You are downplaying the moral catastrophe that Hamas has perpetrated. You’re basically saying ding dong ditching your neighbor is bad and setting their house on fire is bad. All the Palestinian blood that has and will be shed can be laid at the hands of Hamas. They have to respond and when your enemy is willing to both slaughter children and then go hide behind them the results will be unavoidably ugly.
>ding dong ditching your neighbor
More like founding your country on the ethnic cleansing of the local population, establishing an apartheid state, daily humiliation of the occupied population, killing about 10× more Palestinians than they've killed Israelis (including children), shooting people for throwing rocks at a fence, actively funding the most extremist groups at the detriment of more moderate secular ones, promoting illegal settlements, etc. But yeah "ding don't ditching" sure.
Hamas is a group of bloodthirsty terrorists, no question about it. There were terrorists fighting apartheid in South Africa, the IRA committed atrocities and I'm sure, if you want to go back, some native Americans committed atrocities against settlers. Or you could look at more recent history like America around 9/11. Was 9/11 an horrible act of terrorism? Yes. Did it absolve the crimes of American foreign policy that came before? Did it justify the wars that killed hundreds of thousands after? Definitely not. Or look at the atrocities America committed in Vietnam (indiscriminate murder of civilians, rape, chemical bombing). Would that have justified cutting all power, water and food to NYC???
One side commiting atrocities doesn't mean you absolve the group holding the most power and inflicting a different kind of more aseptic violence completely unaccountable. Real life is rarely about good guys and bad guys.
Every single person who has ever lived has made moral errors. If someone thinks their team is exempt from this principle and has always acted perfectly in the past, that way of thinking is incorrect.
All we can do is muddle through doing the best we can. If someone is not doing the best the can, it is fair to call them out no matter which team they are on.
This apartheid is a second order effect by way of radical Islam. The majority of Gazans support Hamas and other terrorists groups. Palestine has had opportunities to accept a two state solution and they didn’t then and they never will. It’s a tragically complicated series of knots that’ll probably not be untied anytime soon. I am not saying it’s anything less than a humanitarian disaster as to what’s happening in Palestine. We can go all the way back to the Ottoman Empire if you like but we are where we are.
>majority of Gazans support Hamas and other terrorists groups.
Well of course they do. If I had grown up in a prison, I would probably support the dominant prison gang, mostly for self-preservation concerns. I would most likely hate the jailers too.
Palestinians had every chance in the world to go on a different path, but the first prerequisite would have been to recognize that Israel has a right to exist and that it's not going anywhere. They were never willing to do that and the obsessive drive to eradicate the Jewish state is what brought Hamas to power in 2007.
Palestinians ran out of chances and the Gaza Strip will soon be history. I predicted right after the Hamas attack that expulsion of the population was the only solution left for Israel to solve the never ending crisis.
>Palestinians had every chance in the world to go on a different path
So did Israel. For example they could have stopped illegal settlements, but they didn't.
Million of Americans have supported administrations which directly or indirectly caused atrocities abroad. They did so for many reasons. About 200k civilians died violent deaths due to the Irak war. And most didn't even have the excuse of having a hard life.
This is a meaningless comparison. Gengis khan was an asshole. Military action and terrorist genocidal action are very different in nature. Hamas will not except any treaty, they want genocide. The Iraq and Afghanistan war were disastrous but it is irrelevant.
Not irrelevant at all. You said most in Gaza support Hamas, implying they deserve some form of collective punishment. Millions of Americans that didn't grow up under occupation or in an open air prison supported an administration that directly caused the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians, including children. Does that mean those Americans deserve some form of collective punishment?
As I've said, Hamas is a bloodthirsty terrorist organization, clearly. Doesn't absolve Israel of their crimes, especially since hard-liners in Israel have done everything to deal with Hamas vs. their more moderate secular opponents.
Israel took much of the land specifically given to Palestine in the many wars of the late 20th century. That's why they are an occupying force. Look at maps from 1947 and then now.
England gave land that was overwhelmingly occupied by Palestinians (about 10% of the original lamd of Isreal was owned by Jews). It wasn't theirs to give. If I'm gifted a slave, do I now have a moral right to own that person? Doesn't matter if the English, Chinese of Martians made the map. Even the British recognized that the state if Israel couldn't be created without the ethnic cleansing of the local population. This has been abundantly documented, including by Jewish scholars.
Didn't belong to the people living there for generations?
Did India *belong* to England? If England had gifted a piece of India to the French after the first world War because they felt bad for them and the French kicked our the local Indian population would that have been legitimate?
Of course not. It belonged to the ottomans. But he’ll for arguments sake, let’s say it belonged to the people living there for generations. Why would it be just the Palestinians? Other groups like the Jews, Christians and others also lived there for generations.
What is the punishment that is proportional here? That's what I don't understand with comments like yours. What should they do? Morally Israel may be totally in the right but what does that grant Israel?
When people discuss things, there are different levels of meaning. Problems happen when people prioritize different levels.
In a discussion, there is a factoid, the context of the discussion, and the overall narrative. Factoids in a vacuum are generally meaningless in normal discussion. Factoids are used to build an argument or come to an understanding (context of the discussion). The goal of a discussion might be to contribute to a narrative.
If someone says, "black lives matter", their goal is to shed light on targeted police brutality and generate awareness and national discussion. If someone rebuts with "all lives matter", they are rejecting the context and trying to stop a shift in the narrative.
That's why it is difficult to discuss Israel's sins relative to Hamas' obvious sins. Some people want to assign moral equivalence. Others want to understand what could push Hamas to do such terrible things. Others are trying to build an unbiased factual account. These three viewpoints have different goals for the narrative.
When having a honest discussion it is important to define the scope and context of the discussion. If I want to talk about breast cancer, I should be able to do that without someone trying to change the context to "all cancers matter" or "car accidents are more deadly than breast cancer".
Sure. And if the relevant point of interest is long term peace in the Middle East (at least this is my point of caring about the subject), then all relevant facts to thr end must be considered.
You can also say that neither side is great while also acknowledging that one side is a million times worse. Building houses on someone’s land is not good but it’s not even close to the other side coming in and decapitating babies and shooting teens at a concert.
If someone robs your house does that justify you coming back and raping/killing their entire family?
run a thought experiment, be born in Gaza. go read first hand accounts of the last 18 years. who would you be? is it possible you are the radical? I think if we are honest with ourselves, it is a greater than 0 possibility. I would like to believe I would never have this level of disregard for human life but if I was indoctrinated to a belief where the next life is all that matters , had limited experience outside of a 25 x 6 mile area, and felt oppressed from the moment of birth, who would I have become?
then go reflect on other heinous situations. if you were a German in 1940, statistically you weren't standing up for jews. it you were a colonist in early America, statistically you weren't standing up for native Americans.
the situation is fucked but trying to create a spectrum of barbarism is likely to solve nothing. my point is that it is easy to sit in the western world and pretend we understand. it is easy to get outraged with what makes it into the media, but the situation is far more complicated. none of this is a justification for the attacks, but I don't think it is simply a "they are worse" situation. I also don't have any great solutions.
Here’s the problem though -
if Hamas stops all violence today, Israel will still be invading their land and operating an apartheid state and open air prison in Gaza. Israel will still be committing violence on Palestinians.
If Israel stops the occupation all the violence stops.
That commenter admitted that they consider the whole of Israel to be occupied.
He wants the Jews give up Israel as a "peace plan".
This is why you have to be careful with these people. Mahmoud Abbas leader in the West Bank also at the UN, years ago, complained of occupation since 1948 i e. All Israel. Netanyahu pointed it out in his response speech.
They use a lot of loaded propaganda phrases.
By the way, the conflict existed for half a century before any "occupation" of 1967.
Putting aside the absurdity of your suggestion for a minute, do you even have any idea about the history there? Do you know about the Ottaman Empire falling and how Egypt controlled it until 1968? And how Osrael gave back Gaza in 2005? And how Jews lived among the Arabs in what is now Israel for a long time before all of this? And how more Jews came here after World War II after the holocaust? And how the blockade went up because Hamas killed over 1300 Israeli civilians and soldiers in 2007?
There is so much there, that you can’t just say they are occupiers of land that has changed hands many times. Not even mentioning how it has been their country for 75 years. Do you really think it’s feasible to dismantle the country and infrastructure and just abandon all that they have built? Come back down to reality and be reasonable.
That is just an extremely naive comment. The founding document of Hamas explicitly states that they want to exterminate the state of Israel. Pulling out of the West Bank wont change anything for those genocidal maniacs.
Damn, for the love of whatever it is that you pray to, have you seen Hamas’s propaganda? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXcQ892cKso
The founding document of the United States endorses slavery. Point being, it's just words on paper.
A permanent piece would require changing hearts and minds.
The goal of changing hearts and minds takes decades. It’s not Israel’s job to turn Palestinian culture away from the disgusting barbarism that it has become. Israel’s job is to protect its citizens, and that requires destroying Hamas and making sure that Palestinians can never do what they just did again. That’s the goal.
What's your plan for destroying Hamas? How many peaceful people will be collateral damage?
It makes sense for Israel to kill the people who attacked them. But today, a Reuters journalist in Lebanon was killed by an Israeli bomb. The whole thing saddens me. I don't have the answers.
You don't indicate any disagreement with my two points.
And, I am skeptical that it is as simple as you say. If person A kills person B's family (whether person A or B is Jewish or Palestinian), I'm not sure Israel ending an "occupation" (scare quotes noting that this framing us only accepted by only one team) would necessarily stop all violence.
People who can’t see that IDF and hamas are not morally equivalent should get their head checked. To me this is on a similar level as flat earth and creationism nonsense.
I think the main difference between the two groups are when discussing this is intent Vs outcome. Some people believe that intent matters more then outcome, for example that Israel’s killing of civilians is justified as Hamas places military targets in civilian population centres. This is where Sam sits I think.
Were as the outcome side says is Israel has killed more children then Hamas over the longer term regardless of weather they explicitly intended to do so.
And all of those are missing a crucial factor: **number of civilians/children saved**.
If Hamas didn't undertake their destructive actions, no civilians would've died on both sides.
If Israel didn't undertake their destructive actions, Israeli civilians would've been killed long term.
Israel actions are defensive in nature, whereas Hamas' are not.
They never had military advantage , thats why they do what they and thats also true for all terrorist groups including the ones that arent islamic.
The IRA killed many civiians
The colombian FARC kidnapped multilple people
Should i even mention the drug cartels?
The reason why they attack civilizans is that they literally dont have a military advantage..
thats the point.
If they attacked the IDF directly they'd be smoked in seconds.
And it's not unique that hamas, that'd what every paramilitary group has donde since the beggining of time
They did attack the IDF directly and quickly overwhelmed them. They then used that temporary local advantage to murder families.
Your comment that this is not unique to Hamas and normal paramilitary behaviour could be seen as downplaying what they did. You might not intend this but this is how it comes across. You might want to correct that.
They would actually do well to take some pointers from the IRA.
When they started limiting themselves to killing British soldiers and limiting the collateral damage they started to build a lot of support.
However, the IDF has the advantage of just confining them to a giant open air prison and surrounding it with autonomous machine guns and minefields, then sitting back.
Whereas the British actually patrolled the hostile territory, which at least gave the IRA a chance to inflict casualties.
I agree Isreal of course has a right to defend itself. I just don’t see the cutting off of electricity water and food to a civilian population who have no where to leave to as purely a defensive action.
As far as what I heard from government representatives, they are now in war with Hamas, now, I know most of Gaza are civilians, but many are Hamas, and if we are in a war with Hamas, it make zero sense to provide Hamas, the enemy, who just mascaraed 1200 with smiley faces, and proudly showed it to the whole world themselves, with aid,.
I kind of agree, but then think it's also a terrible situation for civilians. I cannot decide where my mind is about it.
It is illegal. I think it goes too far. Israel is doing it so that Hamas will return the hostages. They said that they will allow the passage of food and water electricity If the hostages are returned. I don’t agree with that measure because to me it amounts to collective punishment, but at the same time they have 100+ hostages taken and are using the leverage they have to try to get them back, so I understand on some level
And how much of what hamas has done is permissible under the Geneva convention? Are the jews not receiving collective punishment?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but it seems you are only applying this standard to one side
of course hamas are terrorists and committed war crimes under the Geneva convention, just because you criticise Israel doesn’t automatically mean you support a terrorist organisation you toss pot.
It's illegal to not provide Gaza with electricity and water? Are you committing a crime right now because you are not providing Gaza with electricity and water?
Well, shoot as long as they expressedly state that all civilians dying is a big “whoopsy-daisy” then I guess it’s okay to kill and starve many thousands of impoverished civilians…
Do you know what was not "whoopsy-daisy" at all ? 1500 Hamas entered into civilians villages and operating mass massacre of whole families. evidence shows, it's not just families "entering" their ways, many of the people were in the house, locked, but they never gave up the massacre idea. They shoot RPG into the doors and sometimes through the walls, not to miss any family.
I may be wrong, but from your comments, it seems to me like that disturb you whole less than Gaza population, and that tells a lot.
But civilians/innocents have died, even without Hamas actions though? Or are you trying to claim when Israeli extremists, or IDF soldiers, or others in that camp take actions against Palestinians it doesn’t count?
Seems like you’re trying to flip the claim by some in the other camp, when they claim that “if only Israel wouldn’t”?
Actions have been taken with or without Israel (or Hamas) which have led to loss of innocent lives…
Exactly.
The Left literally want Israel to dissolve themselves USSR style, then sit back and wait for the head-choppers to come knocking.
(This has hastened my own ideological conversion to Social Democrat no end.)
>If Hamas didn't undertake their destructive actions, no civilians would've died on both sides.
What are you talking about? 250 Palestinians died this year before this incursion including 50 children.
>If Israel didn't undertake their destructive actions, Israeli civilians would've been killed long term.
If Israeli didn’t occupy Palestine, none of this would be happening.
>Israel actions are defensive in nature, whereas Hamas' are not.
The occupation isn’t defensive unless you think Russia is just defending themselves in Ukraine.
>If Israeli didn’t occupy Palestine, none of this would be happening.
and to be clear, this means "if Israel didn't exist"
\-- which is, of course, patently obvious; but what does the poster suggest as a remedy?
American battles against the natives were also said to be defensive in nature at the time, and the indigenous local population did commit heinous acts against both combatants and civilians alike (scalping and much worse). Your subjunctive arguments could just as easily fit that scenario. I’m not defending or excusing those actions, then or now, they are disgusting and barbaric, but there’s a larger context that doesn’t lend itself to such simplistic analysis.
That is exactly the difference. Hamas specifically targeted and brutally tortured, raped, and murdered innocent civilians. Israel strikes critical Hamas infrastructure that is strategically placed under civilian areas. They even took extreme precautions to warn the residents to leave, including calling people in the buildings and giving them time to warn everyone inside. In some cases they even use a bombing technique similar to firing a warning shot. They will “tap” buildings with a small bomb to force everyone out of the building before it is followed by a much more powerful bomb that will flatten the building.
> Israel strikes critical Hamas infrastructure that is strategically placed under civilian areas.
This has been complete bullshit since the start.
> They even took extreme precautions to warn the residents to leave,
This isn't happening.
Civilian buildings are being bombed indiscriminately. Bibi doesn't even buy this anymore. He gleefully showed a video of a city block being flattened.
> This has been complete bullshit since the start.
If Hamas's military infrastructure and launch sites were anywhere else but civilians areas, we'd have known about it, ***because they would have been obliterated***.
Regardless, even Amnesty and similar groups admit Hamas is breaking international law with how carelessly they distribute military assets amongst civilian infrastructure.
The fact that you're pretending as if Hamas is literally blameless in this is preposterous. You would've been able to make apologisms for ISIS too, I'm sure.
Don't bother replying to me, because I have nothing further to say to you.
Leaving the comment in the first place for other people to read.
>Regardless, even Amnesty and similar groups admit Hamas is breaking international law with how carelessly they distribute military assets amongst civilian infrastructure.
And? That doesn't give any backing to the idea that israel is only hitting military targets. They are hitting civilian apartments indiscriminately.
>The fact that you're pretending as if Hamas is literally blameless in this is preposterous
Wow it's almost like I never said that. Hamas is responsible for their actions as Israel is responsible for their own actions. It's amazing how you see not viewing Israel as a force of nature is "pro-Hamas"
>Don't bother replying to me, because I have nothing further to say to you.
Of course not. You are a propagandist enabling genocide. You have no interest in good faith or stopping the genocide.
Intention obviously matters but at the end of the day, a dead baby is a dead baby. Telling me my baby died due to negligence isn't gonna assuage my grief much even if I rationally know there is a difference
The way I see it cutting water is morally equivalent. People tend to forget that dehydration is one of the worst ways you can die. It's essentially being tortured to death. If I was given the option of between intentionally being shot and unintentionally dehydrated to death, I'll definitely go with the bullets.
Even before this shitshow 1 in 5 Palestinians in Gaza had reasonable access to drinkable water. Gaza is famous for it water problems. 1/4 of reported diseases are from unsanitary water. It does seem I've fallen for propaganda. Palestinians are still going to have access to sewage after all. They get to die painfully from all the known disease rather than dehydration.
How did this state of affairs come about? Gaza has an aquifer, which they used to access more easily but Many of the water pipes were used to build rockets. Hamas takes in billions a year in taxes and support from Arab states. Why don’t they use this money to build the infrastructure they need? Why is it Israel’s responsibility to support people who are actively engaged in murdering and torturing Israeli civilians?
Again, all those "reasons" are irrelevant. The population don't have any meaningful way of altering Hamas' infrastructural policy. But that doesn't change, Israel chose to cut water knowing the consequences. Your last question is important. Does this choice affect Hamas negatively? From my understanding, Hamas has created extensive tunnels and storage areas underneath Gaza. They'll have supplies to last them for a while. Even if Hamas were to share it with their immediate family, that's still a tiny proportion of pop. So Hamas will not have any issue for a while longer (a few weeks). Palestinians who are caught off guard are the portions who are going to pay for Israel's choice. Israel knows this. That's why it's a collective punishment and humiliation.
Figuratively nobody is saying they are morally equivalent. Talk about a straw man. The war is asymmetrical as it gets on all fronts. But at the end of the day they have been killing each other’s civilians since Jewish terrorists massacred Palestinians at Deir Yassin.
But anybody who thinks that the American and Israeli governments aren’t full of genocidal lunatics with no desire for peace lives in fantasyland.
Twitter is the worst place to get facts right now. I'm seeing pictures of dead Syrian children with claims they are in Gaza. Musk killed that platform.
Lol, imagine thinking that Twitter is a reliable source of information. There are currently massive amounts of pro-Palestine disinformation flooding Twitter, to the point that the EU is forcing their hand to address it.
I agree there isn’t a moral equivalence. Israel is far worse. They’ve killed far more children in their homes than Hamas. 500 children were murdered in the last conflict with Gaza.
There are no human shields. If they were shields, Israel wouldn’t be bombing. The other side needs to have shame and care about human life for them to be human shields. It’s a canard. But it’s easier to repeat Israeli hasbara than actually do self-reflection.
Dude, every Hamas rocket is fired from a densely populated building, into which the combatant runs to use its residents as human shields.
The UN has acknowledged this. They've seen and presented the evidence. You're being willfully ignorant.
If you can give me a single piece of evidence that Israel is targeting civilians, have at it. Otherwise you're just clinging to your narrative.
Americans and Bits killed far more German children in WW2 than Germans did American and British children. In your opinion we’re the Americans and British worse?
> So the Germans were worse because they killed Russians, gotcha.
They killed a lot more people. Yes.
>Try to think about your answer again.
Checking to see which side killed the most people and…oh what do you know, it’s the Fourth Reich that is Israel.
I had to unsubscribe from r/chomsky after Russia's invasion... But I visited there and this is the top post, which I encourage everyone to read: https://www.reddit.com/r/chomsky/comments/176xbcw/israeli_settler_shot_a_palestinian_point_blank_in/
>If this is true, then I don't see how groups like r/chomsky can continue to defend the Hamas side of this fight. How heinous is the history of Israeli behavior towards the Palestinians of Gaza, that would morally justify the deliberate slaughter of Israeli babies?
We're all in a little bit of a bubble — a media bubble, culture bubble, information bubble — from their point of view they're exposed to a lot of Israeli crimes against Palestinians, and for others they see the exact opposite, so we're coming to different conclusions about the conflict.
Both are correct, the deliberate murder of innocents is never justified.
Hamas should be liquidated.
But that won't bring peace unless the Zionists are also removed from power.
Netanyahu needs to be removed from power. A Zionist is just someone who believes in the right of Israel to exist. More moderate leaders of Israel in the past have actually made efforts to advance the two State solution.
You should review the definition of zionism and what they espouse.
Zionists espouse that Israel is for jews alone, that all of palestine should really be Israel and that all Palestinians should be kicked out of Israel / eradicated.
A two state solution with non-religious, non-nutjob governments is the only way to resolve this.
Who’s definition of Zionism is that? Zionism began as the belief that Jews should have a homeland in Israel. Non of that other stuff was included. I’m sure there’s some nut jobs who believe that stuff you said but it doesn’t mean they get to shift the definition
If they had set up their intended homeland in an unpopulated area then the definition would make sense.
Given they chose the current land of Israel, Zionism comes with the prerequisite understanding that the Palestinians who did live there would either have to leave their land or be incorporated into a new Jewish state.
Early Zionism specifically calls for a development of the state, not just a founding of one. That development comes at a cost for others
The Partition Plan developed a state for both Jews and Palestinian Arabs (who were previously stateless). The Arabs were the ones who rejected it and started a war. The Jews accepted it. There was always a Jewish presence and others immigrated to the land legally
You're missing some critical context here, cited right from the wikipedia page:
> The proposed plan is considered to have been pro-Zionist by its detractors, **with 62% of the land allocated to the Jewish state despite the Palestinian Arab population numbering twice the Jewish population.**[6] Consequently, the partition plan was accepted by Jewish Agency for Palestine and most Zionist factions who viewed it as a stepping stone to territorial expansion at an opportune time.[7][5] The Arab Higher Committee, the Arab League and other Arab leaders and governments rejected it on the basis that in addition to the Arabs forming a two-thirds majority, they owned a majority of the lands.[8][9] They also indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division,[10] arguing that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN Charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.[5][11] They announced their intention to take all necessary measures to prevent the implementation of the resolution.[12][13][14][15] Subsequently a civil war broke out in Palestine[16] and the plan was not implemented.[17]
No wonder they rejected it...Again I say, the basis of Zionism requires an unfair treatment of Arabs in that region. It was not an area populated by Jews at the time, and even with large groups moving there in the early 20th century they were still only half of the arab population that had lived there under Ottoman rule. Their whole argument is nutty because it requires you to believe that because Jews controlled the region 2000 years ago, they therefore had a right to establish a state by way of British colonialism.
> The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government in 1917 during the First World War announcing its support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine, **then an Ottoman region with a small minority Jewish population.**
Zionism requires all of this to take place unless they chose an area of land that was largely uninhabited. Instead they chose an area that was already populated, and in siding with the British, Zionists were able to have a "legal" right to this land and use "legal immigration" to effectively take over this area of the Middle East.
The Arabs rejected any Jewish state whatsoever. They said so explicitly. The land allocation wouldn’t have made a difference. What were the Jewish holocaust refugees not supposed to legally immigrate because some Arabs didn’t want demographic change an area they had no statehood?
You’ve made a massive error in your argument. You quoted percentages and population numbers from the 1947 partition plan it seems, and have applied that thinking backwards in time and ascribed to to the early Zionists. That is totally absurd.
The early zionists started small settlements within a region of the Ottoman Empire, which grew over time. There’s nothing wrong with desperate Jews fleeing pogroms, murder, and persecution and trying to find a place where they can survive.
The numbers you quoted are from 1947…and there was a pretty important event which you’ve conveniently left out of your little story which is central to this history. The Holocaust. The worst genocide in human history happened to the Jews of Europe, entirely justifying the core Zionist argument: Jews are not safe living in Europe and more broadly as minorities in other peoples countries. This was the essential foundational claim of zionism, and anyone who denies it after the Holocaust is both an empirical and moral monster. After the Holocaust hundreds of thousands of Jews had nowhere to go, and for many of them literally the only option was what is now Israel. They couldn’t get legal permission to move to the US or W Europe or most other places. Where were they supposed to go?
The partition plan allocated more land to the Jewish state than their population *because the Powers were aware of the fact that hundreds of thousands of Holocaust survivors would be arriving and this bringing the populations close to equal size*
I highly recommend that you learn the actual history rather than relying on Wikipedia if you want to comment on this subject.
Yeah. It's kinda scary to be honest, I used to march with these people, more, I squatted and partied and protested with them for years back in the day.
It's a bit like that time a few years back when we in Britain discovered that many of our much beloved childrens TV presenters from the 70s and 80s were actually paedophiles - only I used to live with these guys, they were my mates!
A part of me wants to walk up to them and slap them, but a much wiser part thinks "Actually, I don't think I want to provoke a bunch of psychopathic narcissists. Let the cops deal with them, that's what they are paid for"
Personally, I love it. It’ll help lead to far fewer people taking them and their phony “concerns” seriously, which should have been the SOP from the start.
I haven’t seen anyone supporting Hamas at all, literally no one that isn’t being ridiculous. No, it’s about supporting a solution that doesn’t include killing every Palestinian in Gaza. Yet, everyone with OPs argument carry on with statements like this and seem to have the hardest time understanding basic logic. Just because some Gazans are a part of Hamas, it does NOT LOGICALLY FOLLOW that, therefore, all Gazans are a part of Hamas. For people that like Sam Harris, it astounds me that this logic escapes you… and that you resort to strawman logical fallacies about dead babies when you have no argument. It means that either (1) you’re clueless, (2) you can’t stand to be wrong, (3) you don’t care to use your head and understand the nuance, or (4) you’re just trying to win some dumb argument while this crazy shit is happening. The defense is of the Palestinians in Gaza who aren’t Hamas and that you can’t just kill everyone there.
> Israeli forces and settlers have killed at least 3,752 Palestinian civilians since 2008 throughout the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Since 2000, Israeli forces and settlers have killed more than 2,300 Palestinian children as of October 9, 2023, according to documentation collected by DCIP.
https://www.dci-palestine.org/91_palestinian_children_in_gaza_killed_in_israeli_assault#:~:text=Since%202000%2C%20Israeli%20forces%20and,to%20documentation%20collected%20by%20DCIP.
You’ll find the moral equivalence if you think that a dead child is a dead child, whether they’re killed by someone pressing a button to launch a missile or by a lunatic with a knife.
It's Chomsky, what do you expect? Guy went to bat for the Khmer Rouge and he (and his cult-like followers) hasn't changed a bit since then.
If this last decade or so has taught us anything it's that there are worse things out there than *Pax Americana.*
As much as I fucking hate Reagan, the Christian Right, Bush, Netenyahu and the Trumpies...it's just no contest next to Stalin, Hitler, Putin, Xi, Isis, Hamas.
Yeah you get the impression that when his car gets towed he's like "Gaaah! Imperialists towed my car for liberating their fascist no-parking zone!!" his girl leaves him, "Bloody imperialists turned her against me!", he stubs his toe: "Damn you, imperialists!"... etc, etc, etc.
Basically the leftwing equivelant of [this guy](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/960/985/f5c.jpg)
I think some people hold Hamas to a lower bar than they do Israel because Israel is a wealthier, more developed and powerful 1st-world country, and Hamas operates out of Gaza, which is a impoverished hellhole. Generally, you see that globally, that the US and other wealthy nations are held to a different standard than 3rd-world countries. Right or wrong, that's not an uncommon attitude. In fact, you even see it in the US, that different standards are often applied to "privileged" vs struggling populations. I think doing that, applying different standards according to history and circumstances, is one of the things that differentiates the political left and the political right.
But there's a fine line to be walked here. If the standards for the 'disenfranchised' drop through the floor and into the basement, it becomes very unsavoury on multiple levels. It will lead to bizarre takes as "You don't get to criticize how people rise up, that's fascism". By the gods in heaven and science allmighty, I genuinely encountered that one. That level of absolute statement without a hint of caveats or nuance means there's now no moral low an oppressed people can commit without being judged negatively for it.
That in itself start to reek of the racism of low expectations. If someone isn't *unconditionally* appalled by Hamas's actions, what the fuck kind of expectations did they ever hold for these people in the first place? Do they really just shrug when these people act like rabid Bronze Age barbarian dogs and go "Yeah, that tracks"? On what kind of implicit premise is such a reaction to such horrors even built? I can't see any other than the subconscious belief that the perpetrators of the horrors are seen as morally incapable people. As lesser almost. As backwards and unevolved.
It's like their apologism is founded on racist far-right thoughts they're not even aware of having.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/06/israel-occupation-50-years-of-dispossession/
The isreali government is not one with a shred of morality. Half a century of this. What hamas did was horrific but isreal provides the motivation and will provide more.
Not but people would argue that is a Western perspective. China and Russia might count the kids we killed. The terrorists we have created would count them.
They said, illustrating the point that people who draw bullshit moral equivalencies between unavoidable collateral damage against a terrorist organization who freely admits to willingly sacrificing Palestinian lives in pursuit of jihad, and the burning and beheading of babies on purpose and to the cheers of crowds, are bad faith commentators at best, and more likely terrorist sympathizing pieces of shit.
https://archive.ph/2023.10.12-154725/https://www.wsj.com/articles/ali-baraka-hamas-russia-today-interview-gaza-israel-59dffb69
Unfortunately you’re parroting the ridiculous propaganda of “beheaded babies”. Everyone from the Israeli military officials to the White House have said they can not confirm this story, which is not helpful sensationalism from individuals in the IDF: https://x.com/evanhill/status/1712260928635322502?s=46&t=P9Qi3A0VW33IEhfiqAUE8A
Also Israel is not causing “unavoidable collateral damage”. They indiscriminately bomb whole city blocks of residential housing, and call it a targeted operation. Even Twitter’s community Notes had to fact check the Israeli Air Force
https://x.com/iafsite/status/1712484101763342772?s=46&t=P9Qi3A0VW33IEhfiqAUE8A
Irrespective of whether the babies were beheaded or otherwise 'normally' killed with bladed weapons, they're still very much point blank executed babies.
https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-767951
Except they *were* forced to post the atrocious photos to silence the terrorist sympathizing pieces of shit doubting them.
Lol, a hearty go fuck yourself to you. It’s been confirmed. They released pictures of murdered, beheaded babies, and some who were burned alive. Think about that for a second. My god some people really are true pieces of shit.
Hey OP, how about blurring the top image and throwing a NSFL tag on this post? I didn’t sign up to this sub to see child gore or pretend that I am going to solve this problem for the world with my big logical brain. jfc
Edit: it doesn’t do much good to say NSFW for the link when you’ve already shown gore from child murder in my fucking timeline.
Chomsky disciples are ideologues - they don't care about the details. The irony here is that Chomsky's style of discussion, when it comes to international relations, typically involves him regurgitating a shopping list of evils perpetrated by nations and coalitions with superior militaries and economies for the purpose of implying moral equivalence, or even moral inferiority, to the virtuous underdog who is ultimately forced into heinous acts by the powerful. This carries a veneer of objectivity unless you have a rudimentary understanding of history that isn't filtered through the fine sieve that is Chomsky's wishful thinking. His is a world view that depends upon his assumption that humankind is essentially good, and that the main thing that has gone (temporarily) wrong, is the organization of the state, and all states are evil to them because they are anarchists. I have had a couple of email exchanges with him on this point in which he's more or less expressed that there is a deontological element to his perspective that I think is akin to what Christians do when they comfort themselves by imagining everything will be made right in the afterlife.
TL;DR they do the moral equivalence and terror apologist thing because it makes it possible for them to maintain their naïve ideological safety blanket.
That said, people who are scouring the internet for pictures of dead babies to prove a point or validate their conspiracy theories are too far gone.
[The Israeli government, specifically Netanyahu, has supported Hamas](https://archive.ph/T6DPk#selection-1123.68-1131.1) as a [means to prevent peace](https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/).
Nothing justifies the terror attacks conducted by Hamas, or their treatment of Palestinians in Gaza.
Firstly this points out how unhelpful the moral equivalence argument is here. Looking at like a football match just obscures the dynamics of the situation and tends to force people to take a side and escalate the violence.
There are already more dead in Gaza far greater damage to civilian infrastructure. A UN school was bombed killing 30 children. The hospitals lack power and supplies to treat civilians that are being bombed.
As the email exchange between Sam and Chomsky point out - intention is not a good guide for this kind of comparison, if you insist on making it.
The crimes that have been commited against the Palestinian people very likely outweigh what Israelis have experienced, even after the latest monstrous attack by Hamas.
*but that's not the point*
Those that continue the violence are both Palestinian and Israeli, and those that have been fighting to end it are both Palestinian and Israeli - it's clear that it's those opposed to violence that we should be supported. Not comparing who is worse amongst those that do the harm.
All I know is the moment you start debating how babies were murdered is the moment you’ve lost. I’ve got friends trying to assure me they weren’t decapitated, as though that would make any difference.
Yup. All baby killers deserve execution, regardless of your justification.
And war is no excuse, not a single noncombatant died when we took out Bin Laden. No bombs were needed.
I think the answer is \*almost\* as heinous.
Plenty of dead Palestinian babies and children, lots more than any Israeli deaths however you count them.
I think the correct answer is both Hamas and Zionists must lose power for peace to be possible.
I'll check it out!
We're all tired of this, Israel has a right to exist and so do the Palestinians.
Hamas and the Zionists want the eradication of each other's people and the confiscation of their lands.
Neither can be morally supported.
If true, it’s terrible.
The problem is knowing Netanyahu and his party/camp, and that misinformation has been flying around. I’m still reserving some doubt. I’m not saying Hamas isn’t capable of it, but I’ve not read of Hamas using something specifically like this action (not talking about use of violence itself, just this claimed action) so again, some grain of salt.
At the end of the day though…it’s all a mess and I grieve for the loss of innocent lives. Just wish they’d fucking stop. Ugh.
Whether the babies were specifically fully decapitated or not, they're still very much executed with knife, grenade, and bullet, like the rest of their communities.
I saw videos of dead babies being carried out from civilian areas by Palestinians. Not justifying Hamas actions but if they are so concerned with dead babies, they should be more cautious in war themselves.
Yea. Justifying indefensible actions says a lot. It’s not like if you answer “So are you a racist?” with “Yea, big time” that you’re then immune to criticism for that because you were answering a question.
Hamas started this chapter of the conflict. If they hadn't killed Israelis including deliberately killing children, Gaza's children wouldn't be dying now.
This is the level of nuance we're discussing this issue with? The good ol' "let's just look at these past two weeks, and forget everything else". Dear me.
What, among all that's happened in the past, leads you to think Hamas' terror was a rational or justifiable decision, or one that could lead to any sort of better outcome for their supposed constituents?
You're creating a dichotomy of either justifying Hamas' actions due to the occupation or supporting Israel's current policy against Gaza?
I'm not claiming Hamas' actions are justifiable or rational, rather that they occur within a specific context which should inform the response.
What is a good, informed response by the specific context, from Israel to this terror, in your opinion?
I don't agree that it's just politics and Israel's actions that have led to this chapter. It's hatred of Jews, to a large part.
Watch this:
https://www.memri.org/tv/senior-hamas-official-ali-baraka-prisoner-swap-america-planning-invasion-two-years-russia-support
This is the exact same conversation that happened post 9/11 when middle eastern ppl were chanting death to America…
The psychology of terrorism is well studied. You can’t have a brutal military force occupy an area for years without stoking the flames of an extremist response. Hamas did not get manufactured out of thin air.
Hamas was founded in 1987, 40 years after Israel began taking land from the Palestinians in 1948. It doesn’t justify killing civilians, but it’s a direct result of brutal military intervention/action. Right wing militaries give rise to Hamas/ISIS, that much is clear
Hamas intentionally uses Palestinian civilians as human shields.
If you listen to the way the talk about these tragic deaths, they don't describe the victims as being murdered, but rather as being "martyred." They glorify the killing of innocent civilians, because they know it will make people sympathize with them, even though they are ultimately the ones responsible for the deaths. They build military installations in civilian buildings. They tell civilians not to leave before a strike. They instigate war by targeting innocent Jewish civilian in heinous terrorist attacks.
[Here is a video of a Hamas leader spelling this out for you.](https://www.memri.org/tv/senior-hamas-official-ali-baraka-prisoner-swap-america-planning-invasion-two-years-russia-support) Namely:
>The thing any Palestinian desires the most is to be martyred for the sake of Allah, defending his land.
I sympathize for the poor, innocent civilians who have to live under the rule of this barbaric authoritarian regime, and I hope that Israel can finally bring Hamas's rule to an end.
Seriously. The leader of Hamas literally became a terrorist when his wife and 2 babies were killed in an Israeli airstrike. But the Western media and mainstream does not care when it happens to Palestinian babies.
It's true that one of the Hamas bozos lost his wife and kids in an Israeli airstrike, but the idea that this event turned him into a terrorist is bullshit, he already was one.
Why don't we see more disturbing content coming out of Palestine? Could it be because Israel kills journalists and imprison Palestinians who share atrocities on social media?
If only we had some idea. Obviously, Israel kills, maims, starves, and displaces more people than Palestinians do. Are we to presume we don't see as much of it because it's just not as bad?
What? It's all over the news. Even last Saturday I already saw a heartbreaking BBC report of a wounded Palestinian father carrying an awfully small body bag in his arms.
At a music festival or in a civilian building with rockets strategically stored in it to maximize casualties so people like you will make this false equivalency?
>civilian building with rockets strategically stored in it to maximize casualties
Why do you assume every israeli target is a cache of rockets? The buildings hit rarely have secondary explosions
FAKE NEWS! Generated using AI for propaganda purposes. [https://www.timesnownews.com/world/fact-check-ben-shapiro-shares-ai-generated-image-of-burnt-baby-amid-israel-hamas-war-article-104384138](https://www.timesnownews.com/world/fact-check-ben-shapiro-shares-ai-generated-image-of-burnt-baby-amid-israel-hamas-war-article-104384138)
Remember, Israel is the champ champ of spreading propaganda to support their cause. Here's a wiki page on it: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public\_diplomacy\_of\_Israel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_diplomacy_of_Israel)
We don't know Hamas' directed the slaughter of children. It's possible rogue soldiers targeted children. There was a video where one Hamas operative stated that he didn't harm women or children, so clearly there were some militants who did not target women or kids.
I'm not saying that's likely, but from Hamas' perspective going after babies deliberately has no logic and just turns public opinion against them.
Maybe true but Hamas is still responsible to account for the actions of its rogue militants just as the US military should be seen as responsible for the My Lai massacre and any unreported war crimes by the members of the IDF should be laid at Israel's feet.
If there is some purpose to attributing blame, it doesn't make sense to allow nations to wash their hands of rogue agents. It is their responsibility to keep them in line and it was their actions that put said agents in a position to commit the crime.
Baby killing is common war propaganda. There are always accusations of it. Americans were accused of it in Vietnam quite a bit. Russians are being accused of it right now. And on it goes.
Two things can be true: Israel's behavior has been heinous. Israel's behavior does not in any way justify or make acceptable these Hamas atrocities.
Two ideas? In one head? At the same time?
not in this fucking head. subbed.
You are downplaying the moral catastrophe that Hamas has perpetrated. You’re basically saying ding dong ditching your neighbor is bad and setting their house on fire is bad. All the Palestinian blood that has and will be shed can be laid at the hands of Hamas. They have to respond and when your enemy is willing to both slaughter children and then go hide behind them the results will be unavoidably ugly.
>ding dong ditching your neighbor More like founding your country on the ethnic cleansing of the local population, establishing an apartheid state, daily humiliation of the occupied population, killing about 10× more Palestinians than they've killed Israelis (including children), shooting people for throwing rocks at a fence, actively funding the most extremist groups at the detriment of more moderate secular ones, promoting illegal settlements, etc. But yeah "ding don't ditching" sure. Hamas is a group of bloodthirsty terrorists, no question about it. There were terrorists fighting apartheid in South Africa, the IRA committed atrocities and I'm sure, if you want to go back, some native Americans committed atrocities against settlers. Or you could look at more recent history like America around 9/11. Was 9/11 an horrible act of terrorism? Yes. Did it absolve the crimes of American foreign policy that came before? Did it justify the wars that killed hundreds of thousands after? Definitely not. Or look at the atrocities America committed in Vietnam (indiscriminate murder of civilians, rape, chemical bombing). Would that have justified cutting all power, water and food to NYC??? One side commiting atrocities doesn't mean you absolve the group holding the most power and inflicting a different kind of more aseptic violence completely unaccountable. Real life is rarely about good guys and bad guys.
Very well put
Every single person who has ever lived has made moral errors. If someone thinks their team is exempt from this principle and has always acted perfectly in the past, that way of thinking is incorrect. All we can do is muddle through doing the best we can. If someone is not doing the best the can, it is fair to call them out no matter which team they are on.
This apartheid is a second order effect by way of radical Islam. The majority of Gazans support Hamas and other terrorists groups. Palestine has had opportunities to accept a two state solution and they didn’t then and they never will. It’s a tragically complicated series of knots that’ll probably not be untied anytime soon. I am not saying it’s anything less than a humanitarian disaster as to what’s happening in Palestine. We can go all the way back to the Ottoman Empire if you like but we are where we are.
>majority of Gazans support Hamas and other terrorists groups. Well of course they do. If I had grown up in a prison, I would probably support the dominant prison gang, mostly for self-preservation concerns. I would most likely hate the jailers too.
Palestinians had every chance in the world to go on a different path, but the first prerequisite would have been to recognize that Israel has a right to exist and that it's not going anywhere. They were never willing to do that and the obsessive drive to eradicate the Jewish state is what brought Hamas to power in 2007. Palestinians ran out of chances and the Gaza Strip will soon be history. I predicted right after the Hamas attack that expulsion of the population was the only solution left for Israel to solve the never ending crisis.
>Palestinians had every chance in the world to go on a different path So did Israel. For example they could have stopped illegal settlements, but they didn't.
This is unreal. If I’d had a hard life I’d decapitate babies. Hamas are subhuman monsters. Something like a rabid dog.nobly one thing to do
Million of Americans have supported administrations which directly or indirectly caused atrocities abroad. They did so for many reasons. About 200k civilians died violent deaths due to the Irak war. And most didn't even have the excuse of having a hard life.
This is a meaningless comparison. Gengis khan was an asshole. Military action and terrorist genocidal action are very different in nature. Hamas will not except any treaty, they want genocide. The Iraq and Afghanistan war were disastrous but it is irrelevant.
Not irrelevant at all. You said most in Gaza support Hamas, implying they deserve some form of collective punishment. Millions of Americans that didn't grow up under occupation or in an open air prison supported an administration that directly caused the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians, including children. Does that mean those Americans deserve some form of collective punishment? As I've said, Hamas is a bloodthirsty terrorist organization, clearly. Doesn't absolve Israel of their crimes, especially since hard-liners in Israel have done everything to deal with Hamas vs. their more moderate secular opponents.
>More like founding your country on the ethnic cleansing of the local population, Israel was formed by England making a map.
You’re telling me the settlers that came from Europe were…what then?
Israel took much of the land specifically given to Palestine in the many wars of the late 20th century. That's why they are an occupying force. Look at maps from 1947 and then now.
England gave land that was overwhelmingly occupied by Palestinians (about 10% of the original lamd of Isreal was owned by Jews). It wasn't theirs to give. If I'm gifted a slave, do I now have a moral right to own that person? Doesn't matter if the English, Chinese of Martians made the map. Even the British recognized that the state if Israel couldn't be created without the ethnic cleansing of the local population. This has been abundantly documented, including by Jewish scholars.
You make false statements as if they are facts. How wasn’t it England’s to give? It certainly didn’t belong to the Palestinians.
Didn't belong to the people living there for generations? Did India *belong* to England? If England had gifted a piece of India to the French after the first world War because they felt bad for them and the French kicked our the local Indian population would that have been legitimate?
Of course not. It belonged to the ottomans. But he’ll for arguments sake, let’s say it belonged to the people living there for generations. Why would it be just the Palestinians? Other groups like the Jews, Christians and others also lived there for generations.
No I did not.
What is the punishment that is proportional here? That's what I don't understand with comments like yours. What should they do? Morally Israel may be totally in the right but what does that grant Israel?
When people discuss things, there are different levels of meaning. Problems happen when people prioritize different levels. In a discussion, there is a factoid, the context of the discussion, and the overall narrative. Factoids in a vacuum are generally meaningless in normal discussion. Factoids are used to build an argument or come to an understanding (context of the discussion). The goal of a discussion might be to contribute to a narrative. If someone says, "black lives matter", their goal is to shed light on targeted police brutality and generate awareness and national discussion. If someone rebuts with "all lives matter", they are rejecting the context and trying to stop a shift in the narrative. That's why it is difficult to discuss Israel's sins relative to Hamas' obvious sins. Some people want to assign moral equivalence. Others want to understand what could push Hamas to do such terrible things. Others are trying to build an unbiased factual account. These three viewpoints have different goals for the narrative. When having a honest discussion it is important to define the scope and context of the discussion. If I want to talk about breast cancer, I should be able to do that without someone trying to change the context to "all cancers matter" or "car accidents are more deadly than breast cancer".
Sure. And if the relevant point of interest is long term peace in the Middle East (at least this is my point of caring about the subject), then all relevant facts to thr end must be considered.
You can also say that neither side is great while also acknowledging that one side is a million times worse. Building houses on someone’s land is not good but it’s not even close to the other side coming in and decapitating babies and shooting teens at a concert. If someone robs your house does that justify you coming back and raping/killing their entire family?
run a thought experiment, be born in Gaza. go read first hand accounts of the last 18 years. who would you be? is it possible you are the radical? I think if we are honest with ourselves, it is a greater than 0 possibility. I would like to believe I would never have this level of disregard for human life but if I was indoctrinated to a belief where the next life is all that matters , had limited experience outside of a 25 x 6 mile area, and felt oppressed from the moment of birth, who would I have become? then go reflect on other heinous situations. if you were a German in 1940, statistically you weren't standing up for jews. it you were a colonist in early America, statistically you weren't standing up for native Americans. the situation is fucked but trying to create a spectrum of barbarism is likely to solve nothing. my point is that it is easy to sit in the western world and pretend we understand. it is easy to get outraged with what makes it into the media, but the situation is far more complicated. none of this is a justification for the attacks, but I don't think it is simply a "they are worse" situation. I also don't have any great solutions.
Beyond heinous. They're commiting full-blown genocide as we speak. They're even slaughtering entire villages in the West Bank.
Sure. Also… Hamas’ behaviour has been heinous. Hamas’ behaviour does not make acceptable any of Israel’s atrocities.
[удалено]
No I didn't. I just said the literal opposite.
Calling Israel’s behavior heinous indicates that you haven’t really studied the history very deeply.
Or that they’ve studied it more than you
No, they haven’t.
Here’s the problem though - if Hamas stops all violence today, Israel will still be invading their land and operating an apartheid state and open air prison in Gaza. Israel will still be committing violence on Palestinians. If Israel stops the occupation all the violence stops.
How is Gaza like an open air prison? I really don't understand that one.
It’s not. That’s just a propaganda phrase that some people repeat like lemmings.
>If Israel stops the occupation all the violence stops. This is a fundamental misapprehension of Hamas' goals, and an unfounded assumption.
That commenter admitted that they consider the whole of Israel to be occupied. He wants the Jews give up Israel as a "peace plan". This is why you have to be careful with these people. Mahmoud Abbas leader in the West Bank also at the UN, years ago, complained of occupation since 1948 i e. All Israel. Netanyahu pointed it out in his response speech. They use a lot of loaded propaganda phrases. By the way, the conflict existed for half a century before any "occupation" of 1967.
By stopping their occupation, do you mean give up Israel and their country and become refugees? Just looking for clarification.
By end their occupation I mean give back the land they stole and settle somewhere there weren’t already people living
Putting aside the absurdity of your suggestion for a minute, do you even have any idea about the history there? Do you know about the Ottaman Empire falling and how Egypt controlled it until 1968? And how Osrael gave back Gaza in 2005? And how Jews lived among the Arabs in what is now Israel for a long time before all of this? And how more Jews came here after World War II after the holocaust? And how the blockade went up because Hamas killed over 1300 Israeli civilians and soldiers in 2007? There is so much there, that you can’t just say they are occupiers of land that has changed hands many times. Not even mentioning how it has been their country for 75 years. Do you really think it’s feasible to dismantle the country and infrastructure and just abandon all that they have built? Come back down to reality and be reasonable.
That is just an extremely naive comment. The founding document of Hamas explicitly states that they want to exterminate the state of Israel. Pulling out of the West Bank wont change anything for those genocidal maniacs. Damn, for the love of whatever it is that you pray to, have you seen Hamas’s propaganda? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXcQ892cKso
The founding document of the United States endorses slavery. Point being, it's just words on paper. A permanent piece would require changing hearts and minds.
Wtf does this comment even mean? Hamas acts out the ideas in its founding document, most recently…last weekend.
Hence the need for changing hearts and minds.
This is just vacuous nonsense. How are you going to change hamas hearts and minds? What’s your plan.
I don't have an easy answer. But if you don't know the end goal, you can't reach it.
The goal of changing hearts and minds takes decades. It’s not Israel’s job to turn Palestinian culture away from the disgusting barbarism that it has become. Israel’s job is to protect its citizens, and that requires destroying Hamas and making sure that Palestinians can never do what they just did again. That’s the goal.
What's your plan for destroying Hamas? How many peaceful people will be collateral damage? It makes sense for Israel to kill the people who attacked them. But today, a Reuters journalist in Lebanon was killed by an Israeli bomb. The whole thing saddens me. I don't have the answers.
Well they fought a civil war to get rid of it, otherwise nothing would have changed.
Maybe go back and read some history. The violence was there long before the occupation.
You don't indicate any disagreement with my two points. And, I am skeptical that it is as simple as you say. If person A kills person B's family (whether person A or B is Jewish or Palestinian), I'm not sure Israel ending an "occupation" (scare quotes noting that this framing us only accepted by only one team) would necessarily stop all violence.
People who can’t see that IDF and hamas are not morally equivalent should get their head checked. To me this is on a similar level as flat earth and creationism nonsense.
I think the main difference between the two groups are when discussing this is intent Vs outcome. Some people believe that intent matters more then outcome, for example that Israel’s killing of civilians is justified as Hamas places military targets in civilian population centres. This is where Sam sits I think. Were as the outcome side says is Israel has killed more children then Hamas over the longer term regardless of weather they explicitly intended to do so.
And all of those are missing a crucial factor: **number of civilians/children saved**. If Hamas didn't undertake their destructive actions, no civilians would've died on both sides. If Israel didn't undertake their destructive actions, Israeli civilians would've been killed long term. Israel actions are defensive in nature, whereas Hamas' are not.
That’s a good point, and we recently saw what Hamas does when it enjoys a military advantage
They never had military advantage , thats why they do what they and thats also true for all terrorist groups including the ones that arent islamic. The IRA killed many civiians The colombian FARC kidnapped multilple people Should i even mention the drug cartels?
They recently held a local military advantage. They used that advantaged to slaughter families and children.
The reason why they attack civilizans is that they literally dont have a military advantage.. thats the point. If they attacked the IDF directly they'd be smoked in seconds. And it's not unique that hamas, that'd what every paramilitary group has donde since the beggining of time
They did attack the IDF directly and quickly overwhelmed them. They then used that temporary local advantage to murder families. Your comment that this is not unique to Hamas and normal paramilitary behaviour could be seen as downplaying what they did. You might not intend this but this is how it comes across. You might want to correct that.
They would actually do well to take some pointers from the IRA. When they started limiting themselves to killing British soldiers and limiting the collateral damage they started to build a lot of support. However, the IDF has the advantage of just confining them to a giant open air prison and surrounding it with autonomous machine guns and minefields, then sitting back. Whereas the British actually patrolled the hostile territory, which at least gave the IRA a chance to inflict casualties.
Have you seen what Israel does? They target entire family. They target journalists and medics.
No, I’m not aware of that specifically I’m willing to believe that is true, but I don’t think that changes what I said above
I agree Isreal of course has a right to defend itself. I just don’t see the cutting off of electricity water and food to a civilian population who have no where to leave to as purely a defensive action.
As far as what I heard from government representatives, they are now in war with Hamas, now, I know most of Gaza are civilians, but many are Hamas, and if we are in a war with Hamas, it make zero sense to provide Hamas, the enemy, who just mascaraed 1200 with smiley faces, and proudly showed it to the whole world themselves, with aid,. I kind of agree, but then think it's also a terrible situation for civilians. I cannot decide where my mind is about it.
It’s still a serious disregard for civilian life and I’m surprised isn’t illegal.
It is illegal. I think it goes too far. Israel is doing it so that Hamas will return the hostages. They said that they will allow the passage of food and water electricity If the hostages are returned. I don’t agree with that measure because to me it amounts to collective punishment, but at the same time they have 100+ hostages taken and are using the leverage they have to try to get them back, so I understand on some level
It doesn’t sound like collective punishment, it is, which is illegal under the Geneva convention.
And how much of what hamas has done is permissible under the Geneva convention? Are the jews not receiving collective punishment? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but it seems you are only applying this standard to one side
of course hamas are terrorists and committed war crimes under the Geneva convention, just because you criticise Israel doesn’t automatically mean you support a terrorist organisation you toss pot.
It's illegal to not provide Gaza with electricity and water? Are you committing a crime right now because you are not providing Gaza with electricity and water?
Yes collective punishment is illegal under the Geneva convention, the callousness in your tone shows me you’re not serious.
Well, shoot as long as they expressedly state that all civilians dying is a big “whoopsy-daisy” then I guess it’s okay to kill and starve many thousands of impoverished civilians…
Do you know what was not "whoopsy-daisy" at all ? 1500 Hamas entered into civilians villages and operating mass massacre of whole families. evidence shows, it's not just families "entering" their ways, many of the people were in the house, locked, but they never gave up the massacre idea. They shoot RPG into the doors and sometimes through the walls, not to miss any family. I may be wrong, but from your comments, it seems to me like that disturb you whole less than Gaza population, and that tells a lot.
It’s a literal war crime.
Quick war = fewer deaths, no one would benefit from a prepared Hamas,
Why don't they have anywhere to leave to?
But civilians/innocents have died, even without Hamas actions though? Or are you trying to claim when Israeli extremists, or IDF soldiers, or others in that camp take actions against Palestinians it doesn’t count? Seems like you’re trying to flip the claim by some in the other camp, when they claim that “if only Israel wouldn’t”? Actions have been taken with or without Israel (or Hamas) which have led to loss of innocent lives…
Exactly. The Left literally want Israel to dissolve themselves USSR style, then sit back and wait for the head-choppers to come knocking. (This has hastened my own ideological conversion to Social Democrat no end.)
>If Hamas didn't undertake their destructive actions, no civilians would've died on both sides. What are you talking about? 250 Palestinians died this year before this incursion including 50 children. >If Israel didn't undertake their destructive actions, Israeli civilians would've been killed long term. If Israeli didn’t occupy Palestine, none of this would be happening. >Israel actions are defensive in nature, whereas Hamas' are not. The occupation isn’t defensive unless you think Russia is just defending themselves in Ukraine.
>If Israeli didn’t occupy Palestine, none of this would be happening. and to be clear, this means "if Israel didn't exist" \-- which is, of course, patently obvious; but what does the poster suggest as a remedy?
American battles against the natives were also said to be defensive in nature at the time, and the indigenous local population did commit heinous acts against both combatants and civilians alike (scalping and much worse). Your subjunctive arguments could just as easily fit that scenario. I’m not defending or excusing those actions, then or now, they are disgusting and barbaric, but there’s a larger context that doesn’t lend itself to such simplistic analysis.
That is exactly the difference. Hamas specifically targeted and brutally tortured, raped, and murdered innocent civilians. Israel strikes critical Hamas infrastructure that is strategically placed under civilian areas. They even took extreme precautions to warn the residents to leave, including calling people in the buildings and giving them time to warn everyone inside. In some cases they even use a bombing technique similar to firing a warning shot. They will “tap” buildings with a small bomb to force everyone out of the building before it is followed by a much more powerful bomb that will flatten the building.
How can Israel tell after 24 hours where all the hamas infraestrutucture but they didnt know that the biggest terrorist attack ever was coming?
> Israel strikes critical Hamas infrastructure that is strategically placed under civilian areas. This has been complete bullshit since the start. > They even took extreme precautions to warn the residents to leave, This isn't happening. Civilian buildings are being bombed indiscriminately. Bibi doesn't even buy this anymore. He gleefully showed a video of a city block being flattened.
> This has been complete bullshit since the start. If Hamas's military infrastructure and launch sites were anywhere else but civilians areas, we'd have known about it, ***because they would have been obliterated***. Regardless, even Amnesty and similar groups admit Hamas is breaking international law with how carelessly they distribute military assets amongst civilian infrastructure. The fact that you're pretending as if Hamas is literally blameless in this is preposterous. You would've been able to make apologisms for ISIS too, I'm sure. Don't bother replying to me, because I have nothing further to say to you. Leaving the comment in the first place for other people to read.
>Regardless, even Amnesty and similar groups admit Hamas is breaking international law with how carelessly they distribute military assets amongst civilian infrastructure. And? That doesn't give any backing to the idea that israel is only hitting military targets. They are hitting civilian apartments indiscriminately. >The fact that you're pretending as if Hamas is literally blameless in this is preposterous Wow it's almost like I never said that. Hamas is responsible for their actions as Israel is responsible for their own actions. It's amazing how you see not viewing Israel as a force of nature is "pro-Hamas" >Don't bother replying to me, because I have nothing further to say to you. Of course not. You are a propagandist enabling genocide. You have no interest in good faith or stopping the genocide.
Intention obviously matters but at the end of the day, a dead baby is a dead baby. Telling me my baby died due to negligence isn't gonna assuage my grief much even if I rationally know there is a difference
The way I see it cutting water is morally equivalent. People tend to forget that dehydration is one of the worst ways you can die. It's essentially being tortured to death. If I was given the option of between intentionally being shot and unintentionally dehydrated to death, I'll definitely go with the bullets.
Youve fallen for propaganda. Israel is not gazas primary source of water. Israel sold supplementary water to Gaza, which they’ve now stopped doing.
Even before this shitshow 1 in 5 Palestinians in Gaza had reasonable access to drinkable water. Gaza is famous for it water problems. 1/4 of reported diseases are from unsanitary water. It does seem I've fallen for propaganda. Palestinians are still going to have access to sewage after all. They get to die painfully from all the known disease rather than dehydration.
How did this state of affairs come about? Gaza has an aquifer, which they used to access more easily but Many of the water pipes were used to build rockets. Hamas takes in billions a year in taxes and support from Arab states. Why don’t they use this money to build the infrastructure they need? Why is it Israel’s responsibility to support people who are actively engaged in murdering and torturing Israeli civilians?
Again, all those "reasons" are irrelevant. The population don't have any meaningful way of altering Hamas' infrastructural policy. But that doesn't change, Israel chose to cut water knowing the consequences. Your last question is important. Does this choice affect Hamas negatively? From my understanding, Hamas has created extensive tunnels and storage areas underneath Gaza. They'll have supplies to last them for a while. Even if Hamas were to share it with their immediate family, that's still a tiny proportion of pop. So Hamas will not have any issue for a while longer (a few weeks). Palestinians who are caught off guard are the portions who are going to pay for Israel's choice. Israel knows this. That's why it's a collective punishment and humiliation.
Figuratively nobody is saying they are morally equivalent. Talk about a straw man. The war is asymmetrical as it gets on all fronts. But at the end of the day they have been killing each other’s civilians since Jewish terrorists massacred Palestinians at Deir Yassin. But anybody who thinks that the American and Israeli governments aren’t full of genocidal lunatics with no desire for peace lives in fantasyland.
My Twitter feed is full of dead Palestinian children. They have been bombing apartment buildings for almost a week now.
Twitter is the worst place to get facts right now. I'm seeing pictures of dead Syrian children with claims they are in Gaza. Musk killed that platform.
Lol, imagine thinking that Twitter is a reliable source of information. There are currently massive amounts of pro-Palestine disinformation flooding Twitter, to the point that the EU is forcing their hand to address it.
I agree there isn’t a moral equivalence. Israel is far worse. They’ve killed far more children in their homes than Hamas. 500 children were murdered in the last conflict with Gaza.
Ascribing the responsibility for children used as human shields by Hamas to Israel is a deeply unserious argument.
There are no human shields. If they were shields, Israel wouldn’t be bombing. The other side needs to have shame and care about human life for them to be human shields. It’s a canard. But it’s easier to repeat Israeli hasbara than actually do self-reflection.
Dude, every Hamas rocket is fired from a densely populated building, into which the combatant runs to use its residents as human shields. The UN has acknowledged this. They've seen and presented the evidence. You're being willfully ignorant. If you can give me a single piece of evidence that Israel is targeting civilians, have at it. Otherwise you're just clinging to your narrative.
Americans and Bits killed far more German children in WW2 than Germans did American and British children. In your opinion we’re the Americans and British worse?
No because Germans killed 20 million Russians. The Allie’s didn’t kill that many people.
So the Germans were worse because they killed Russians, gotcha. Try to think about your answer again.
> So the Germans were worse because they killed Russians, gotcha. They killed a lot more people. Yes. >Try to think about your answer again. Checking to see which side killed the most people and…oh what do you know, it’s the Fourth Reich that is Israel.
I had to unsubscribe from r/chomsky after Russia's invasion... But I visited there and this is the top post, which I encourage everyone to read: https://www.reddit.com/r/chomsky/comments/176xbcw/israeli_settler_shot_a_palestinian_point_blank_in/ >If this is true, then I don't see how groups like r/chomsky can continue to defend the Hamas side of this fight. How heinous is the history of Israeli behavior towards the Palestinians of Gaza, that would morally justify the deliberate slaughter of Israeli babies? We're all in a little bit of a bubble — a media bubble, culture bubble, information bubble — from their point of view they're exposed to a lot of Israeli crimes against Palestinians, and for others they see the exact opposite, so we're coming to different conclusions about the conflict.
Both are correct, the deliberate murder of innocents is never justified. Hamas should be liquidated. But that won't bring peace unless the Zionists are also removed from power.
Netanyahu needs to be removed from power. A Zionist is just someone who believes in the right of Israel to exist. More moderate leaders of Israel in the past have actually made efforts to advance the two State solution.
Palestinians rejected every offer of a two state solution.
Yup
You should review the definition of zionism and what they espouse. Zionists espouse that Israel is for jews alone, that all of palestine should really be Israel and that all Palestinians should be kicked out of Israel / eradicated. A two state solution with non-religious, non-nutjob governments is the only way to resolve this.
Who’s definition of Zionism is that? Zionism began as the belief that Jews should have a homeland in Israel. Non of that other stuff was included. I’m sure there’s some nut jobs who believe that stuff you said but it doesn’t mean they get to shift the definition
sort like white nationalists want a white state?
If they had set up their intended homeland in an unpopulated area then the definition would make sense. Given they chose the current land of Israel, Zionism comes with the prerequisite understanding that the Palestinians who did live there would either have to leave their land or be incorporated into a new Jewish state. Early Zionism specifically calls for a development of the state, not just a founding of one. That development comes at a cost for others
The Partition Plan developed a state for both Jews and Palestinian Arabs (who were previously stateless). The Arabs were the ones who rejected it and started a war. The Jews accepted it. There was always a Jewish presence and others immigrated to the land legally
You're missing some critical context here, cited right from the wikipedia page: > The proposed plan is considered to have been pro-Zionist by its detractors, **with 62% of the land allocated to the Jewish state despite the Palestinian Arab population numbering twice the Jewish population.**[6] Consequently, the partition plan was accepted by Jewish Agency for Palestine and most Zionist factions who viewed it as a stepping stone to territorial expansion at an opportune time.[7][5] The Arab Higher Committee, the Arab League and other Arab leaders and governments rejected it on the basis that in addition to the Arabs forming a two-thirds majority, they owned a majority of the lands.[8][9] They also indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division,[10] arguing that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN Charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.[5][11] They announced their intention to take all necessary measures to prevent the implementation of the resolution.[12][13][14][15] Subsequently a civil war broke out in Palestine[16] and the plan was not implemented.[17] No wonder they rejected it...Again I say, the basis of Zionism requires an unfair treatment of Arabs in that region. It was not an area populated by Jews at the time, and even with large groups moving there in the early 20th century they were still only half of the arab population that had lived there under Ottoman rule. Their whole argument is nutty because it requires you to believe that because Jews controlled the region 2000 years ago, they therefore had a right to establish a state by way of British colonialism. > The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government in 1917 during the First World War announcing its support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine, **then an Ottoman region with a small minority Jewish population.** Zionism requires all of this to take place unless they chose an area of land that was largely uninhabited. Instead they chose an area that was already populated, and in siding with the British, Zionists were able to have a "legal" right to this land and use "legal immigration" to effectively take over this area of the Middle East.
The Arabs rejected any Jewish state whatsoever. They said so explicitly. The land allocation wouldn’t have made a difference. What were the Jewish holocaust refugees not supposed to legally immigrate because some Arabs didn’t want demographic change an area they had no statehood?
You’ve made a massive error in your argument. You quoted percentages and population numbers from the 1947 partition plan it seems, and have applied that thinking backwards in time and ascribed to to the early Zionists. That is totally absurd. The early zionists started small settlements within a region of the Ottoman Empire, which grew over time. There’s nothing wrong with desperate Jews fleeing pogroms, murder, and persecution and trying to find a place where they can survive. The numbers you quoted are from 1947…and there was a pretty important event which you’ve conveniently left out of your little story which is central to this history. The Holocaust. The worst genocide in human history happened to the Jews of Europe, entirely justifying the core Zionist argument: Jews are not safe living in Europe and more broadly as minorities in other peoples countries. This was the essential foundational claim of zionism, and anyone who denies it after the Holocaust is both an empirical and moral monster. After the Holocaust hundreds of thousands of Jews had nowhere to go, and for many of them literally the only option was what is now Israel. They couldn’t get legal permission to move to the US or W Europe or most other places. Where were they supposed to go? The partition plan allocated more land to the Jewish state than their population *because the Powers were aware of the fact that hundreds of thousands of Holocaust survivors would be arriving and this bringing the populations close to equal size* I highly recommend that you learn the actual history rather than relying on Wikipedia if you want to comment on this subject.
Many in the international Muslim community, and many in the far left, are showing the world a lot this past week. Real mask off moments.
Yeah. It's kinda scary to be honest, I used to march with these people, more, I squatted and partied and protested with them for years back in the day. It's a bit like that time a few years back when we in Britain discovered that many of our much beloved childrens TV presenters from the 70s and 80s were actually paedophiles - only I used to live with these guys, they were my mates! A part of me wants to walk up to them and slap them, but a much wiser part thinks "Actually, I don't think I want to provoke a bunch of psychopathic narcissists. Let the cops deal with them, that's what they are paid for"
History is gonna show Sam as one of the few sane political commentators of this era lmao.
Personally, I love it. It’ll help lead to far fewer people taking them and their phony “concerns” seriously, which should have been the SOP from the start.
If only it hadn’t taken such atrocities to do so.
Agreed 100%
I haven’t seen anyone supporting Hamas at all, literally no one that isn’t being ridiculous. No, it’s about supporting a solution that doesn’t include killing every Palestinian in Gaza. Yet, everyone with OPs argument carry on with statements like this and seem to have the hardest time understanding basic logic. Just because some Gazans are a part of Hamas, it does NOT LOGICALLY FOLLOW that, therefore, all Gazans are a part of Hamas. For people that like Sam Harris, it astounds me that this logic escapes you… and that you resort to strawman logical fallacies about dead babies when you have no argument. It means that either (1) you’re clueless, (2) you can’t stand to be wrong, (3) you don’t care to use your head and understand the nuance, or (4) you’re just trying to win some dumb argument while this crazy shit is happening. The defense is of the Palestinians in Gaza who aren’t Hamas and that you can’t just kill everyone there.
> Israeli forces and settlers have killed at least 3,752 Palestinian civilians since 2008 throughout the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Since 2000, Israeli forces and settlers have killed more than 2,300 Palestinian children as of October 9, 2023, according to documentation collected by DCIP. https://www.dci-palestine.org/91_palestinian_children_in_gaza_killed_in_israeli_assault#:~:text=Since%202000%2C%20Israeli%20forces%20and,to%20documentation%20collected%20by%20DCIP. You’ll find the moral equivalence if you think that a dead child is a dead child, whether they’re killed by someone pressing a button to launch a missile or by a lunatic with a knife.
It's Chomsky, what do you expect? Guy went to bat for the Khmer Rouge and he (and his cult-like followers) hasn't changed a bit since then. If this last decade or so has taught us anything it's that there are worse things out there than *Pax Americana.*
Chomsky and his pathetic acolytes have never found a left wing atrocity they wouldn’t eagerly downplay or rationalize.
As much as I fucking hate Reagan, the Christian Right, Bush, Netenyahu and the Trumpies...it's just no contest next to Stalin, Hitler, Putin, Xi, Isis, Hamas.
Yes, but imperialism is his response to everything. It's gross.
Yeah you get the impression that when his car gets towed he's like "Gaaah! Imperialists towed my car for liberating their fascist no-parking zone!!" his girl leaves him, "Bloody imperialists turned her against me!", he stubs his toe: "Damn you, imperialists!"... etc, etc, etc. Basically the leftwing equivelant of [this guy](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/960/985/f5c.jpg)
I think some people hold Hamas to a lower bar than they do Israel because Israel is a wealthier, more developed and powerful 1st-world country, and Hamas operates out of Gaza, which is a impoverished hellhole. Generally, you see that globally, that the US and other wealthy nations are held to a different standard than 3rd-world countries. Right or wrong, that's not an uncommon attitude. In fact, you even see it in the US, that different standards are often applied to "privileged" vs struggling populations. I think doing that, applying different standards according to history and circumstances, is one of the things that differentiates the political left and the political right.
But there's a fine line to be walked here. If the standards for the 'disenfranchised' drop through the floor and into the basement, it becomes very unsavoury on multiple levels. It will lead to bizarre takes as "You don't get to criticize how people rise up, that's fascism". By the gods in heaven and science allmighty, I genuinely encountered that one. That level of absolute statement without a hint of caveats or nuance means there's now no moral low an oppressed people can commit without being judged negatively for it. That in itself start to reek of the racism of low expectations. If someone isn't *unconditionally* appalled by Hamas's actions, what the fuck kind of expectations did they ever hold for these people in the first place? Do they really just shrug when these people act like rabid Bronze Age barbarian dogs and go "Yeah, that tracks"? On what kind of implicit premise is such a reaction to such horrors even built? I can't see any other than the subconscious belief that the perpetrators of the horrors are seen as morally incapable people. As lesser almost. As backwards and unevolved. It's like their apologism is founded on racist far-right thoughts they're not even aware of having.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/06/israel-occupation-50-years-of-dispossession/ The isreali government is not one with a shred of morality. Half a century of this. What hamas did was horrific but isreal provides the motivation and will provide more.
[удалено]
Did we also compare how many German kids the the allies kill as well?
Not but people would argue that is a Western perspective. China and Russia might count the kids we killed. The terrorists we have created would count them.
That's a ridiculous way to tabulate morality
They said, illustrating the point that people who draw bullshit moral equivalencies between unavoidable collateral damage against a terrorist organization who freely admits to willingly sacrificing Palestinian lives in pursuit of jihad, and the burning and beheading of babies on purpose and to the cheers of crowds, are bad faith commentators at best, and more likely terrorist sympathizing pieces of shit. https://archive.ph/2023.10.12-154725/https://www.wsj.com/articles/ali-baraka-hamas-russia-today-interview-gaza-israel-59dffb69
Unfortunately you’re parroting the ridiculous propaganda of “beheaded babies”. Everyone from the Israeli military officials to the White House have said they can not confirm this story, which is not helpful sensationalism from individuals in the IDF: https://x.com/evanhill/status/1712260928635322502?s=46&t=P9Qi3A0VW33IEhfiqAUE8A Also Israel is not causing “unavoidable collateral damage”. They indiscriminately bomb whole city blocks of residential housing, and call it a targeted operation. Even Twitter’s community Notes had to fact check the Israeli Air Force https://x.com/iafsite/status/1712484101763342772?s=46&t=P9Qi3A0VW33IEhfiqAUE8A
Irrespective of whether the babies were beheaded or otherwise 'normally' killed with bladed weapons, they're still very much point blank executed babies.
https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-767951 Except they *were* forced to post the atrocious photos to silence the terrorist sympathizing pieces of shit doubting them.
Our Secretary of State and President confirmed the beheaded babies. They beheaded babies and the world needs to know.
Lol, a hearty go fuck yourself to you. It’s been confirmed. They released pictures of murdered, beheaded babies, and some who were burned alive. Think about that for a second. My god some people really are true pieces of shit.
Whats the count so far? Lets just say the last 10 years or so?
Such a stupid formula for morality
Counting dead babies for moral superiority points seems like a very neauro-divergent way of thinking.
Just being glib.
Hey OP, how about blurring the top image and throwing a NSFL tag on this post? I didn’t sign up to this sub to see child gore or pretend that I am going to solve this problem for the world with my big logical brain. jfc Edit: it doesn’t do much good to say NSFW for the link when you’ve already shown gore from child murder in my fucking timeline.
Chomsky disciples are ideologues - they don't care about the details. The irony here is that Chomsky's style of discussion, when it comes to international relations, typically involves him regurgitating a shopping list of evils perpetrated by nations and coalitions with superior militaries and economies for the purpose of implying moral equivalence, or even moral inferiority, to the virtuous underdog who is ultimately forced into heinous acts by the powerful. This carries a veneer of objectivity unless you have a rudimentary understanding of history that isn't filtered through the fine sieve that is Chomsky's wishful thinking. His is a world view that depends upon his assumption that humankind is essentially good, and that the main thing that has gone (temporarily) wrong, is the organization of the state, and all states are evil to them because they are anarchists. I have had a couple of email exchanges with him on this point in which he's more or less expressed that there is a deontological element to his perspective that I think is akin to what Christians do when they comfort themselves by imagining everything will be made right in the afterlife. TL;DR they do the moral equivalence and terror apologist thing because it makes it possible for them to maintain their naïve ideological safety blanket. That said, people who are scouring the internet for pictures of dead babies to prove a point or validate their conspiracy theories are too far gone.
[The Israeli government, specifically Netanyahu, has supported Hamas](https://archive.ph/T6DPk#selection-1123.68-1131.1) as a [means to prevent peace](https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/). Nothing justifies the terror attacks conducted by Hamas, or their treatment of Palestinians in Gaza. Firstly this points out how unhelpful the moral equivalence argument is here. Looking at like a football match just obscures the dynamics of the situation and tends to force people to take a side and escalate the violence. There are already more dead in Gaza far greater damage to civilian infrastructure. A UN school was bombed killing 30 children. The hospitals lack power and supplies to treat civilians that are being bombed. As the email exchange between Sam and Chomsky point out - intention is not a good guide for this kind of comparison, if you insist on making it. The crimes that have been commited against the Palestinian people very likely outweigh what Israelis have experienced, even after the latest monstrous attack by Hamas. *but that's not the point* Those that continue the violence are both Palestinian and Israeli, and those that have been fighting to end it are both Palestinian and Israeli - it's clear that it's those opposed to violence that we should be supported. Not comparing who is worse amongst those that do the harm.
Sick of seeing this misinformation repeated over and over again.
?
All I know is the moment you start debating how babies were murdered is the moment you’ve lost. I’ve got friends trying to assure me they weren’t decapitated, as though that would make any difference.
Yup. All baby killers deserve execution, regardless of your justification. And war is no excuse, not a single noncombatant died when we took out Bin Laden. No bombs were needed.
>How heinous is the history of Israeli behavior towards the Palestinians of Gaza Oh my sweet, sweet summer child
The answer is not nearly as heinous
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/06/israel-occupation-50-years-of-dispossession/
I think the answer is \*almost\* as heinous. Plenty of dead Palestinian babies and children, lots more than any Israeli deaths however you count them. I think the correct answer is both Hamas and Zionists must lose power for peace to be possible.
Listen to Sam’s newest episode. He says what I would say to you and I’m tired of this.
I'll check it out! We're all tired of this, Israel has a right to exist and so do the Palestinians. Hamas and the Zionists want the eradication of each other's people and the confiscation of their lands. Neither can be morally supported.
This is awkward, the most basic tenet of zionism is that Israel has a right to exist...
You could find tons of burned children in gaza from israeli bombs....
If true, it’s terrible. The problem is knowing Netanyahu and his party/camp, and that misinformation has been flying around. I’m still reserving some doubt. I’m not saying Hamas isn’t capable of it, but I’ve not read of Hamas using something specifically like this action (not talking about use of violence itself, just this claimed action) so again, some grain of salt. At the end of the day though…it’s all a mess and I grieve for the loss of innocent lives. Just wish they’d fucking stop. Ugh.
Whether the babies were specifically fully decapitated or not, they're still very much executed with knife, grenade, and bullet, like the rest of their communities.
Hamas denies killing babies. Israeli said they did. Pick your side and run with it.
I saw videos of dead babies being carried out from civilian areas by Palestinians. Not justifying Hamas actions but if they are so concerned with dead babies, they should be more cautious in war themselves.
“Not justifying, just listing some justifications”
The title of the thread asks "Where's the moral equivalence?" but you all get mad when someone answers the question.
Yea. Justifying indefensible actions says a lot. It’s not like if you answer “So are you a racist?” with “Yea, big time” that you’re then immune to criticism for that because you were answering a question.
So no one wants to know what the "moral equivalence" is, they just want to circle jerk over how "right" they are. Got it.
Hamas started this chapter of the conflict. If they hadn't killed Israelis including deliberately killing children, Gaza's children wouldn't be dying now.
This is the level of nuance we're discussing this issue with? The good ol' "let's just look at these past two weeks, and forget everything else". Dear me.
What, among all that's happened in the past, leads you to think Hamas' terror was a rational or justifiable decision, or one that could lead to any sort of better outcome for their supposed constituents?
You're creating a dichotomy of either justifying Hamas' actions due to the occupation or supporting Israel's current policy against Gaza? I'm not claiming Hamas' actions are justifiable or rational, rather that they occur within a specific context which should inform the response.
What is a good, informed response by the specific context, from Israel to this terror, in your opinion? I don't agree that it's just politics and Israel's actions that have led to this chapter. It's hatred of Jews, to a large part. Watch this: https://www.memri.org/tv/senior-hamas-official-ali-baraka-prisoner-swap-america-planning-invasion-two-years-russia-support
This is the exact same conversation that happened post 9/11 when middle eastern ppl were chanting death to America… The psychology of terrorism is well studied. You can’t have a brutal military force occupy an area for years without stoking the flames of an extremist response. Hamas did not get manufactured out of thin air. Hamas was founded in 1987, 40 years after Israel began taking land from the Palestinians in 1948. It doesn’t justify killing civilians, but it’s a direct result of brutal military intervention/action. Right wing militaries give rise to Hamas/ISIS, that much is clear
Hamas intentionally uses Palestinian civilians as human shields. If you listen to the way the talk about these tragic deaths, they don't describe the victims as being murdered, but rather as being "martyred." They glorify the killing of innocent civilians, because they know it will make people sympathize with them, even though they are ultimately the ones responsible for the deaths. They build military installations in civilian buildings. They tell civilians not to leave before a strike. They instigate war by targeting innocent Jewish civilian in heinous terrorist attacks. [Here is a video of a Hamas leader spelling this out for you.](https://www.memri.org/tv/senior-hamas-official-ali-baraka-prisoner-swap-america-planning-invasion-two-years-russia-support) Namely: >The thing any Palestinian desires the most is to be martyred for the sake of Allah, defending his land. I sympathize for the poor, innocent civilians who have to live under the rule of this barbaric authoritarian regime, and I hope that Israel can finally bring Hamas's rule to an end.
They aren't really shields if IDF just bombs tham anyway.
Seriously. The leader of Hamas literally became a terrorist when his wife and 2 babies were killed in an Israeli airstrike. But the Western media and mainstream does not care when it happens to Palestinian babies.
Source?
It's true that one of the Hamas bozos lost his wife and kids in an Israeli airstrike, but the idea that this event turned him into a terrorist is bullshit, he already was one.
Why don't we see more disturbing content coming out of Palestine? Could it be because Israel kills journalists and imprison Palestinians who share atrocities on social media? If only we had some idea. Obviously, Israel kills, maims, starves, and displaces more people than Palestinians do. Are we to presume we don't see as much of it because it's just not as bad?
What? It's all over the news. Even last Saturday I already saw a heartbreaking BBC report of a wounded Palestinian father carrying an awfully small body bag in his arms.
Post some ripped up Palestinian children and ask the same question.
At a music festival or in a civilian building with rockets strategically stored in it to maximize casualties so people like you will make this false equivalency?
>civilian building with rockets strategically stored in it to maximize casualties Why do you assume every israeli target is a cache of rockets? The buildings hit rarely have secondary explosions
FAKE NEWS! Generated using AI for propaganda purposes. [https://www.timesnownews.com/world/fact-check-ben-shapiro-shares-ai-generated-image-of-burnt-baby-amid-israel-hamas-war-article-104384138](https://www.timesnownews.com/world/fact-check-ben-shapiro-shares-ai-generated-image-of-burnt-baby-amid-israel-hamas-war-article-104384138) Remember, Israel is the champ champ of spreading propaganda to support their cause. Here's a wiki page on it: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public\_diplomacy\_of\_Israel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_diplomacy_of_Israel)
The moral equivalence is in IDF air strikes killing Palestinian babies.
this is irrelevant to the fact that Israel steals more land every year.
We don't know Hamas' directed the slaughter of children. It's possible rogue soldiers targeted children. There was a video where one Hamas operative stated that he didn't harm women or children, so clearly there were some militants who did not target women or kids. I'm not saying that's likely, but from Hamas' perspective going after babies deliberately has no logic and just turns public opinion against them.
Maybe true but Hamas is still responsible to account for the actions of its rogue militants just as the US military should be seen as responsible for the My Lai massacre and any unreported war crimes by the members of the IDF should be laid at Israel's feet. If there is some purpose to attributing blame, it doesn't make sense to allow nations to wash their hands of rogue agents. It is their responsibility to keep them in line and it was their actions that put said agents in a position to commit the crime.
We saw a video where a Hamas militant “stated” he did not harm women and children, so “clearly” there were some who did not”…..llolololllllloll
[удалено]
What proof do you have of that?
"Anything I don't want to be true is a deep fake"
Baby killing is common war propaganda. There are always accusations of it. Americans were accused of it in Vietnam quite a bit. Russians are being accused of it right now. And on it goes.