256 Gazans killed by unlawful Israeli bombardment

[Heloin]

Hamas rockets are just as accurate as when they first started firing, as in not at all. The Iron dome does stop most of the rockets that are launched but the best we can work out from the data we have is that honestly the Hamas rockets are to inaccurate to be considered an existential threat to Israel even when you don't take into account the Iron Dome.

A threat doesn't have to be existential to illicit a response. That would be silly. The existential threat to an individuals life could easily justify a response.

Then why is it bad when Hamas fires a missile. They fire missiles because Israel bombs the Gaza Strip or attacks Palestinians in the West Bank. If someone thinks the threat of their civilians being killed justifies a response that includes targeting civilians then Hamas's actions and Israel's should not be considered separate except on who is actually effective.

This isn't support for the actions of Hamas but the only way you can justify the bombing of the Gaza strip is either hypocrisy or support for both sides doing it.

[Wallenburg]

If the IDF wanted to destroy Hamas, it could have easily done so in the last 43 years. No, it's objective is to murder and terrorize civilians, which is why that's what they do instead of destroying Hamas.

If you can't tell if someone is or isn't a civilian noncombatant, you are obligated not to attack them under international law.

That's called terrorism.

The US' objective in the Vietnam war was to destroy North Vietnam or at least defend the south. They could not due to guerrilla tactics, the same kind of guerrilla tactics Hamas uses. The US killed civies, but were never prosecuted. That's not terrorism. Terrorism is an act intentionally meant to harm civilians. The IDF's actions are meant to destroy Hamas, but are reckless in terms of collateral damage.

Do you really want to die on the napalm-soaked hill of "the US didn't do terrorism in Vietnam"?

[Novus America]

If the IDF wanted to destroy Hamas, it could have easily done so in the last 43 years. No, it's objective is to murder and terrorize civilians, which is why that's what they do instead of destroying Hamas.

If you can't tell if someone is or isn't a civilian noncombatant, you are obligated not to attack them under international law.

That's called terrorism.

The US' objective in the Vietnam war was to destroy North Vietnam or at least defend the south. They could not due to guerrilla tactics, the same kind of guerrilla tactics Hamas uses. The US killed civies, but were never prosecuted. That's not terrorism. Terrorism is an act intentionally meant to harm civilians. The IDF's actions are meant to destroy Hamas, but are reckless in terms of collateral damage.

Actually it was all political.
The US politicians were unable to do what was needed to win although they could have. And by extension the people who elected them. We could have won, if we wanted to pay the costs needed to win.

The same issue is here in Israel. Israel has the military, demographic and economic power to take over Gaza and create a replacement government for it. But its voters and politicians are not willing to pay the required human, political, economic and diplomatic cost.

In both cases Israel and the US could afford a victory, but just because you can afford something does not mean you are willing to pay it.

A simple but apt analogy. You lose the war when you are unable or unwilling to pay the costs (not just monetary but human and political) required to continue it.

If you only have $100 to spend, and I offer you something for $50 you can afford it, but that does not mean you want to buy it.
But if I offer you something for $200 it does not matter if you want it or not.

But in the case of the US in Vietnam or Israel with Gaza it is the former. Not the latter.

[Jutlop]

The US' objective in the Vietnam war was to destroy North Vietnam or at least defend the south. They could not due to guerrilla tactics, the same kind of guerrilla tactics Hamas uses. The US killed civies, but were never prosecuted. That's not terrorism. Terrorism is an act intentionally meant to harm civilians. The IDF's actions are meant to destroy Hamas, but are reckless in terms of collateral damage.

Actually it was all political.
The US politicians were unable to do what was needed to win although they could have. And by extension the people who elected them. We could have won, if we wanted to pay the costs needed to win.

The same issue is here in Israel. Israel has the military, demographic and economic power to take over Gaza and create a replacement government for it. But its voters and politicians are not willing to pay the required human, political, economic and diplomatic cost.

In both cases Israel and the US could afford a victory, but just because you can afford something does not mean you are willing to pay it.

A simple but apt analogy. You lose the war when you are unable or unwilling to pay the costs (not just monetary but human and political) required to continue it.

If you only have $100 to spend, and I offer you something for $50 you can afford it, but that does not mean you want to buy it.
But if I offer you something for $200 it does not matter if you want it or not.

But in the case of the US in Vietnam or Israel with Gaza it is the former. Not the latter.

There are other reasons for why they pulled out of gaza,
it's impossibly difficult to build jewish settlement on one of the densest places in the world.
Civil unrest
israeli soldiers were easy targets for hamas sniper fire,
the cost of occupation was iincredibly high and it was unsustainable

[SD_Film Artists]

I think it is both intentional and cowardly of Hamas to fire their rockets from public areas with many innocents, such as schools. Despite not fully fitting the term, I don't find 'human shield' to be too inaccurate since the reason they're firing from those locations is to try to deter Israel from firing back as quickly or as powerfully as they are able.

Not to mention firing unguided missiles into cities is murderous in of itself.

Israel just deciding that they don't give a shit about innocent kids and firing back anyway is by no means excused by this. It's not helped by other things Israel is doing such as forcing Islamic buildings to stop prayer services so they can use their loudspeakers to blast Israeli government messages either.

Hamas being bad doesn't make Israel good and vice versa. One side is a bunch of racial supremacists who think being Jewish makes you better than other people and the other side are antisemitic scumbags who wanna blow up buses full of innocent people. Both sides are bigots and cowards. The good guys in this fight are the civilians who didn't wanna be part of this, like most wars.

I'd like to know what the 'free Palestine', 'river to the sea' people think about that. It seems like Hamas are like the looters of BLM; tolerated and accepted but when their crimes are pointed out they're suddenly 'not a part of us, we're not a monolithic hivemind lolollol"

[Dowaesk]

Hamas being bad doesn't make Israel good and vice versa. One side is a bunch of racial supremacists who think being Jewish makes you better than other people and the other side are antisemitic scumbags who wanna blow up buses full of innocent people. Both sides are bigots and cowards. The good guys in this fight are the civilians who didn't wanna be part of this, like most wars.

I'd like to know what the 'free Palestine', 'river to the sea' people think about that. It seems like Hamas are like the looters of BLM; tolerated and accepted but when their crimes are pointed out they're suddenly 'not a part of us, we're not a monolithic hivemind lolollol"

Everytime something of Israel comes up. You always talk about Hamas. Why dont u leave Hamas and actually talk about Israel.

[New Jacobland]

I'd like to know what the 'free Palestine', 'river to the sea' people think about that. It seems like Hamas are like the looters of BLM; tolerated and accepted but when their crimes are pointed out they're suddenly 'not a part of us, we're not a monolithic hivemind lolollol"

Everytime something of Israel comes up. You always talk about Hamas. Why dont u leave Hamas and actually talk about Israel.

Well, they are related. By the way this thread isn't about Israel exclusively, it is about the current semi-war, which includes Hamas.

[South Americanastan]

The US' objective in the Vietnam war was to destroy North Vietnam or at least defend the south. They could not due to guerrilla tactics, the same kind of guerrilla tactics Hamas uses. The US killed civies, but were never prosecuted. That's not terrorism. Terrorism is an act intentionally meant to harm civilians. The IDF's actions are meant to destroy Hamas, but are reckless in terms of collateral damage.

Do you really want to die on the napalm-soaked hill of "the US didn't do terrorism in Vietnam"?

First off, Vietnam was not terrorism, but that’s a debate for another thread. I’m trying to say that this is not the first time something like Gaza has happened and it will not be the last.

[SD_Film Artists]

I'd like to know what the 'free Palestine', 'river to the sea' people think about that. It seems like Hamas are like the looters of BLM; tolerated and accepted but when their crimes are pointed out they're suddenly 'not a part of us, we're not a monolithic hivemind lolollol"

Everytime something of Israel comes up. You always talk about Hamas. Why dont u leave Hamas and actually talk about Israel.

Because it's kind of relevant to the thread topic* and it's not as if there isn't already enough Israel stuff; indeed some of the pages have been an anti-Israel circle-jerk.

*unless you take the new OP literally, and even then Farnhamia has confirmed that this thread would have been merged with the other one were it not for a technical glitch.

[Page]

Hamas being bad doesn't make Israel good and vice versa. One side is a bunch of racial supremacists who think being Jewish makes you better than other people and the other side are antisemitic scumbags who wanna blow up buses full of innocent people. Both sides are bigots and cowards. The good guys in this fight are the civilians who didn't wanna be part of this, like most wars.

I'd like to know what the 'free Palestine', 'river to the sea' people think about that. It seems like Hamas are like the looters of BLM; tolerated and accepted but when their crimes are pointed out they're suddenly 'not a part of us, we're not a monolithic hivemind lolollol"

The only thing Hamas and BLM have in common is that they're both fighting against the real looters. And that their enemies will hurt innocent bystanders just for being in their vicinity.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The US' objective in the Vietnam war was to destroy North Vietnam or at least defend the south. They could not due to guerrilla tactics, the same kind of guerrilla tactics Hamas uses. The US killed civies, but were never prosecuted. That's not terrorism. Terrorism is an act intentionally meant to harm civilians. The IDF's actions are meant to destroy Hamas, but are reckless in terms of collateral damage.

Do you really want to die on the napalm-soaked hill of "the US didn't do terrorism in Vietnam"?

Do you want to die on the hill of "Was Dresden/Coventry/Stalingrad/Warsaw/Leningrad/Tokyo/Hiroshima/Nagasaki terrorism"?

[Borderlands of Rojava]

If the IDF wanted to destroy Hamas, it could have easily done so in the last 43 years. No, it's objective is to murder and terrorize civilians, which is why that's what they do instead of destroying Hamas.

If you can't tell if someone is or isn't a civilian noncombatant, you are obligated not to attack them under international law.

That's called terrorism.

The US' objective in the Vietnam war was to destroy North Vietnam or at least defend the south. They could not due to guerrilla tactics, the same kind of guerrilla tactics Hamas uses. The US killed civies, but were never prosecuted. That's not terrorism. Terrorism is an act intentionally meant to harm civilians. The IDF's actions are meant to destroy Hamas, but are reckless in terms of collateral damage.

Yes it was terrorism. There were numerous massacres and rapes of Vietnamese civilians by the US Army.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Do you really want to die on the napalm-soaked hill of "the US didn't do terrorism in Vietnam"?

Do you want to die on the hill of "Was Dresden/Coventry/Stalingrad/Warsaw/Leningrad/Tokyo/Hiroshima/Nagasaki terrorism"?

Do you really want that question answered?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Do you want to die on the hill of "Was Dresden/Coventry/Stalingrad/Warsaw/Leningrad/Tokyo/Hiroshima/Nagasaki terrorism"?

Do you really want that question answered?

Is war terrorism? Is this the level of discourse these days here?

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Hamas being bad doesn't make Israel good and vice versa. One side is a bunch of racial supremacists who think being Jewish makes you better than other people and the other side are antisemitic scumbags who wanna blow up buses full of innocent people. Both sides are bigots and cowards. The good guys in this fight are the civilians who didn't wanna be part of this, like most wars.

I'd like to know what the 'free Palestine', 'river to the sea' people think about that. It seems like Hamas are like the looters of BLM; tolerated and accepted but when their crimes are pointed out they're suddenly 'not a part of us, we're not a monolithic hivemind lolollol"

BLM is a movement, not an organization. Hamas is an organization. BLM wants to improve black lives. Hamas wants to bring about Holocaust 2.0 in their hypothetical state of Palestine from the river to the sea. Most BLM protests are peaceful. Hamas doesn't remotely believe believe peace.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Do you really want that question answered?

Is war terrorism? Is this the level of discourse these days here?

Is firebombing civilians centers terrorism? Yes, yes it most certainly is terrorism. I would argue that most wars are pretty terroristic in the way they're fought, hence why I'm not a fan of war. And as for Vietnam, I struggle to see how raping and murdering Vietnamese civilians isn't terror. But that's just me.

[SD_Film Artists]

I'd like to know what the 'free Palestine', 'river to the sea' people think about that. It seems like Hamas are like the looters of BLM; tolerated and accepted but when their crimes are pointed out they're suddenly 'not a part of us, we're not a monolithic hivemind lolollol"

The only thing Hamas and BLM have in common is that they're both fighting against the real looters. And that their enemies will hurt innocent bystanders just for being in their vicinity.

You know that could easily be turned around depending on one's biases. It's basically "we're the good guys because of Justice"

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Is war terrorism? Is this the level of discourse these days here?

Is firebombing civilians centers terrorism? Yes, yes it most certainly is terrorism. I would argue that most wars are pretty terroristic in the way they're fought, hence why I'm not a fan of war. And as for Vietnam, I struggle to see how raping and murdering Vietnamese civilians isn't terror. But that's just me.

So yes. This is the level of discourse these days here.

[SD_Film Artists]

I'd like to know what the 'free Palestine', 'river to the sea' people think about that. It seems like Hamas are like the looters of BLM; tolerated and accepted but when their crimes are pointed out they're suddenly 'not a part of us, we're not a monolithic hivemind lolollol"

BLM is a movement, not an organization. Hamas is an organization. BLM wants to improve black lives. Hamas wants to bring about Holocaust 2.0 in their hypothetical state of Palestine from the river to the sea. Most BLM protests are peaceful. Hamas doesn't remotely believe believe peace.

The pro-Palestine movement is also not a centralised organisation and yet Hamas keeps getting the benefit of a blind eye being turned to it, just as BLM types are happy to say "riots are the language of the voiceless" or "you'd want to riot if you were oppressed" right up until actual crimes are pointed out and then it's "we're not a hivemind".

[Insaanistan]

BLM is a movement, not an organization. Hamas is an organization. BLM wants to improve black lives. Hamas wants to bring about Holocaust 2.0 in their hypothetical state of Palestine from the river to the sea. Most BLM protests are peaceful. Hamas doesn't remotely believe believe peace.

The pro-Palestine movement is also not a centralised organisation and yet Hamas keeps getting the benefit of a blind eye being turned to it, just as BLM types are happy to say "riots are the language of the voiceless" or "you'd want to riot if you were oppressed" right up until actual crimes are pointed out and then it's "we're not a hivemind".

No, Hamas gets blamed for every bad thing that happens in the Holy Land, not absolved from blame.

Additionally, notice how MLK was the one saying “The riot is the language of the unheard.”
Was MLK known to support rioting? No.
Did he understand why oppressed people were rioting? Heck yeah, dude. That’s why he said that.

[NationStates Puppet]

No. Just because the Jews historically had a kingdom (which was short lived btw) there does not give them right to it. Speaking like that, the Romans have a right to many places.

The Jews had a kingdom there historically which is why they have a claim to the land in question. The reason why their claim is legitimate is mainly because they won the war in 1948, and in 1956, 1968, and 1972. If Israel lost a war to a bad enough extent that they lose all their territory, then I'd consider their claim illegitimate.

If the Spanish kick the English out of England (for example) does that give them the right to England for ever?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The Jews had a kingdom there historically which is why they have a claim to the land in question. The reason why their claim is legitimate is mainly because they won the war in 1948, and in 1956, 1968, and 1972. If Israel lost a war to a bad enough extent that they lose all their territory, then I'd consider their claim illegitimate.

If the Spanish kick the English out of England (for example) does that give them the right to England for ever?

Unironically yes, or until somebody, or the English themselves kick the Spanish out of there. Is how right of conquest works mate, even though we've been pretending since the 30's that we're all peace-loving people who have solemnly forsworn the use of violence and war to obtain geopolitical goals.

[SD_Film Artists]

If the Spanish kick the English out of England (for example) does that give them the right to England for ever?

Unironically yes, or until somebody, or the English themselves kick the Spanish out of there. Is how right of conquest works mate, even though we've been pretending since the 30's that we're all peace-loving people who have solemnly forsworn the use of violence and war to obtain geopolitical goals.

Indeed it already has happened with William the Conqueror and to a lesser extent with William of Orange. They then became English themselves as the rain & scones corrupts one's veins with chronic Englishness, thus both France and England see 'Guillaume' as a national figure.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Sure seems like one to me, given Hamas and the Fatah dominated PLO fought a battles, killed each other’s forces and now there are effectively two different governments claiming to control the same land. Regardless of what you call it, it makes resolution of the Israel-Palestinian Arab conflict even more unlikely.

Resolution would require both sides to come to an agreement but the Palestinian Arabs cannot even come to an agreement on who actually is the real government.

Of course the utter political dysfunction in Israel is not helping matters either.

Both sides have to much INTERNAL disagreement to agree, they first have to reach some level of internal agreement before they can reach some external agreement with the other side.

It doesn't help that Gaza and West Bank are geographically separate. It makes it all too easy for different governments to take hold in either.

As I recall Israel offered to build a tunnel connecting part of the West Bank with the Gaza strip for an Arab Palestinian state, and the Palestinians turned it down. The Palestinian Arabs want all of Palestine.

[Insaanistan]

You guys remember those Pro-Palestine protesters who shut down a drone factory that was selling drones to Israel’s military.
Yeahhh... they’re still there.