Then you can still engage. I’m not a Zionist. And you can tell that clearly from my arguments.
But I get it. History is complex, particularly in that region. It’s simpler to stick to an oversimplified ideological version of it. Never having to adjust a view just feels safer.
Netanyahu is almost the last person I want to defend. That makes this whole situation a mess, because overall I understand how bad the whole situation for Israel is. For all the ongoing back and forth between “Israel did…” and “someone from the Palestenians did…” over the last 75 years, there are certain turning points. The last one was Oct 7, initiated by the Hamas. The one before, in my eyes, was the 2nd Intifada which came from the Palestenian side instead of taking the 2 state proposal that was on the table for almost 10 years. After that, Israel chose the stance, if there can’t be peace, at least there can be security. They did so most of the time with the person Netanyahu. That was a bad choice, but from that situation there was no good choice to begin with.
For a political solution you need 2 sides who are willing to compromise. From what I’ve seen, the closest the Palestinian side has ever provided was Arafath, but he walked away from a good proposal without even a counter proposal right when the 2nd Intifada started. I don’t know how in you can say it’s only Israel’s making. That’s just not true.
Israel gave up the occupation of Gaza. The Gazeans thanked Israel with electing the Hamas. The Hamas thanked the Gazeans by throwing political opponents from rooftops and letting them lay in the streets as a warning sign to their other fellow Palestinians. Then Israel closed the borders. And the Hamas took every opportunity they could to shoot rockets against Israel and did nothing to improve the living situations for the inhabitants of the Gaza strip.
And from there forward, Israel has no choice but to defend itself with force. There is no political solution with the Hamas.
That doesn’t excuse their agressive settlement behavior in the West Bank, nor their apartheid tendencies. These are in the way of any peaceful solution. But it seems that after Palestinians made it clear there is no chance for peace, Israel said “so be it”.
Perhaps the territory should be returned to the people from whom it was forcibly taken and re-establish Palestine.
I’m pretty certain in hindsight many agree that the foundation of the state Israel in the way it was done was a mistake. But it’s there, and there are only ways into the future, none into the past.
Israel was founded under international law. It’s a state, it’s existence is protected by international law, and, just for the record, delegitimation of the state Israel is a clear marker of a post-WW2 antisemitic statement. A 2 state solution under international law was on the table from the start, but Palestineans didn’t want it back then, too.
I’m absolutely certain that indiscriminately killing at least 10 Palestinians who have nowhere to run for every Israeli who died in a terrorist attack those Palestinians were not responsible for is beyond the pale.
The Hamas has a long record of using civilians as shields, clearly a war crime every single time. International humanitarian law says, civilians can not be targeted, and should be avoided as collateral damage where possible. Where any other country under attack evacuates their civilians out of strike zones, the Hamas prevents their civilians from leaving, or moves them in. We don’t know much about the situation on the ground, but with that background knowledge your 10:1 numbers can as easily be blamed onto the Hamas.
My take is, if you’re non-combatant Gazean, you have 2 enemies. And to me it’s unclear which is more dangerous.
under complex argument…
I have no idea what this is.
A bad translation apparently. Dictionary says I should have used “oversimplified”
Nooo! Colonialism bad!
No I don’t want children to violently die, nor in any other way. They deserve to live their life. In war, among men and women, children die. Therefore I prefer a world without war.
As far as this under complex argument goes that’s all I can say.
I don’t get the vibe you would listen to what the international humanitarian law says about real world situations where war actually occurs, therefore I won’t waste my time spelling this out.
I visited 3 of the links you gave me. One is newer than my comment, and it is dedicated to UN experts, as opposed to the organization, so still not a contradiction to my comment. They seem biased to me, focusing hard on the “children are dying” argument and totally ignoring any right of Israel for self defense in the aftermath of October 7th. Here’s one thing I don’t understand, maybe you can help me: if Gaza has seen no fresh water for weeks, as so many say, why is it “only” 11.000 dead and not hundreds of thousands, or a million?
The other from 2021 talks about investigations by the ICC against Israel and Hamas. And you know what? I’m glad they’re looking into that. Alas so far it didn’t get to any conclusions.
Then you mixed in the apartheid charge in a comment over genocide. I think that’s incoherent as an argument but won’t fight against that one.
And then there’s the global south, which apparently has a long brewed hatred against Israel for reasons I don’t know. That didn’t start with October 7th. I’m aware of deep seated antisemitism in their leftist parties, and I know that the german Nazis fled to South America when they could, but don’t know enough about their politics to contextualize a single article. So I can’t say anything about that, other than I never heard something from down their that made it clear they even try to get away from antisemitism.
In conclusion the word genocide, which is quite well defined, still doesn’t seem to uphold to the situation in Gaza. Particularly this week seems to show that a genocide is not Israel’s intention, even when it is in a situation of absolute power. At least not while anyone else than their far right extremist parties has something to say.
Now, what happens in situations where the Hamas has absolute power we saw during those dreadful hours on October 7th. They hunt down civilians, stopping at nothing unless stopped by force.
Tell me, how should Israel fight such an opponent, who just today, in the context of a ceasefire called for escalation.
And even if they don’t do that they’ll join only communities where the bias is already there.
Guess you’re one of today’s lucky 10000
Confused. So that’s a thing where you agree?
Or do you think that’s my position?
Or do you just post something to shut down calling outs of propaganda narratives?
deleted by creator
As I said in the other comment, not falling for one sides propaganda doesn’t automatically mean the other side is right. What we have on social media is propaganda for a supposed Palestinian side, but overwhelmingly it’s Hamas’ talking points, which are clearly anti Israel, but lacking in the “pro Palestinian” cause.
Oh dear.
Distancing yourself from one propaganda side is all well and fine, but that doesn’t mean the other side is automatically in the right, you know?
And you are using the other side’s words and narratives, which frankly is their propaganda.
Pretty sure you could answer that yourself if you wanted to.
To focus so overly much on Israels propaganda in today’s social media landscape is propaganda itself.
Pretty much on all channels there’s a between 10:1 and 20:1 relationship between pro Palestinian vs pro Israel comments.
Source: https://www.tagesschau.de/faktenfinder/israel-hamas-social-media-100.html
Introducing regulations usually doesn’t mean complete and utter ban.
First of all, gun laws have been more or less the same for the past 100 years in the U.S., so how can they be the cause of the recent rise in mass shootings? Simple answer: they’re not.
So guns changed over the past 100 years, but the laws did not adjust. Sounds like a bad idea. How can a new technology a cause for a new problem? Did that ever happen???/s
Semi-automatic rifles were not overly widespread before the 1990, and when they became, in 1994 there was a time-limited ban for semi-automatic firearms, which then expired in 2004. And what are the major concerns for mass shootings in recent years? It is semi-automatic firearms.
If they were serious about curbing gun violence, their focus wouldn’t be on mass shootings so much as smaller-scale gun crime.
Why do you think they want to ban all guns? But when you’ve a gun proponents such as in the US you gotta get real about what you can achieve. So it is not hypocrisy to focus on assault weaponry.
That hobby thing can be said about many forbidden things, for example smoking cannabis.
Happened in various countries, i.e. Australia in 1996/97, UK after the Dunblane school massacre in 1996, Japan post WW2, South Africa in 2000, Colombia in 2000 and 2016, New Zealand after Christchurch.
Strategies and success vary, but it’s not unheard of.
Many liberals have terrible views about gun violence in general IMO, and a serious lack of comprehension of the problem.
Could you elaborate that a bit?
The side you defend as being clearly in the right has quite a list of war crimes, including genocide, on their table. At least according to the Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which you also so gladly refer to, when it comes to blaming Israel:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd4lrsDRg3HbJqoAf0BlAe7BHJuzpQB_Le27Iureq9vpCoBkw/viewform?pli=1