There is such a thing as a rule of international law that defines what’s a valid target during war. A school is not, a music festival also not. Military bases are always a target even if they are within otherwise protected buildings.
I’m not dehumanizing Palestinians. I took part in protests for humanitarian aid in the past and even donated to their cause.
I feel people like you always see an ideal world where there are only perfect solutions. I’ve yet to read people arguing like that write what would’ve been a better option after the massacre. Just ignore that that group just slaughtered civilians and took hostages certainly is not an option as they’d feel motivated to do it again and it’s only reasonable to seek out justice.
So what’s a better option than telling people to evacuate and target bases used by Hamas afterwards? Going in with the army on the ground surely is far worse for everyone involved.
I know that Israel has the upper hand in this and it’s always easier to support the underdog but in this both sites are shitty and Israel is by far less so than Hamas. The fact that civilians are there suffering inbetween is completely tragic - but a lot of them are supporting or at least enabling Hamas (which is why Egypt won’t open their border for refugees).
The only reason for that attack by Hamas was to end the official talks between Israel and Saudi Arabia for peace in the region - that alone should tell you who has the moral high ground in this conflict. There’s a reason Iran is financing Hamas like this since they can’t accept a country like Israel existing and if they manage to make peace with more of the surrounding countries then it’ll be very hard to change that fact that Israel has a right to exist.
Sure Netanjahu is an asshole and the radical settlers are only pouring oil in the fire but in the end it was Hamas that officially made it their target to eradicate Israel which made them quit any peace talks.
My heart is with the civilians there but in the end it’s kind of similar to the allies bombing Germany after their people first supported the Nazis and then at least stayed complicit. Sure there were civilian deaths of innocents, too, but in the big picture it seems justified doesn’t it? And I say that as a German living in one of the cities that was hit hardest.
If people are supporting or at least accepting a regime like the one in Gaza that’s using them as shields there is only so much you can do if the target is to get rid of that regime.
Proximity shielding is bullshit and used to justify killing and DEHUMANIZING Palestinians. The idea of people being human shields in their own homes is genocidal bullshit used to justify killing them. Israel tops this list.
I will keep that in CAPS, thanks. I don’t care how many times you donated or protested. It doesn’t change what Israel does which you sit here defending.
The idea of people being human shields in their own homes is genocidal bullshit used to justify killing them.
So how do you call it if hamas is building their bases of operation in civilian buildings or launch their rockets from schools and hospitals exactly because they KNOW it’s impossible to target them there without also hitting civilians?
Why is egypt not accepting refugees? Because they know that a big part of the palestinians are actually supporting hamas and are not just victims here and they don’t want to deal with the risk of those people radicalizing themselves further within Egypt and having to deal with that.
And as for the dehumanizing part: which party did deliberately chose to deliberately attack civilians and not “just” accepted them as collateral damage? Sure the latter is also horrible and should be kept to an absolute minimum but the first is absolutely indefensible. There’s a reason why at every other pro-palestine rally right now there are people shouting to exterminate all the jews and why jews are scared wearing their kippah again: this whole thing is not just about standing with civilians in gaza but actually coming from an anti-semitic point a lot of the time.
I am going to copy this that I wrote long ago about proximity shielding. Proximity shielding and the idea of human shields is the excuse Israel is using to completely wipe out full Palestinian families.
So how do you call it if hamas is building their bases of operation in civilian buildings or launch their rockets from schools and hospitals exactly because they KNOW it’s impossible to target them there without also hitting civilians?
Israel should just not fucking hit civilians then. Who in the fuck shoots through a baby to get to an enemy?
Authors Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini, elaborating on their book, Human Shields: A History of People in the Line of Fire, discuss “proximate shields”, humans as shields merely due to proximity to belligerents and assert that this type has become “by far the most prominent type of shield in contemporary discourse”. They say that the proximate shielding accusation has been used by States to cover-up war crimes against civilian populations and that human rights organizations frequently fail to question this charge which they claim is being improperly used to justify civilian deaths.[7]
There are several pieces that discuss this idea, but here are some.
Our research suggests that human rights and humanitarian organizations have been complicit with this framing exercise and that it is urgent to have a frank conversation about human shields and the legal and political implications of the human shielding accusation. Both in our book and in several academic articles, we have shown that hi-tech States spend considerable resources on media campaigns and mobilize legal and military expertise to justify their use of lethal violence in cities where civilians are trapped.[ii] We describe how human shields, and particularly the charge of proximate shielding, are being widely used by States and their militaries to justify civilian deaths in asymmetric conflicts, and how it has become a major tool in what we have called the ‘erosion’ of the civilian.
**
If you turn your eyes back to the wiki page I first linked under the section on Israel and Palestine:
Israel has used the charge, in what has been termed its ‘infowar’ on social media,[56] to explain the high ratio of civilian vs military casualties in its conflict with Gaza. In Operation Cast Lead 100 Gazans died for every Israeli, and the civilian ratio was 400 Gazans to 1 Israeli. Israeli spokesmen explained the difference by alleging that Hamas used civilians as shields. It has been argued that no evidence has come to light proving these claims.[57][58][59][60] In September 2004, Justice Aharon Barak presiding over the Israeli Supreme Court, issued a demand that the IDF desist from the practice of using Palestinians as human shields, and in October outlawed the procedure.[61] The independent human rights NGOs B’tselem and Amnesty International have stated that ample evidence exists in conflicts after that date that Israel has employed Palestinians as human shields. According to B’tselem, the practice goes back to 1967.[55][61]
By these means, entire populations and vast cities are reduced to war space. Prevailing hierarchies of humanity ensure that some places and some people are far more likely to find themselves expendable through the twisted logics and framings of the human shield.
I hope this makes my point clear but basically: Israel is using proximity shielding (aka accusing Hamas of using civilians as human shields) to justify ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and has itself had to outlaw the use of Palestinians as human shields because it was a normal part of Israeli military operations and totally allowed until all the human rights groups finally succeeded in outlawing it, and yet Israel still sometimes uses it.
Do you even realize that you failed to refute my entire argument? You just wrote a long Red Herring.
Everything you said here is 100% irrelevant to the fact that your logic used to justify the genocide of Palestinians is the same logic used to justify the terror attacks on Isreali citizens.
That was my argument.
Logic doesn’t care what your feelings are or what international laws dictate. Your argumemt’s framework used to justify Isreal’s genocide can be flipped and used in the very same way to justify Hamas’ actions. I’ve already demonstrated that above.
I could argue against your other points here, but that’s not necessary when you’re breaking the sacred law of non-contradiction. You’re argument can’t be true for Israel and false for Hamas. Your argument is invalid.
No matter what new claims you stake, it won’t change the fact that the core of your argument is invalid. You don’t keep adding onto a compromised foundation; you rebuild.
There is such a thing as a rule of international law that defines what’s a valid target during war. A school is not, a music festival also not. Military bases are always a target even if they are within otherwise protected buildings.
I’m not dehumanizing Palestinians. I took part in protests for humanitarian aid in the past and even donated to their cause.
I feel people like you always see an ideal world where there are only perfect solutions. I’ve yet to read people arguing like that write what would’ve been a better option after the massacre. Just ignore that that group just slaughtered civilians and took hostages certainly is not an option as they’d feel motivated to do it again and it’s only reasonable to seek out justice.
So what’s a better option than telling people to evacuate and target bases used by Hamas afterwards? Going in with the army on the ground surely is far worse for everyone involved.
I know that Israel has the upper hand in this and it’s always easier to support the underdog but in this both sites are shitty and Israel is by far less so than Hamas. The fact that civilians are there suffering inbetween is completely tragic - but a lot of them are supporting or at least enabling Hamas (which is why Egypt won’t open their border for refugees).
The only reason for that attack by Hamas was to end the official talks between Israel and Saudi Arabia for peace in the region - that alone should tell you who has the moral high ground in this conflict. There’s a reason Iran is financing Hamas like this since they can’t accept a country like Israel existing and if they manage to make peace with more of the surrounding countries then it’ll be very hard to change that fact that Israel has a right to exist.
Sure Netanjahu is an asshole and the radical settlers are only pouring oil in the fire but in the end it was Hamas that officially made it their target to eradicate Israel which made them quit any peace talks.
My heart is with the civilians there but in the end it’s kind of similar to the allies bombing Germany after their people first supported the Nazis and then at least stayed complicit. Sure there were civilian deaths of innocents, too, but in the big picture it seems justified doesn’t it? And I say that as a German living in one of the cities that was hit hardest.
If people are supporting or at least accepting a regime like the one in Gaza that’s using them as shields there is only so much you can do if the target is to get rid of that regime.
Proximity shielding is bullshit and used to justify killing and DEHUMANIZING Palestinians. The idea of people being human shields in their own homes is genocidal bullshit used to justify killing them. Israel tops this list.
I will keep that in CAPS, thanks. I don’t care how many times you donated or protested. It doesn’t change what Israel does which you sit here defending.
So how do you call it if hamas is building their bases of operation in civilian buildings or launch their rockets from schools and hospitals exactly because they KNOW it’s impossible to target them there without also hitting civilians?
Why is egypt not accepting refugees? Because they know that a big part of the palestinians are actually supporting hamas and are not just victims here and they don’t want to deal with the risk of those people radicalizing themselves further within Egypt and having to deal with that.
And as for the dehumanizing part: which party did deliberately chose to deliberately attack civilians and not “just” accepted them as collateral damage? Sure the latter is also horrible and should be kept to an absolute minimum but the first is absolutely indefensible. There’s a reason why at every other pro-palestine rally right now there are people shouting to exterminate all the jews and why jews are scared wearing their kippah again: this whole thing is not just about standing with civilians in gaza but actually coming from an anti-semitic point a lot of the time.
I am going to copy this that I wrote long ago about proximity shielding. Proximity shielding and the idea of human shields is the excuse Israel is using to completely wipe out full Palestinian families.
Israel should just not fucking hit civilians then. Who in the fuck shoots through a baby to get to an enemy?
If you check the Wikipedia page for human shields:
There are several pieces that discuss this idea, but here are some.
In this analysis piece of proximity shielding, we read:
If you turn your eyes back to the wiki page I first linked under the section on Israel and Palestine:
Finally, this article discusses the politics surrounding the idea of human shields
I hope this makes my point clear but basically: Israel is using proximity shielding (aka accusing Hamas of using civilians as human shields) to justify ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and has itself had to outlaw the use of Palestinians as human shields because it was a normal part of Israeli military operations and totally allowed until all the human rights groups finally succeeded in outlawing it, and yet Israel still sometimes uses it.
Do you even realize that you failed to refute my entire argument? You just wrote a long Red Herring.
Everything you said here is 100% irrelevant to the fact that your logic used to justify the genocide of Palestinians is the same logic used to justify the terror attacks on Isreali citizens.
That was my argument.
Logic doesn’t care what your feelings are or what international laws dictate. Your argumemt’s framework used to justify Isreal’s genocide can be flipped and used in the very same way to justify Hamas’ actions. I’ve already demonstrated that above.
I could argue against your other points here, but that’s not necessary when you’re breaking the sacred law of non-contradiction. You’re argument can’t be true for Israel and false for Hamas. Your argument is invalid.
No matter what new claims you stake, it won’t change the fact that the core of your argument is invalid. You don’t keep adding onto a compromised foundation; you rebuild.