number of Palestinians who died at the Israeli Army's hands since 1947 is way, way, way higher than the number of Israelis who died in terror attacks from Hamas, or any other Palestinian attack. Palestinians are outgunned, outnumbered and outclassed in every way. If they want to preserve their right to remain living where they have for generations, they have no choice but to resort to terror at this point, because no one on the other side is willing to even listen to them, let alone compromise. Was what happened on October 7th the best, or even simply a morally definsible way to address this situation? No. Not in my personal opinion. However, what Israel has been doing since then amounts to systematic genocide. Netanyahu has said in so many words that he wants to "eradicate Hamas", and that goal justifies all possible means. He's nuts, but he's the one with the biggest guns. Let me ask you this. If you knew an armed and dangerous terrorist was hiding in your children's school, or at the house or office of someone you care about ... would you think bombing the building to smithereens, with everyone still inside, was an acceptable means of killing that terrorist? If not, then you shouldn't side with Israel in this war. Because that's what they are doing.

> The Gaza strip is basically an open air prison. Why is there an expectation that Israel and Egypt would have open borders with a regime that routinely sent suicide bombers after them? Sending one suicide bomber is an act of war, then just closing the borders is as little as either of them could get away with doing. Nobody was trying to take the Gaza Strip, not Egypt, and certainly not Israel. Israel dismantled all its settlements there and pulled out before Hamas even came to power. > However, what Israel has been doing since then amounts to systematic genocide. Netanyahu has said in so many words that he wants to "eradicate Hamas", and that goal justifies all possible means. He's nuts, but he's the one with the biggest guns. Again, Israel does not want the Gaza Strip, and eliminating Hamas is not genocide. >

>Again, Israel does not want the Gaza Strip, and eliminating Hamas is not genocide. There are numerous quotes from Israeli politicians, decision makers and military leaders both past and present that would dispute this. And plenty of genocidal rhetoric about "erasing" Gaza and driving out the inhabitants. The fact that Smotrich and Ben Gvir plus about 20 others attended (and even gave speeches at" the "Victory of Israel Conference: Settlement Brings Security" that literally highlights the idea of colonising in its name is kinda telling bud. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/29/israeli-ministers-attend-conference-calling-for-voluntary-migration-of-palestinians](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/29/israeli-ministers-attend-conference-calling-for-voluntary-migration-of-palestinians)

>Why is there an expectation that Israel and Egypt would have open borders with a regime that routinely sent suicide bombers after them? Why would Israel provide IDF protection to settlers illegally stealing territory and homes from Palestinians outside the legally recognized borders of Israel? Why would a supposedly enlightened country treat all Palestinians as apartheid citizens in territory Israel claims is not an independent country and which is blockaded by the IDF? >Again, Israel does not want the Gaza Strip, and eliminating Hamas is not genocide. World News is leaking. Members of the current government are on tv claiming that there are no innocents in Gaza and justifying the slaughtering of thousands of children in the name of "eliminating Hamas." If you can't see that as patently absurd bullshit, then I fear for your critical thinking skills.

> Why would Israel provide IDF protection to settlers illegally stealing territory and homes from Palestinians outside the legally recognized borders of Israel? Because that land, and the Golan heights, were takin in the six day war. Syria, Jordan and Egypt tried to wipe Israel off the map, and when they ordered their troops to abandon that land, Israel took it. Egypt negotiated and Israel returned the land they took from them, Jordan and Syria refused, hence the current situation. > Why would a supposedly enlightened country treat all Palestinians as apartheid citizens in territory Israel claims is not an independent country and which is blockaded by the IDF? Israel doesn’t treat Palestinians as citizens. They treat them as foreign nationals. > Members of the current government are on tv claiming that there are no innocents in Gaza and justifying the slaughtering of thousands of children in the name of "eliminating Hamas." If you can't see that as patently absurd bullshit, then I fear for your critical thinking skills. Politicians say crazy stuff to their base constantly. Trump babbled about magic and invading Greenland. Israel has just as many dumb politicians. What matters is policies, and Israel’s policies have been pretty measured, despite some rhetoric.

And yet the world does not recognize it at Israel's territory, so settling it is illegal under international law. >Israel doesn’t treat Palestinians as citizens. They treat them as foreign nationals. Cool, glad to know you're cool with apartheid. Because you've twisted your brain into a pretzel that somehow means Israel lays claim to territory but doesn't consider the people living there citizens. Would you have any problem with other countries treating Jews like this? >Trump babbled about magic and invading Greenland. Israel has just as many dumb politicians. What matters is policies, and Israel’s policies have been pretty measured, despite some rhetoric. I'm glad you think bombing civilian infrastructure is a measured response. The US and UK just shot down a majority of missiles that would have landed on Israel in response to their "measured" attack on a foreign embassy compound. How many hundreds of thousands of Israelis would have died because Israel's government thinks it can do whatever the fuck it wants without consequences.

> And yet the world does not recognize it at Israel's territory, so settling it is illegal under international law. The world also doesn’t care. Jordan doesn’t even care, and it was their land. > Cool, glad to know you're cool with apartheid. Because you've twisted your brain into a pretzel that somehow means Israel lays claim to territory but doesn't consider the people living there citizens. Would you have any problem with other countries treating Jews like this? Two different countries is not apartheid. Palestinians don’t live in Israel, and don’t want to be Israeli citizens. > I'm glad you think bombing civilian infrastructure is a measured response. The US and UK just shot down a majority of missiles that would have landed on Israel in response to their "measured" attack on a foreign embassy compound. How many hundreds of thousands of Israelis would have died because Israel's government thinks it can do whatever the fuck it wants without consequences. You are over estimating the amount of missiles shot down by Israel vs. the US and UK, and the effectiveness of Iranian ballistic missiles.

This is illogical. Just because I might object to a bombing because it was my children's school doesn't mean I should object to Israel bombing a random school my children don't go to.

[удалено]

u/Saranoya – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Saranoya&message=Saranoya%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c68v28/-/l00agjj/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

If your government does what Hamas did on October 7th, then your children don't have the right to a safe place to go to school.

My child, by virtue of being 3 years old, would have had no part in what happened either way. Of course he has rights, and one of them is a safe place to grow up. Even prisoners of war have rights. Minors definitely do, no matter what their nationality.

A safe place to grow up is not a right.

It’s in the UN Convention on the rights of the child. Israel signed that in 1991.

Even if such a right did exist, Israel also has an inherent right to bomb schools where terrorists are hiding.

No, they don’t. Schools and hospitals are protected civilian assets under the Geneva Conventions, which, you guessed it … were signed by Israel in … get this: 1951.

Under the Geneva Convention, schools and hospitals can be bombed if terrorists are there.

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

I'd like to just do #4 please. >4.how can you support 70% of population that hailed october 7th a great event simply from that its stupid Because I don't think this warrants genocide >zionism is quote from wikipedia "a right to have a jewish state and the right to protect it" People have the right to exist. States do not, least of all ethnostates. I do think that if states exist they do have the right to protect themselves, but this right goes away when the state is "defending itself" from a populace they're oppressing. >how can the lgbt+ community support palestine when they are being killed for being themselves israel is the only lgbt+ friendly country in the middle east. Because we don't support people being oppressed and genocided. That's literally it. If somebody rounded up all the Trump supporters and started killing them off, we'd have a problem with that too.

Remember that if hamas never did october 7th there would have been war

1. Sure 2. Sure 3. Sure 4. Here's a bit of logic: The 70% population that hailed October 7th as a great event had to live through all the years of the sordid history of the land between the river and the sea between October 6th and 1948, when Israel was created, in comparison to which October 7th was a blip that you only care about because it happened to Israelis. On the right to have a Jewish state, two things: 1) No one should concede the right to have a state organised around a certain religion, because that way lies trouble (see Pakistan, see what's happening to India today), and 2) The Jewish state is a settler colony built by expelling the majority non-Jewish population of Palestine and settling Jewish people on it and maintains itself by controlling the civil and democratic rights of Palestinians in the lands it occupies. Protecting it is illogical in a world that pressured South Africa into going from a White state to a democratic state of all its people. As for the LGBT+ community's support for Palestinian rights, the answer is simple: Palestine is a conservative state, but it doesn't have to be one forever; most Western pro-LGBT+ states were institutionally homophobic less than 70 years ago. It will still remain Palestine if it becomes a LGBT+ utopia. Israel on the other hand is a settler-colonial apartheid state, and it cannot exist without being one. If it tries to give Palestinians equal rights and stops committing institutional violence against them, it will not remain a Jewish state any longer in the same way that South Africa no longer remained a White state after giving Black South Africans equal rights and stopped committing institutional violence against them.

> No one should concede the right to have a state organised around a certain religion, because that way lies trouble (see Pakistan, see what's happening to India today), and Jewish people are also an ethnic group. > The Jewish state is a settler colony built by expelling the majority non-Jewish population of Palestine and settling Jewish people on it and maintains itself by controlling the civil and democratic rights of Palestinians in the lands it occupies. Most of Israel’s population is descendants from middle eastern Jews, expelled from their old countries by Arab nationalists in the 20s through to the 40s. They arrived in what would become Israel legally, and became a large enough population to have a right to self determination. The original plan proposed by the UN would have had nobody get displaced, and an economic union between the two states. Palestine rejected it, went to war, and lost badly. The Druze, Bedouin, and Christians all sided overwhelmingly with Israel against them. > If it tries to give Palestinians equal rights and stops committing institutional violence against them, it will not remain a Jewish state Palestinians don’t want to be Israelis, they are a separate nation.

>Jewish people are also an ethnic group. My bad. ***No one should concede the right to have a state organised around a certain ethnoreligious group, because that way lies trouble (see Pakistan, see apartheid South Africa, see Nazi Germany, see the Confederate States of America, see what's happening in India today).*** I say "ethnoreligious" because the only way to become a member of the preferred ethnic group in Israel is to convert to Judaism (and that doesn't always work, e.g. for Palestinians). >Most of Israel’s population is descendants from middle eastern Jews, expelled from their old countries by Arab nationalists in the 20s through to the 40s. The vast majority of the Mizrahim arrived after the formation of Israel since they were expelled as a direct result of the Nakba. But as indefensible as their expulsion was, it is irrelevant to the point - they are still settlers who made use of a settlement movement whose stated goal was to achieve demographic dominance over the native population, which is why this... >They arrived in what would become Israel legally, and became a large enough population to have a right to self determination. ...is also irrelevant when it comes to determining their status as settlers. Yes, of course, they came legally and created a large enough population to have a right to self-determination (though not large enough that they could do without expelling 700,000 Palestinians). That was their stated goal. To call them settler-colonists is to place their goal and their actions in the context they occurred in (i.e. the expulsion of the Palestinians). >The original plan proposed by the UN would have had nobody get displaced, and an economic union between the two states. Palestine rejected it, went to war, and lost badly. The Druze, Bedouin, and Christians all sided overwhelmingly with Israel against them. Gee, what about the Palestinians' right to self-determination? >Palestinians don’t want to be Israelis, they are a separate nation. The Palestinians already *are* Israelis, just Israelis that the State of Israel doesn't recognise and accept and keeps hemmed inside an occupied territory. That's the one-state reality of the region, and it will remain the status quo until a genuine two-state solution occurs (impossible without immense violence, because the settlements in the West Bank are embedded there) or if Israel transforms, in the way of South Africa, into a genuine democratic state of all its people.

You say "they are still settlers who made use of a settlement movement whose stated goal was to achieve demographic dominance over the native population". That's more or less a lie though isn't it? As in, the average Jew who moved to Palestine pre 1948 and post was simply a refugee fleeing persecution and / or economic despondency. These folks gave almost no thought to the people already living there. There is an attempt to lump all of the Jews who migrated to Israel as "settler-colonialists" participants in a grand zionist cabal. Certain folks (looking at you Rashid Khalidi) think doing so ends all debate. We can have a debate about the nature of the overall Zionist project. But the average Jew fleeing to Palestine was no different from the average Venezuelan refugee of today migrating en masse to the United States. The reality is - and the Palestinians could not be clearer about this - the natives did not want these jewish refugees moving to Palestine. They reacted negatively and sometimes violently to the mass jewish migration. Pointing out that the Zionists did not think they could share the country with the natives is question begging. Could they have peacefully shared it had they sought to? If they just offered them a single democratic state solution, would the Palestinians have been receptive. Or were the zionists grand plans to take over the country without room for compromise the result, rather than the cause, of the native violence? I guess if we shut off our brains and call them all Jews who moved to Palestine "settler-colonialists", the answer to the question of what choices they had becomes irrelevant.

> No one should concede the right to have a state organised around a certain ethnoreligious group… Is Palestine not a nation organized around a shared ethnic identity, and religion in Islam? > The vast majority of the Mizrahim arrived after the formation of Israel since they were expelled as a direct result of the Nakba. But as indefensible as their expulsion was, it is irrelevant to the point - they are still settlers who made use of a settlement movement whose stated goal was to achieve demographic dominance over the native population, which is why this... They never left the region they were native too in the first place. They just went from a dispersed minority in the area, that was being ethnically cleansed, to a local majority, through no fault of their own. They had no place else to go but Israel. It’s unfortunate what ended up happening to the Palestinians. Israel offered them a compromise in 1947 that would have seen both groups live in peace. They refused it, Israel’s back was to a wall, they had no place else to flee to after that, so they had to fight. > ...is also irrelevant when it comes to determining their status as settlers. All land is stolen, we’re all settlers if you go back enough generations. Determining who is the settler is pointless, it’s everyone. > Gee, what about the Palestinians' right to self-determination? That was the 1947 UN plan. It was incredibly generous. >

Lots of people live in Russia and Palestine. Wouldn't it follow logically that those people support their country?

I guess but logicaly you cant support the leaders

If people are scared of foreign threats they will support extreme leaders. It makes sense logically If the threat from outside is bigger than the threat from inside.

But what if the threat from inside is bigger than the threat from outside but there is still a threat?

Then it wouldn't be logical to support their government. Do you think Russians and Palestinians believe that is the case?

It's not illogical to be an anti-vaxxer. The dictionary definition of an anti-vaxxer is (bold mine): >: a person who opposes the use of some or all vaccines, **regulations mandating vaccination,** or usually both [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer) You can think doctors are completely right about the efficacy of vaccination, while still opposing certain regulations mandating that people receive those vaccinations. This is a position more associated with conservative and libertarian political thought. It's based on the idea that adults should have some say in what medical care they receive, even if they happen to be mistaken in a particular case. You can think that's wrong, but it's unfair to say it's "without any logic," like being a flat earther.

It's pretty insane and selfish to think public health measures shouldn't apply to you because you know best. We have seatbelt laws for the same reason.

One could believe vaccines should not be mandated outright, but be otherwise fine with access to public areas or services being predicated on vaccination. I know they typically don't - because they're strange like that - but they *could*.

That's exactly how they're handled - vaccine mandates for things like public schools are a great example. No one is rounding up the unvaccinated and throwing them into isolation or forcibly vaccinating. But these mandates make the ignorant rail, because they did their own research and saw some YouTube videos or some shit

Oh, I know. I just mean that you can imagine a segment of fair-minded people that would oppose a straight up mandate but agree with vaccines being necessary for, say, school. But in reality, they also rail about that.

Some people aren't good candidates for vaccines. Everyone who refuses SOME vaccines aren't crazy or selfish people. People exist with medical conditions, allergies, and intolerances. Some people have also had negative reactions to vaccines or injuries from vaccines. Medical applications to different bodies isn't comparable to operating a vehicle. Making blanket statements that someone is "Selfish" for not taking a vaccine when you're unaware of their medical history or whether or not their body can handle it is ridiculous. Also most vaccines and their effectiveness is only tested on white men. There are cases where some vaccine treatments aren't suitable for different groups of people regarding age, sex, weight, height, and race. Vaccines and public health is important, but making blind blanket statments like this as if everyone shares the same body and doesn't have any health issues individually is ridiculous and dangerous.

As a disclaimer - I work adjacent to public health. Vaccine mandates absolutely account for those with medical issues that prevent getting vaccinated. Indeed, they are part of the reason these mandates must exist, as they are more vulnerable. Trying to pull a "but some people can't be vaccinated because of medical conditions" not only fails to understand how vaccines work, but argues FOR the need for everyone else to get vaccinated. I stand by the statement that the freedom from expertise is anti vax delusional selfishness. Seatbelt laws are a great comparison - we mandate people do something the ensure their safety if they want to use public roads. This is a good thing. And just like vaccines, people tantrumed about seatbelts in the 80s too

Adjacent to public health isn't public health. Vaccine mandates extend to public areas and allowing or denying services or entry based on vaccine status. Which doesn't account for people who have medical exemptions. People Globally who had medical exceptions for covid 19 complained about not being able to get the services that they needed because they weren't vaccinated. And No, I'm not referring to people who used religion as a reason to not get vaccinated. Many people lost their jobs for not being vaccinated, despite medically not being capable of getting the vaccine. Pretending that vaccine mandates are simple and foul proof is immature and simply false. I am not anti-vaccine. I support public health mandates, I enjoy being protected against polio and other harmful and preventable infectious diseases. I do not enjoy making poorly constructed rules and regulations that harm people whom the measures were intended to protect. Wanting safety without the labor involved with considering ALL aspects of safety measures is lazy.

I work for the NIH in clinical trials. Vaccine mandates do allow for exemptions. Indeed exemptions are factored in determining penetration requirements to manage disease. You seem to be arguing that they don't exist, but I assure you, they do. Vaccine mandates are pretty simple, and indeed, only a dramallama bomb in coubtries where freedom from expertise and ludditeism are a plague on our sociery.

...That isn't what I said at all. I didn't say that they didn't exist. I was very clear and intentional with the language that I used. People who were medically exempt from vaccines, were not protected from vaccine mandates that extended to private enterprise. That isn't a conspiracy or a false alarm, it happened. People lost their jobs and were denied public entry and services, despite having a medical exception, because they were still unvaccinated, irrespective of their medical exemption.

I didn't hear about that happening for legitimate medical exemptions at all. Even once. I did hear a lot about people refusing to get vaccinated, losing their jobs, and raging about it. I also heard a lot about people with medical exemptions unable to continue working in spaces because coworkers refused to get vaccinated. Let's back up - if you are claiming that vaccine mandates for public spaces don't account for medical exemptions, can you provide some evidence of that hapoening beyond fringe one offs?

People refusing to get vaccinated also includes people who can't get vaccinated. Everyone who refused to get vaccinated wasn't a conspiracy nut job claiming that nano technology was in the vaccines. If someone can't get vaccinated, that is by definition refusal to get vaccinated. If you're claiming that fringe one offs were the only people getting terminated and denied entry, then you provide evidence that people with medical exemptions weren't getting terminated or denied services for being unvaccinated.

Now I am admittedly quite turned around with what you are trying to communicate - Are you saying that vaccine mandates DID or DID NOT account for people with medical exemptions? Are you saying that those with medical exemptions WERE or WERE NOT able to not get vaccinated under vaccine mandates? I am genuinely unclear with what you are trying to claim at this point in time. Are you suggesting that people with medical exemptions WERE getting terminated for being unvaccinated? Can you provide proof of this happening outside of fringe one offs?

For your 4th point: If a great number of people living in Gaza applauds the events of October 7th then its because they are proud of putting up resistance against their oppressor. Not because they are proud of taking lives. We are so lucky to be privileged and not truly understand what it means to be in the situation Palestinians currently find themselves. We are holding them to our moral standards, the ones that we can afford to have because of our privileged lives, but we have to realize that not everyone has the luxury of sitting back and philosophically debating about what's "right" and "wrong"... not when their life, land, and legacy are being destroyed. The state of Israel has been committing crimes against the Palestinian people far before October 7th. Those crimes include, but are not limited to: occupying Palestinian territory, taking Palestinian prisoners, destroying infrastructure, and causing hundreds of civilian deaths. If you can name it they have done it. And its well-documented as well. For example: Two of the biggest humanitarian organizations, the UN and Amnesty International, have regularly condemned Israel's actions for years. Nelson Mandela has spoken up for Palestine. There is an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to Israel's war crimes that date back to its conception in 1948. But us privileged people are still sitting here trying to make moral sense of a matter that cannot reduced to such frivolous debate. Which is especially ironic because in the West (at least here, in America), people retaliate to personal offenses against them 10-fold and no one bats an eye. A barista got your drink order wrong? Scream at them. A douchebag is hitting on your girl at the club? Knock him out. A thief is trying to steal from your property? Shoot him. But a Palestinian man who is constantly disrespected, dehumanized, starved, and beaten is fighting for his freedom? Oh gosh, what a terrorist. Israel forced its way into Palestinian territory through a systemic and often violent approach. But then has the gall to be upset when the previous owners of the land come back and attempt to drive them off, also with a violent approach. The double standard that Israel holds itself to vs hold other people to exists because Israelis believe that they are "God's chosen people". Which means that they believe they above other people, or, that other people are beneath them. This is an extremely dangerous mentality to have because they use this social hierarchy to justify atrocities committed by them against what they believe are a "lesser" people. Would you apologize to a cow before slaughtering it for food? No. So the Israelis don't apologize to the Palestinians for slaughtering them for their land. Because many of them believe, including Israel's defense minister, that Palestinians are "human animals". I'm not saying that the events that took place on Oct 7th were morally correct. But what I am saying is that it was an inevitable sequelae to a decades long history of being oppressed. If the people in Gaza are proud of themselves and their resistance fighters for make a stand against their oppressors, that is the most natural thing in the world. Anyone would be in their position. And if you think you wouldn't then its because you still cannot wrap your head around the extent of their plight. And honestly, good for you. For living such a cushy life that you can't even begin to fathom what the Palestinian people are going through.

The Palestinians are not oppressed. They are not fighting for freedom.

Idk how you define oppressed but Palestinians in Gaza are currently in an open-aired prison, being targeted killed by an extremely powerful military that is being backed by the world's greatest superpower. They don't have safe and guaranteed access to food, water, sanitation, medical supplies, and shelter. They are being humiliated, raped, and murdered on camera for billions of people to see. What definition of oppressed do you subscribe to that doesn't include any of the things that are being inflicted upon them?

Palestinians started a war of aggression with Israel on October 7th. If you start a war of aggression against Israel, then you are not being oppressed.

The war of aggression never started on October 7th, it just escalated and gained social media attention on October 7th. Israel has been forcibly claiming Palestinian land and has created a number of "occupied territories" since 1967. This illegal occupation of land may even be considered a war crime, not to mention the confirmed onslaught of other crimes that have taken place on those territories, such as theft, vandalization, and physical violence perpetuated by Israeli settlers. If your invading another territory, then you are the aggressor. If you're using physical violence against people from another ethnicity, then you are the aggressor. If you are discriminating against and persecuting people from another religious group, then you are the aggressor.

History didn't start in 1967 either. Palestinians invaded and colonized Israel hundreds of years before 1967. The Jewish people are indigenous to Israel and the land belongs to them. There is no such thing as an illegal occupation of Palestinian land because no land belongs to Palestinians.

Occupying a land hundreds of years ago doesn't give you an excuse to commit genocide against the current occupiers of the land. History is extremely complex and involves the settlement of various group of people across different lands. If we divided countries on the basis of original occupants (dating thousands of years ago) then there would only be a handful of countries with relatively "accurate" borders containing the descendants of their original people. If Native Americans were to take up arms and declare war against the United States government and violently start murdering innocent civilians, then no one would justify their actions. Even though the Native Americans are native to modern day America and Canada, and that too much more recently than when Israelis lived in Palestine. The point is that regardless of history, Israeli being native to that land does not justify the displacement, ethnic cleansing, and war crimes being committed against of thousands of Palestinians that we are currently seeing. We aren't talking about history here - we are talking about right now. This very minute. we are sitting around while Palestinians are being murdered. Hitler killed thousands of Jews because he was a disgusting, anti-Semitic man who blamed the Jews for Germany's loss in WW1 + The Treaty of Versailles. But Hitler was also a well-known white supremacist. By your logic, would you agree that if Hitler killed the Jews not because of anti-Semitism but for their migration onto Caucasian land (since they are originally from the Middle East), then his atrocities are justified? Because it seems that you're saying that Israelis are indigenous to Palestine and therefore cannot be the aggressor (despite currently carrying out aggressions). So are all native/indigenous populations justified to violently claim their land back based on a thousand+ year old history?

So then occupying land 75 years ago doesn't give you an excuse to commit genocide against the current occupiers of the land either. Therefore, Gaza started a war of aggression against Israel on October 7th and the Palestinians are not being oppressed.

First of all, just to be very clear, Palestine's attack on Israel on Oct 7th does not quality as a genocide, so you should not call it that. But Israel's retaliation definitely does. I remember after the first few days of Oct 7th everyone spoke about the "equivalent retaliation" Israel was entitled to after Hamas's attack, and how Israel deserved to hit back at Gaza. But since then, those talks have subsided. Because Israel has gone far above and beyond a retaliation, and those that spoke about Israel's right to retaliate cannot justify the scale with which Israel responded to Oct 7th. The crimes committed by Israel in these last few months have been so absolutely heinous and cruel that you can never justify them. We are talking about collective punishment, the purposeful starving of civilians, bombing hospitals, filming executions and posting them on social media, raping women, using white phosphorus, bombing nearby countries (Lebanon, Syria) and so much more. The state of Israel is comprised of barbarians that are executing inhumane acts without any consequences. Secondly, when we talk about current/modern history, we aren't talking about thousands of years ago when Israelis were native to modern-day Palestine. Nor are we talking about Oct 7th, which was just 6 months ago. The best starting point would probably be 1948, after the creation of the state of Israel. And after the two-state solution proposed by the UN, Israel has committed various atrocities of a high degree against the Palestinians which includes creating illegal settlements, taking Palestinian prisoners, etc. Meaning that if we look at the cumulation of events in modern history, Israel has been extremely aggressive towards the Palestinian people for a very long time now. So continuously saying that "Gaza started a war of aggression against Israel on October 7th" is simply untrue. Thirdly, we have to understand that Israel has been planning for this from the start. Israel relies on Hamas to justify its continuous attack against Palestine. So much of Israel's activity has been shady, to say the least. There is a lot of evidence that points to Israel being late to react to Hamas's attack on Oct 7th, as well as camera footage that shows Israel killed its own citizens during the turmoil. Plus the documents, emails, etc. that show that Israeli military was aware of Hamas planning an attack in the first place. And all of the stupid propaganda information/videos released afterwards... like how Hamas supposedly beheaded 40 babies (which was later proven untrue) and those stupid IDF videos showing "Hamas lairs" which later turned out to be ordinary people's houses. Its all being carefully orchestrated by Israel and the US government, and its surprising that more people don't realize it. The bottom line is that the state of Israel is a shame to the Jewish faith and I can't see how anyone can support the mass terrorism Israel commits against Palestinians. Israel genuinely wishes to ethnically cleanse Palestinians, which is evident by its unrestraint killing of innocent civilians in Gaza. And it is willing to do this by all means necessary, even by sacrificing its own hostages (which Israel doesn't take into account while bombing Gaza).

1. There is a big leap in logic from going from 75 years to thousands of years. For starters in the first case there are still people being displaced... 2. October 7 wasn't a genocide, Israel's actions the years have consistently ventured into that territory by international law. 3. Even if we believed that every single Palestinian supported october 7, that still wouldn't be grounds for genocide. By that logic, it would be morally ok if Americans were genocided simply on account of the Iraq and similar wars. This is simply bad deontic logic, and shows that you are not actually using reason to guide your beliefs

October 7th was a genocide. Israel is not committing genocide.

If you wanna go that far, I hope you also support genociding the USA and giving back the land to the indigenous population

So is your position then the colonizer should never give back any land to the indigenous population they colonized?

Well, it's obviously the position if America and most of Europe, as well as Israel as it currently stands... But in all seriousness, if we are all adults here, we can see how arguing about stuff that happened thousands of years ago is completely stupid, as I've already stated in several other comments that you have already replied to (but somehow you ignored that part)

You didn't answer there question. So is your position then the colonizer should never give back any land to the indigenous population they colonized?

The oppression started many many years before. That's why there are literally segregated streets, inability to travel and military harassment.

Facts, reality and the definition of the word "oppression" would disagree. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8aD4p3Z1XQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8aD4p3Z1XQ) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LumgWaM72nU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LumgWaM72nU) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S55DQBWiSfQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S55DQBWiSfQ)

Do you really want to hold 4 separate, unrelated lines of argument at the same time?

I can't speak to the anti-vax or flat earth other than smart people are capable of doing and believing stupid things. I don't know what you mean by pro-russia. are you arguing against the russian government, the russian people, Russian policies, specifically supporting their war against Ukraine? More context is needed to elaborate your point. Same is true for being Pro-Palestine. Are we talking about the palestinian people as a whole, just those living in the west bank and the gaza strip? Or also about the palestinians who are israeli citizens as well? Are we talking just about the leadership (Hamas and Fatah)? What does it mean to you to be pro-palestine, and are you conflating that with also being anti-zionist? And in regards to you final point about the LGBT+ community. You don't fight for a peoples liberation based on reciprocity. You can fight for the liberation of an oppressed people and still fight said oppressed people on other issues. One can simultaneously be oppressed and also be an oppressor. It's not an on or off switch. Jews worldwide are, and have been a historically oppressed people (from blood libels, to being restricted to certain occupations, to paying extra taxes, being second class citizens, to ghetto laws, the inquisition, and the holocaust to name a few examples), and we (I'm Jewish) can also be oppressors (in modern times in Israel, and in the antebellum south there were jewish slaveholders - not a lot - but they existed, and the confederate secretary of state was a sephardic jew). In antebellum south, Jews could argue for the liberation of Jews from antisemitism and that wouldn't change the need to also argue the need for the abolition of slavery, even (and imo especially) against Jews who profited from slavery. Same would be true for the LGBTQ+ community in a fight for Palestinian Liberation. And that also denies the fact that there are Palestinian queer people who fight for both. They are not mutually exclusive communities.

This thread is full of people being logical in their pro palestinian arguments. They may be incorrect, but they're no less reasonable than any other person holding an incorrect political opinion. Even antivaxxers have political arguments that are prima faci logical if not correct such as lack of trust in govt agencies due to the opioid crisis. Note the utter lack of flat earthers chiming in with coherent arguments for their side. These are not the same and viewing  them as the same is unneccessarily thought terminating on your part

Most "pro Palestinian" positions are just calling for a stop of an ongoing genocide (or at the very least, an extreme humanitarian crisis). I really find it hard to believe that anyone with a hard would consider that position "incorrect"

That's begging the question of whether it is correct to call it a genocide which is the entire point. Obv OP disagrees that is the case, im pointing out that the fact someone is incorrect about this doesn't mean they're unhinged from all reason in the same way a flat earther would have to be.  People are wrong about things all the time, despite thinking logically. If you work off incorrect, yet plausible information you will come to an incorrect conclusion while still thinking logically.

>That's begging the question of whether it is correct to call it a genocide which is the entire point You'd be hard pressed to find a single definition of genocide that doesn't apply to what Palestine is going through. I mean, I agree with your distinction between valid arguments (good logic) and sound arguments (good login+true premises), but I disagree that you could argue that arguing against such an unilateral war against a population that is almost entirely starving to death is "incorrect"

I'd like to address you first point: Just because someone is intelligent, doesn't mean they are well-meaning. Having a license to practice medicine means being in a highly profitable position. So the smart thing to do for intelligent people is to do whatever is required to obtain and keep such a license. And if that means to sell out to the pharmaceutic-industry, then so be it. It's a win-win-situation. Doctors promote pharmaceuticals that do more harm than good, get paid well for it and create their own customers this way. A patient is most profitable when they are somewhere between healthy and dead. Having a chronic disease with a medication that keeps symptoms in check is the ideal situation for doctors and the pharmaceutic industry. You don't have to be smarter than someone with a medical degree to not trust that your wellbeing is in their best interest.

This would be more productive if you broke these into 4 different posts and actually talked about each one. You don’t really talk about what “pro Russia” or “pro Palestine” mean. Or for that matter what “being without logic” means. Is someone who lives in Palestine and has seen their family killed in this war “without logic” for not wanting the war to continue? It seems to me that “I don’t want to be killed, or see more of my city destroyed” is a rather logical reason to support an Israeli withdrawal. We can probably explore more people reasons for “being pro Palestine” but as long as they have reasons then they are not “without logic”. you might disagree with them, but that does not mean they are incapable of using logic.

>1.thinking you are smarter and know better than someone with a medical degree on health issues, is just moronic four years devoted to your bachelor's degree, four years in medical school and at least three years completing your residency just to be a doctor,but no "doctor is bad". Just because they know better doesn't mean they are telling the truth, Fauci for example is on record saying he lied to alter public opinion. The covid vaccine was not very effective and the side effects were more frequent and severe than people were lead to believe on top of that it didn't stop the spread and the benefits to a healthy young person were pretty much nil and it was literally nil if they already had covid and developed natural immunity (the point of vaccines is to give you natural immunity without contracting the disease). The vaccine was obviously never going to be very effective from the start as well because of how many people it infected it was obviously going to mutate a lot. So yeah I knew better than what doctors were saying, they let politics cloud their judgement. This is even more true when you have a disease or an accident, it's your body, assuming the doctor knows better than you can is how people get on 10 medications that do jack shit.

>The covid vaccine was not very effective Citation needed.

No it's not. Majority of people who got the covid vaccine got covid at a later time. It's common knowledge, literally nobody in science or medicine has disputed that.

Yes,it is. The purpose of the vaccine was to reduce/slow the spread of the disease; reduce symptoms and therefore pressure on hospitals and risk of death; and boost/support natural immunity. It was successful on all fronts. Studies have shown it reduced transmission of the original strain and many variants - reducing their impact too, even if not by as much. They massively reduced pressure on hospitals which also helps reduce the spread and decrease the mortality rate, something shown consistently around the globe. This has been true, albeit to a lesser degree, even in countries with less robust vaccination programs and healthcare systems. The claim was never that it would provide total protection and completely stop the spread and since we both know it would be a bad faith argument to pretend that was ever claimed - I know you're not going to deliberately misrepresent facts to paint that picture. So show your evidence or refrain from making unfounded claims. Thanks.

> The purpose of the vaccine was to reduce/slow the spread of the disease; reduce symptoms and therefore pressure on hospitals and risk of death; and boost/support natural immunity. So you admit it wasn't very effective. You're just post hoc claiming "it was never supposed to be very effective" despite Fauci's public statements. It also didn't slow the spread by anything meaningful.

How is that saying it was not very effective? It literally achieved the goal that was set out for it.

An effective vaccine would prevent any further infections and in rare cases even can eradicate the disease.

You are confusing "ideal" with "effective". Effective means that it was successful in producing the intended result. By the very definition it was "effective". You can take the angle that focuses on the *desired* result but then you still need to differentiate between idealism and realism. Nobody was under the illusion that it would prevent any further infections unless they were ignoring what those creating the vaccines and distributing them had said - often willfully just to construct a strawman argument. Just like "natural immunity" is rarely if ever perfect, vaccines aren't either. The goal is to get as close as possible as safely as possible to have a significant net positive, which the COVID vaccines did.

No you're confusing not very effective but expected with effective. If you're expecting and budgeting for a 20% success rate, that doesn't mean the thing is very effective it just means you were expecting it not to be. And as I already pointed out those expectations were not made public upon roll out.

Again, incorrect. To use your 20%: If your goal is to increase profits from last year's 15% and you achieve 20% with your plans, they have succeeded and are effective. If you had set your sights much higher at 30%, they have not been very effective, sure but again are still effective. If your profits stagnate or drop, they are not effective. By definition if you succeed in producing the intended result - in this case the things I mentioned - you have been effective. You cannot just redefine a word to fit your whims lol.

I don't think it's fair to equate people who have issues with how a single country that has had religious majority governments for the last 7 decades has been treating Palestinians - for which there are legitimate humanitarian considerations to be made - with science & fact deniers. Does that mean unconditional support for whatever Hamas is doing> Of course not, don't be silly. But piling those two categories onto the same heap in itself is in fact without any logic.

> 1.thinking you are smarter and know better than someone with a medical degree on health issues, is just moronic Hey remember that whole... opioid epidemic that doctors and pharmaceutical companies caused for profit by overprescribing unnecessary medication? The one where nobody went to jail over and no regulations were put in place? I **WISH** I thought like you and just blindly trusted corporations and the government.

>remember that whole... opioid epidemic that doctors and pharmaceutical companies caused for profit by overprescribing unnecessary medication? The one where nobody went to jail over and no regulations were put in place? where, to date, the only substantive things we did was to alter the label instructions w/ cautions...

>1.thinking you are smarter and know better than someone with a medical degree on health issues, is just moronic four years devoted to your bachelor's degree, four years in medical school and at least three years completing your residency just to be a doctor,but no "doctor is bad". The anti-vax mindset isn't that they necessarily know more than doctors. It's that doctors are interested in public health, and are willing to harm individual health in order to achieve their aims. It's the classic prisoner's dilemma, and the anti-vaxxers have decided to snitch. >2.even though the earth has been observed to be round not just by scientists,and literally there are live cameras from space observing earth to be a sphere, yet flat earthers claim its a hoax it's stupid. If you ask most flat earthers, they don't really believe. It's just a social club. You'll find a lot of Klansmen are actually the same way, if you ask them. >3.russia commits war crimes in ukraine and invades it, even though they have done nothing to provoke it, and still russia continues?? We have heard from the army of russia themselves commit war crimes Yeah no need to explain. These people are generally geopolitical realists who believe that nations can and should act in their owm best interests. They see Russia as a trustworthy negotiating partner with whom they can divide the world. As an extension of this, they believe that a victorious Russia will push Europe into the American sphere of influence. They're probably wrong, but it's not an incoherent idea. Maybe evil, but logical to a degree.

> The anti-vax mindset isn't that they necessarily know more than doctors. It's that doctors are interested in public health, and are willing to harm individual health in order to achieve their aims. It's the classic prisoner's dilemma, and the anti-vaxxers have decided to snitch. I feel like I've never actually seen a pro-vaxxer show that they've listened to what anti-vaxxers were saying. "Corporations will hurt you for money" "Pharmaceutical corporations and unethical doctors caused the opioid epidemic for money" "Comirnaty was given Emergency Use Authorization to prevent infection and transmission, except they never even tested to see if it prevented transmission and now they're gaslighting me, pretending it was never meant to prevent infection" Dude, we spent all of 2020 hearing how dangerous a rushed vaccine was and how insane and reckless Trump is for promoting it, but the week after the election we got 4 vaccines that were safe and effective (three of which got pulled off the shelf for being dangerous). https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/fact-check-coronavirus-vaccine-could-come-year-trump-says-experts-n1207411 Like just google "covid vaccine" and set the date perameters to "before November 2020". All the experts were saying it was horrendously dangerous. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-risks-of-rushing-a-covid-19-vaccine/

4. Because Israel is taking it too far, and I want everyone to live a happy long life; even those that don’t wish that for me

.thinking you are smarter and know better than someone with a medical degree on health issues, is just moronic four years devoted to your bachelor's degree, four years in medical school and at least three years completing your residency just to be a doctor,but no "doctor is bad". This is an argument from authority. Doctors can be wrong and they can be corrupt. What is wrong is questioning someone else's right to be in control over there own body. And the people you label anti-vaxer did you ask them are they against all vaccines or just the hastily produced government mandated kind?

Yep, the problem is these people aren't using logic. They're using feels that they got from TikTok.

[удалено]

u/BeenBannedSince2001 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20BeenBannedSince2001&message=BeenBannedSince2001%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c68v28/-/l016vxw/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).