If you keep protecting them from being hit for committing massacres you are giving them the ability to commit ethnic cleansing.
-
Features
Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel
- Thread starter Derec
- Start date
To denote when two or more threads have been merged
It's not that it's "ok", it's that it's a regrettable necessity.
If you refuse to kill children in Gaza you let Hamas massacre the Jews.
While this is obviously a cartoon what should Israel do if faced with the depicted situation? Because this is just a simplified version of what's actually happening.
You conflate massacring civilians with hitting Hamas.
Copernicus
Industrial Grade Linguist
Zipr wasn't "protecting" Hamas from being hit for committing massacres. He was merely pointing out that they don't have the capability--the military capacity--to carry out ethnic cleansing. Israel does have that kind of capability, and Zionists arguably used it to commit ethnic cleansing when they implemented Plan Dalit. I believe that the leadership of Hamas would be happy to commit ethnic cleansing against Israeli Jews, if they commanded enough military power to carry it off. Efforts by Israeli leaders to move Palestinians out of the Gaza Strip and into Egyptian Gaza are literally ethnic cleansing efforts. Israel's gradual takeover of the West Bank could be interpreted as slow motion ethnic cleansing--so-called salami tactics.
Copernicus
Industrial Grade Linguist
No, not a simplified version. An extremely distorted version designed to provoke an emotional reaction. Hamas militants are not strapping babies to their body armor, and Israel is not faced with shooting babies. Instead, Israel bombs neighborhoods in which it knows innocent civilians live on the pretense that this will somehow lead to the destruction of legitimate Hamas military targets. Those children contain women, children, the sick, and the elderly. Everyone knows that. The people firing artillery, dropping bombs, and launching missiles at those neighborhoods never see the innocent people they kill. They are just following orders--a time-tested justification for atrocities committed in times of war. What they are doing is not a necessity. It is an expediency combined with depraved indifference to the lives of innocent civilians who might be in or near the targets that they think might be legitimate military targets. Refusing to kill children in those neighborhoods at this time would not let Hamas "massacre the Jews", and you know it. Hamas is largely broken and on the defensive now. Israel has a greater responsibility to safeguard the lives of Palestinian non-combatants, who require food, water, shelter, and a safe place to stay out of the fighting.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 39,362
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
WTF??? How does that even work?
Arctish
Centimillionaire
Standard leftist faith based error detected.
Automatically assuming there must be a good solution and therefore a bad outcome is the fault of the side with more power failing to find said solution.
If there's a better answer why has nobody suggested it? Plenty of ways they could put it out there.
Hamas is attempting to commit ethnic cleansing. The fact that they aren't very successful at it doesn't change that.
Huh? Have they not already basically done that?
The more destitute the people the less money is required to dominate the economy. And the more domination of the economy the easier it is to make people into cannon fodder.
Except it's even more so. Trump et al don't seek the destruction of the US, they just don't care about externalized costs. The terrorists specifically seek the destruction of the economy where they are.
Huh?
Ethnic cleansing is genocide targeted at a specific ethnic group. (Although I have also seen the term applied when the distinction is religious.) Showing genocide (which isn't happening) doesn't show ethnic cleansing.
Since nobody has better answers I don't feel that criticism is appropriate. It's always the faith-based belief that there must be a better answer--the lack of anyone suggesting one should be recognized as significant.
Arctish
Centimillionaire
Who gets to decide which answer is the better one?
Yitzhak Rabin believed a Two State solution that would ensure Israel's continuation as a Jewish State for the Jewish people was a better answer than a One State solution in which non-Jews could conceivably become a majority, or a Rogue State that would be a pariah among nations.
Benjamin Netanyahu believes a Jewish State encompassing all of Eretz Israel, with non-Jews having been expelled or confined to ghettos and internment centers, is better.
One of the posters here believes "Gaza should be dealt with as Carthage was dealt with by Rome"; he thinks genocide and the enslavement of survivors is better than either Rabin's or Netanyahu's vision.
You apparently think using nuclear weapons to murder millions in Amman and Damascus is better than allowing non-Jewish refugees to return to their former places of residence inside Israel because it's too dangerous for Jews to live among non-Jews, especially as a potential minority in a century or two, unless it's in the West Bank as an actual minority today, in which case it's perfectly fine.
The people currently active in Jewish Voice for Peace think it's better to dismantle institutional power that discriminates on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, or any of the other characteristics bigots use to justify injustice, and replace it with a more egalitarian system of organization that respects and defends human rights.
Just because you like your 'better' better, doesn't mean someone else's 'better' isn't better than yours.
Last edited:
Derec
Contributor
I mean, it was not really meant seriously. On the other hand, you have an area that would not live peacefully with its neighbor and continues to attack it incessantly.
I have said it before - the 2005 disengagement from Gaza was a test run for a future Palestinian state. And Palestinians failed miserably. Instead of living in peace and building up their society, they commenced to shoot rockets at Israel.
I do think a two state solution is the ideal long-term outcome. However, it requires a Palestinian population that wants to live side by side with Israel and does not seek the first opportunity to try to eradicate it.
Derec
Contributor
Read what? That tweet? Why do you think he is correct?
Derec
Contributor
In vast majority cases, both have just become a term of verbal abuse.
No, just that we should not assume that twit is correct to call them civilians.
The twit made a positive claim that the four were civilian as well as youth. The burden of proof is on him and on everyone who repeats his claims.
I do not know if they are civilians or combatants. I have not made claims. I am just saying that we should not assume that they are civilians just because somebody on the Internet said they were.
Why?
They are the ones responsible for this whole mess.
Not siding with terrorists.
How would either be an adequate response to the attack led by Hamas (other groups joined in) in which >1000 Israelis were murdered and hundreds kidnappend? Do you not think any military action was warranted?
Completely unrealistic. Besides, it would make Palestinian territories even more supportive of Hamas.
False equivalence, but at least you agree that Hamas leaders should be prosecuted. Rashida Tlaib and her Ilk do not.
Derec
Contributor
No, it is not. It is indicative of the dangers of urban warfare. And besides, that ratio is not that far off US friendly fire deaths.
Derec
Contributor
I do. It's just some rando on X.