You said it. Actions of one side are more reprehensible than of the other. In fact, much more reprehensible from what I see.
One side: "We understand you have terrorists, but it's not our responsibility to help you with it because we value lives of our people. We are going to help you with basic supplies like water, electricity, internet etc., and protect ourselves with the iron dome. It all costs a lot but lives are really what matters."
Another side: "Our objective will not be completed until your country and citizens stop existing. We were elected having this objective by our people. We will teach our children that this is also their objective. We will build rockets. We will launch them at you even if some of them may not reach your territory. We will launch them from civillian buildings because we know you care about lives of civillians. You will think twice before launching anything back, and when you do, you will be blamed by the world for killing innocents. We will kill as many of your civilians as we can, by our hands. We will brake their limbs and hold them hostages, even if they are the citizens of other countries. And when you retaliate, the world will blame you for what you have done. The world must understand that by killing your people we fight for our future, and give us everything we need. This will be glorious, and you will die, and we will prosper, and the world will forget we are the killers, and remember you as killers. We will throw every resource we have for that to happen, be it the money we got as a humanitarian aid for our citizens or baby dolls that should be indistinguishable from dead children with some mosaic. Oops we forgot the mosaic. You didnt see it. You are the killers."
Ignoring Jewish settlers in the West Bank, Gaza quite literally being a ghetto full of people forced off their land, the military checkpoints, the complete imbalance of deaths and suffering between the two sides.
As reprehensible as the violence is on both sides, Israel/Palestine is an apartheid state and Palestinians suffer far more than just from the effects of violence.
What exact violence? Israel provides Gaza with stuff they need. Including pipes for the water construction, that instead are used to build rockets.
Palestinians are doing terrorism, whether they understand it or not. Israel reacts to terrorism. Do you not agree that a country should react to acts of terrorism?
They absolutely should respond to acts of violent terrorism, and I didn't suggest they don't. However it's far from one sided.
The Gaza strip is an open air prison for over 2 million people, who can't even access, or travel for proper healthcare, where food and water are insecure or poorly available. Where you can't leave by either land or sea. Where even if you were one of the >1 million young people living there who managed to leave you'd be poor and uneducated.
But maybe you're not in Gaza. Maybe you're one of the Palestinians who live in the west bank can can barely travel without huge impediments, or may see your house demolished to make way for Israeli settlers, in what amounts to an apartheid system, widely condemned internationally by human rights organisations.
Hamas are absolutely disgusting, and the terrorist attack on Israel should be rightly condemned. But if you think Israel are the good guys here, and this is a black and white, good and evil situation you're not paying attention.
So they are responding, there is no problem with that.
Though I find it amusing that so much effort goes into outlining the hurdles of Palestinians only.
If you want to promote better lives for Palestinians, then maybe you should've started with themselves, to let them know they shouldn't have elected terrorists their leaders. Maybe Palestinians would understand that doing terrorism will not give them any good future?
Do you not agree that a country should react to acts of terrorism?
You're implying a false dichotomy, as though in response to a terrorist attack you either lie down and accept further attacks, or grind gaza into the dust.
No, I'm not. Grinding Giza to the dust is not what's being done. Hamas contribute more by firing uncontrollable missiles that also tend to fall in Gaza.
But you are implying a reality where every single sane person should ignore the existence and terrorism of hamas and Palestinians. Probably.
Grinding Giza to the dust is not what’s being done.
Hyperbole on my part, but not excessive given the post we're discussing this under.
Hamas contribute more by firing uncontrollable missiles that also tend to fall in Gaza.
Patently false. I'll refer you again to the pictures in this article.
But you are implying a reality where every single sane person should ignore the existence and terrorism of hamas and Palestinians.
This is the false dichotomy I referred to in my last comment. Perhaps you should look it up. We can acknowledge the existence of terrorism and respond appropriately without causing a humanitarian crisis.
This is classic American "fucked around and found out" diplomacy. Like a child with a hammer.
We can ... respond appropriately without causing a humanitarian crisis.
Yeah kindly explain how exactly maybe?
If hamas wouldn't use Palestinians as a shield there would be no crisis.
Hmm... it seems like the disparity of "badness" you describe would've been true a few months ago, but no longer is?
Most of what you've said about Palestinians also describes israel now? Seems that way anyway.
If we were looking for the path to peace with the least casualties, this doesn't seem like it.
Can you give any example of concrete case where Israel did anything comparable to what hamas did at October 7th?
No. I didn't say nor imply that I could. I'm not saying they're both as bad as each other. I'm saying that a humanitarian crisis is unfolding, and western nations are standing in support.
Support of what? Palestinians will get humanitarian aid either way. Problem is that they (well, hamas) will try to use it to build more rockets, not to improve their lives.
In support of Israel while they cause a humanitarian crisis.
And what exactly Palestinians have caused by slaughtering hundreds of civillians on October 7th? Nothing? They are innocent and should be left alone?
It's like you're intentionally ignoring what I'm saying. Of course they're not innocent. Yes they should be held accountable.
If you think killing 5,000 civilians is an appropriate response then I don't know what to say to you.
And the thing is there is no one to hold them accountable because there is no proper government and institutions in Gaza. Israel is different because it is being watched, and will be held accountable for any wrongdoings.
Now about 5,000.
Where exactly did you get it from? We know hamas is lying about a lot of things including deaths count. There was no evidence of those alleged 800 deaths at the "hospital bombing".
Why exactly do you think you need to throw big numbers here? Even one victim means Israel's actions must be examined and judged, yes. That goes without saying because of how Israel is connected to the rest of the world. But when hamas fires missiles from some building that, for example, has 100,000 civillians in it, it is hamas who says "it is okay if all these people are killed", not Israel. That much should be obvious even to Palestinians.
You again.
I respect you, but you need to understand that you and I are going to disagree as to whether or not Israel's response is appropriate under the circumstances. We could go through this whole tête-à-tête again, and we will reduce our respective positions down to this same disagreement.
Where exactly did you get it from?
Don't be daft. We've both been reading articles based on the same announcements by the hamas-run gazan health ministry. We both know those numbers are overstated, but my point remains the same whether it's over-stated by 500, 1000, or 4000. It doesn't matter.
Why exactly do you think you need to throw big numbers here?
IDK, why did you include 100,000 in your response?
But when hamas fires missiles from some building that, for example, has 100,000 civillians in it, it is hamas who says “it is okay if all these people are killed”, not Israel.
They've fired something like 7,000 missiles in the last 2 weeks and achieved 11 casualties.
You still didn't explain how we can "respond appropriately without causing a humanitarian crisis."
whether it's over-stated by 500, 1000, or 4000. It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter if you want more people to live but it proves a point. You can't trust terrorists.
why did you include 100,000 in your response?
To emphasize that even if that many are going to be killed technically by Israeli bombs, it's really hamas who put those people to danger in the first place. I don't think the defender is obligated to be 100% sure that no civillians would die from their strikes.
They've fired something like 7,000 missiles in the last 2 weeks and achieved 11 casualties.
Who, hamas? Well look at that, they turned out to be the good guys huh? Could it have something to do with iron dome and how Israel is actually trying to protect its citizens, I wonder? Hmm... Nah. Fuck Israel for having more casualties in their reckless bombing, right?
Goodness me. You're really stuck in this goodies vs baddies mentality.
You don't need to pick a side. You can condemn both sides for their shitty behavior.
Hamas are terrorists. They're untrustworthy. They're rapists and murderers.
Israel are causing a humanitarian crisis. The death of non-combatants on this scale is unacceptable.
Neither side are good guys.
Again, our disagreement centres around what level of force is appropriate to the threat.
Israel's citizens have been relatively safe from Hamas in recent years. Iron dome is very effective. All Israel needed to do to mitigate the threat was to maintain defensive positions. Of course this doesn't "erase Hamas", but it's just not possible to do that. You can't kill all the terrorists, you just create more.
And again, you didn't explain how we can "respond appropriately without causing a humanitarian crisis."
Neither side are good guys.
One side are terrorists.
All Israel needed to do to mitigate the threat was to maintain defensive positions.
Is that what you call shitty behavior that you condemn Israel for? That's less than optimal.
You can't kill all the terrorists, you just create more.
Doesn't sound true or right to me. This is like saying you can't rid the world of murderers. Manipulation here is that someone would understand the thought as "better leave them alone", and we know it doesn't work like that.
Most of what you've said about Palestinians also describes israel now? Seems that way anyway.
The .de is showing.
I'm from Australia.
Then you should be practical enough to realize that almost none of what was said about Palestinians in that statement describes Israel now.
Ok mate. Believe it or not, I'm not looking for an argument about who is most awful between Palestinians and Israelis.
My question is, why the world feels the need to take sides in this conflict rather than simply condemning the violence perpetrated by both sides.
The hatred violence, and wrongdoing does not need to be equal between all combatants in order for the hatred, violence, and wrongdoing to be condemned.
My question is, why the world feels the need to take sides in this conflict rather than simply condemning the violence perpetrated by both sides.
Well imagine that the native Australian population, the Aboriginals decoded they wanted their land back and started murdering all the white folk and they killed the equivalent of about 5,000 people (adjusted for Australia's population); mostly eldely and children. They restarted started a bombing campaign that threatened every inch of Australia. And they did this after ~60 years of similar actions on a smaller scale.
Would you and your countrymen submit to genocide for peace? Or would you fight back?
For you and I (USA), nations built on European Colonialism; it should be clear why that Colonialism was wrong but why it can't be undone. Trying to correct past atrocities with a modern genocide isn't acceptable and the last 20 years of Hamas's rule in Gaza has shown that Genocide is all it will accept.
Well, since Hamas doesn't represent all of Palestine, it doesn't make sense to decimate the whole of Palestine. Sure, send in special forces that track down Hamas and kill them. But don't carpet bomb civilian areas in the hopes you get the right people.
Also, you're saying Israel has been doing this on a smaller scale. I don't think that's entirely accurate. Yes, many years "just" a few hundred Palestinians were killed by Israel. But a few times Israel already committed atrocities much worse than what Hamas did on October 7th. And that's ignoring that Palestine already has half the population of Israel. And also ignoring all the other ways Israel has been oppressing them, like heavily regulating and limiting trade with other nations or preventing Palestine from having an army
Are you seriously trying to argue that Israel doing this to Palestine for the past half century should be ignored? Just because maybe the majority of years it was less deaths? Do you seriously not understand why Palestinians are fighting back? Or do you seriously believe that Palestinians are the aggressors here?
They're not decimating the whole of Palestine. They're attacking the parts that Hamas rules.
There are Israelis who pour concrete mix into the water in the West Bank.
That's horrendous. And is part of the reason why violence in the West Bank hasn't gotten the support for reprisals like violence from Gaza has.
So why is it that civilians keep dying then? Attacking the parts they rule makes it okay that civilians die?
That's just not analogous though.
I am loathe to defend hamas, but the UN stats just don't portray them as the aggressors.
If Australian aboriginals started terrorising the rest of us, of course we would use reasonable force to bring that to a stop. We would also be negotiating, and compromising. If we decided that peaceful solutions had been exhausted, I can assure you other countries wouldn't be sending us billions of dollars worth of hardware with which to exterminate them.
For the first years of Australia's colonization, there was militant Aboriginal resistance - of course, given their technological disadvantages, it was not successful and the indigenous population were slaughtered at every turn.
The most well-known and feared of the early insurrectionists - a Bidjigal man named Pemulwuy - is today celebrated by white Australian culture - one of Sydney's suburbs is named for him. The British were somewhat less charitable in 1802, when he was finally captured, shot and beheaded after many years of fighting against their presence in early Sydney.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Yes colonists did some very bad things in Australia 200 years ago. Should we not strove to hold ourselves to a higher standard?
"Yes Israel is creating a humanitarian crisis, but we it's fine to support their endeavours because we did some very bad things 200 years ago".
Sorry for the misunderstanding, I didn't say anything like that - go easy on those quote marks ;) - I'm just talking about Australian history, not the current events. I am cautious discussing history in this contentious thread because I'm really just interested in the discussion about indigenous Australians, who did resist occupation, to the extent they could. The colonial response to that became "The Frontier Wars". Which was quasi-official genocide.
There are parallels in colonization throughout history, of course, which is presumably how this particular discussion came about, but today's situation is obviously a vastly different time and place to early Australia and I'm not informed enough to opine on what's happening now. I'm just here reading stuff on Lemmy.
Having said all this, indigenous Australians were living for thousands of years without any formalized state, political or military structure. No metal, wheels, writing or permanent dwellings. Had there been less difference in technology and logistical capabilities between aboriginal Australians and the British in the early 1800s, then Australia would probably look very different than it does today.
Sure. I actually don't know that much about Australia's colonisation other than what we were taught in school, which I can assure you doesn't focus on the genocide part.
I've always found the "terra nullius" aspect of international law to be fascinating. James Cook is generally credited with Australia's discovery, but the West Coast had been visited many times by the dutch, and my favorite description of Cook is that he was "just the guy that steered the boat for Joseph Banks". Although they declared that there were no permanent settlements of any note, in the most recent decades this has been found to be false, in courts of law, many times over.
I am perhaps naively hopeful that the education curriculum has evolved since you were at school, although quite likely not. The genocide part is not a palatable discussion to most people and probably a little heavy for high school.
The British knew full-well what they were doing. The legal maneuvering necessary to dispossess the indigenous population is not unique to Australia's colonial history - and the British had plenty of practice subjugating more aggressive native populations before they founded Sydney.
You're quite right - the Dutch, and to a lesser extent the French were already aware of the Australian continent and must have made some contact with Aboriginal people. There were also informal outposts of whalers and seal-hunters that were probably established to some extent several years before British occupation.
There were many aboriginal people living on the continent when Cook and Banks dropped anchor in Sydney. The earliest accounts usually mention seeing smoke from campfires all along the coast. Most of the initial deaths were from disease. The British took smallpox cultures to Sydney with the first fleet in 1788 - within a year of their arrival in Sydney, disease killed between 50 and 90 percent of the indigenous population. Whether the British deliberately introduced smallpox to the aboriginal population is still debated, although I don't know why else they would carry smallpox cultures on the first fleet - maybe they already knew how to vaccinate with it - but I would think you could get the cultures from an infected person were that the case. What other reason for carrying smallpox to Australia on the first fleet could there be, unless it was a biological weapon?
In Van Diemen's Land (now Tasmania) the resistance to the settlers moving in on aboriginal hunting grounds became so troublesome that the government set up a program to capture or exterminate all native people in 1830 - by which time the Aboriginal population had already been reduced by 90 percent since settlement - the remaining few thousand aboriginal people were extremely hostile to the encroaching settlements and they were raiding and burning houses, killing settlers.
As in all conflicts, there are nuances and factors that we can't fully appreciate or empathize with from our current perspective, but what happened to the Aboriginal population during Australia's settlement should be a cause for national introspection - this makes the referendum result last week seem so disappointing to those who would like to see a more open acknowledgement of the darker history of Australia's founding - and greater efforts made to redress it.
Do you support Genociding the current European Australian population to return the land to the Aboriginals? Because that's what Hamas and the majority of Palestinians want and have been working towards for decades.
This is such a daft question.
A lot of land which has been occupied by Aboriginals has already been "returned" under a process known as native title claims. Its an ongoing process and yes I support this process.
That said, I'm sure you're proposing the absurdity of somehow returning all of Australia, which is not possible and no one supports that.
Similarly, returning Israel's land is not reasonably possible and no one would support that excepting radicalised Palestinians.
Your question is based on the flawed premise that one or other combatant is "right". They're both wrong.
That said, I’m sure you’re proposing the absurdity of somehow returning all of Australia, which is not possible and no one supports that.
Similarly, returning Israel’s land is not reasonably possible and no one would support that excepting radicalised Palestinians.
That's precisely what Hamas is demanding in Israel. Hamas is the reigning government in Gaza and according to polling is not only popular but would win an open election in the West Bank.
I am loathe to defend hamas, but the UN stats just don't portray them as the aggressors.
Mr Dog muffins, if the Aboriginals in Australia started a campaign of war against the white Austrailians, what makes you think the casualty numbers would be less skewed there?
If Australian aboriginals started terrorising the rest of us, of course we would use reasonable force to bring that to a stop. If we decided that peaceful solutions had been exhausted,
Well congrats now you're doing the same thing Israel is doing. Peaceful solutions with Hamas have been exhausted.
I can assure you other countries wouldn't be sending us billions of dollars worth of hardware with which to exterminate them.
How would you feel if we sent billions of dollars of Aid to the people trying to genocide you instead? What if we continued to commit billions in aid in the form of materials we knew were being used to create weapons to indiscriminately kill Australians. And then we condemned you for trying to stop that miltilitary aid?
The good news is, for countries like ours; we don't have to pretend to sit up on our high horse like the Europeans do. We have complicated, often evil histories with our colonized populations. But as much as we can and should call out that history as evil, as genocide; we should also know that you can't answer a genocide with genocide.
Those stats aren't from war-time - this isn't a spears vs guns situation. Sorry maye you're welcome to criticise me all you like for Australia's treatment of first nations people but your aboriginal metaphor is not analogous to the gaza conflict and isn't helping illustrate your point.
The core of our disagreement is the level of force used in response.
Forgive me, but I've come to expect a "fucked around and found out" mode of diplomacy from the US. As in, hamas threw the first punch so theres a moral imperative to grind gaza into the dust.
I don't see it that way. A few weeks ago there was a stale mate. Israel has adequate defences. Securing Israel with minimal loss of life ought to be the priority.
I'm happy to disagree in this regard, neither of us are going to change our positions.
Those stats aren't from war-time - this isn't a spears vs guns situation.
That's objectively wrong. There were several active conflicts during that time period. With similar targeted bombing campaigns, in 2008-2009, 2012 and 2014 with several smaller skirmishes in between.
The West knows they messed up with the actual historical countries of the area. Too many milenia of trying to take over and cause havoc (like in 63 BC when the Romans left a few hundred people alive of the natives like the Samaritans, the Crusades, etc.). They saw what the Germans did to European Jews and saw an opportunity: "If we can't make friends in the traditional sense, we'll create one."
They shipped Jews from all over the world to Palestine. As their citizens of these Western countries are either Christian or come from Christian families, all this Israel nonsense sounds vaguely correct. These countries acted like dogs. It got to the point where France even pretended to allies to Arabic countries, only to reveal it was a lie/trap.
Then the media comes in and sneakily replaces Palestinians with Hamas when it benefits Israel's cause even though Hamas hasn't went through elections in nearly two decades and the average age of someone from Gaza is somewhere between 14 and 18.
Israel is just a western invention to give the West an ally in the region and it worked because it all sounds vaguely biblical correct to a world where Christianity just means "I hate gays and abortions and we don't actually need to act like Jesus who was kind of Jewish anyways."
You said it. Actions of one side are more reprehensible than of the other. In fact, much more reprehensible from what I see.
One side: "We understand you have terrorists, but it's not our responsibility to help you with it because we value lives of our people. We are going to help you with basic supplies like water, electricity, internet etc., and protect ourselves with the iron dome. It all costs a lot but lives are really what matters."
Another side: "Our objective will not be completed until your country and citizens stop existing. We were elected having this objective by our people. We will teach our children that this is also their objective. We will build rockets. We will launch them at you even if some of them may not reach your territory. We will launch them from civillian buildings because we know you care about lives of civillians. You will think twice before launching anything back, and when you do, you will be blamed by the world for killing innocents. We will kill as many of your civilians as we can, by our hands. We will brake their limbs and hold them hostages, even if they are the citizens of other countries. And when you retaliate, the world will blame you for what you have done. The world must understand that by killing your people we fight for our future, and give us everything we need. This will be glorious, and you will die, and we will prosper, and the world will forget we are the killers, and remember you as killers. We will throw every resource we have for that to happen, be it the money we got as a humanitarian aid for our citizens or
baby dolls that should be indistinguishable from dead children with some mosaic. Oops we forgot the mosaic.You didnt see it. You are the killers."Ignoring Jewish settlers in the West Bank, Gaza quite literally being a ghetto full of people forced off their land, the military checkpoints, the complete imbalance of deaths and suffering between the two sides.
As reprehensible as the violence is on both sides, Israel/Palestine is an apartheid state and Palestinians suffer far more than just from the effects of violence.
What exact violence? Israel provides Gaza with stuff they need. Including pipes for the water construction, that instead are used to build rockets.
Palestinians are doing terrorism, whether they understand it or not. Israel reacts to terrorism. Do you not agree that a country should react to acts of terrorism?
They absolutely should respond to acts of violent terrorism, and I didn't suggest they don't. However it's far from one sided.
The Gaza strip is an open air prison for over 2 million people, who can't even access, or travel for proper healthcare, where food and water are insecure or poorly available. Where you can't leave by either land or sea. Where even if you were one of the >1 million young people living there who managed to leave you'd be poor and uneducated.
But maybe you're not in Gaza. Maybe you're one of the Palestinians who live in the west bank can can barely travel without huge impediments, or may see your house demolished to make way for Israeli settlers, in what amounts to an apartheid system, widely condemned internationally by human rights organisations.
Hamas are absolutely disgusting, and the terrorist attack on Israel should be rightly condemned. But if you think Israel are the good guys here, and this is a black and white, good and evil situation you're not paying attention.
So they are responding, there is no problem with that.
Though I find it amusing that so much effort goes into outlining the hurdles of Palestinians only.
If you want to promote better lives for Palestinians, then maybe you should've started with themselves, to let them know they shouldn't have elected terrorists their leaders. Maybe Palestinians would understand that doing terrorism will not give them any good future?
You're implying a false dichotomy, as though in response to a terrorist attack you either lie down and accept further attacks, or grind gaza into the dust.
No, I'm not. Grinding Giza to the dust is not what's being done. Hamas contribute more by firing uncontrollable missiles that also tend to fall in Gaza.
But you are implying a reality where every single sane person should ignore the existence and terrorism of hamas and Palestinians. Probably.
Hyperbole on my part, but not excessive given the post we're discussing this under.
Patently false. I'll refer you again to the pictures in this article.
This is the false dichotomy I referred to in my last comment. Perhaps you should look it up. We can acknowledge the existence of terrorism and respond appropriately without causing a humanitarian crisis.
This is classic American "fucked around and found out" diplomacy. Like a child with a hammer.
Yeah kindly explain how exactly maybe?
If hamas wouldn't use Palestinians as a shield there would be no crisis.
Hmm... it seems like the disparity of "badness" you describe would've been true a few months ago, but no longer is?
Most of what you've said about Palestinians also describes israel now? Seems that way anyway.
If we were looking for the path to peace with the least casualties, this doesn't seem like it.
Can you give any example of concrete case where Israel did anything comparable to what hamas did at October 7th?
No. I didn't say nor imply that I could. I'm not saying they're both as bad as each other. I'm saying that a humanitarian crisis is unfolding, and western nations are standing in support.
Support of what? Palestinians will get humanitarian aid either way. Problem is that they (well, hamas) will try to use it to build more rockets, not to improve their lives.
In support of Israel while they cause a humanitarian crisis.
And what exactly Palestinians have caused by slaughtering hundreds of civillians on October 7th? Nothing? They are innocent and should be left alone?
It's like you're intentionally ignoring what I'm saying. Of course they're not innocent. Yes they should be held accountable.
If you think killing 5,000 civilians is an appropriate response then I don't know what to say to you.
And the thing is there is no one to hold them accountable because there is no proper government and institutions in Gaza. Israel is different because it is being watched, and will be held accountable for any wrongdoings.
Now about 5,000.
Where exactly did you get it from? We know hamas is lying about a lot of things including deaths count. There was no evidence of those alleged 800 deaths at the "hospital bombing".
Why exactly do you think you need to throw big numbers here? Even one victim means Israel's actions must be examined and judged, yes. That goes without saying because of how Israel is connected to the rest of the world. But when hamas fires missiles from some building that, for example, has 100,000 civillians in it, it is hamas who says "it is okay if all these people are killed", not Israel. That much should be obvious even to Palestinians.
You again.
I respect you, but you need to understand that you and I are going to disagree as to whether or not Israel's response is appropriate under the circumstances. We could go through this whole tête-à-tête again, and we will reduce our respective positions down to this same disagreement.
Don't be daft. We've both been reading articles based on the same announcements by the hamas-run gazan health ministry. We both know those numbers are overstated, but my point remains the same whether it's over-stated by 500, 1000, or 4000. It doesn't matter.
IDK, why did you include 100,000 in your response?
They've fired something like 7,000 missiles in the last 2 weeks and achieved 11 casualties.
You still didn't explain how we can "respond appropriately without causing a humanitarian crisis."
It doesn't matter if you want more people to live but it proves a point. You can't trust terrorists.
To emphasize that even if that many are going to be killed technically by Israeli bombs, it's really hamas who put those people to danger in the first place. I don't think the defender is obligated to be 100% sure that no civillians would die from their strikes.
Who, hamas? Well look at that, they turned out to be the good guys huh? Could it have something to do with iron dome and how Israel is actually trying to protect its citizens, I wonder? Hmm... Nah. Fuck Israel for having more casualties in their reckless bombing, right?
Goodness me. You're really stuck in this goodies vs baddies mentality.
You don't need to pick a side. You can condemn both sides for their shitty behavior.
Hamas are terrorists. They're untrustworthy. They're rapists and murderers.
Israel are causing a humanitarian crisis. The death of non-combatants on this scale is unacceptable.
Neither side are good guys.
Again, our disagreement centres around what level of force is appropriate to the threat.
Israel's citizens have been relatively safe from Hamas in recent years. Iron dome is very effective. All Israel needed to do to mitigate the threat was to maintain defensive positions. Of course this doesn't "erase Hamas", but it's just not possible to do that. You can't kill all the terrorists, you just create more.
And again, you didn't explain how we can "respond appropriately without causing a humanitarian crisis."
One side are terrorists.
Is that what you call shitty behavior that you condemn Israel for? That's less than optimal.
Doesn't sound true or right to me. This is like saying you can't rid the world of murderers. Manipulation here is that someone would understand the thought as "better leave them alone", and we know it doesn't work like that.
The
.deis showing.I'm from Australia.
Then you should be practical enough to realize that almost none of what was said about Palestinians in that statement describes Israel now.
Ok mate. Believe it or not, I'm not looking for an argument about who is most awful between Palestinians and Israelis.
My question is, why the world feels the need to take sides in this conflict rather than simply condemning the violence perpetrated by both sides.
The hatred violence, and wrongdoing does not need to be equal between all combatants in order for the hatred, violence, and wrongdoing to be condemned.
Well imagine that the native Australian population, the Aboriginals decoded they wanted their land back and started murdering all the white folk and they killed the equivalent of about 5,000 people (adjusted for Australia's population); mostly eldely and children. They restarted started a bombing campaign that threatened every inch of Australia. And they did this after ~60 years of similar actions on a smaller scale.
Would you and your countrymen submit to genocide for peace? Or would you fight back?
For you and I (USA), nations built on European Colonialism; it should be clear why that Colonialism was wrong but why it can't be undone. Trying to correct past atrocities with a modern genocide isn't acceptable and the last 20 years of Hamas's rule in Gaza has shown that Genocide is all it will accept.
Well, since Hamas doesn't represent all of Palestine, it doesn't make sense to decimate the whole of Palestine. Sure, send in special forces that track down Hamas and kill them. But don't carpet bomb civilian areas in the hopes you get the right people.
Also, you're saying Israel has been doing this on a smaller scale. I don't think that's entirely accurate. Yes, many years "just" a few hundred Palestinians were killed by Israel. But a few times Israel already committed atrocities much worse than what Hamas did on October 7th. And that's ignoring that Palestine already has half the population of Israel. And also ignoring all the other ways Israel has been oppressing them, like heavily regulating and limiting trade with other nations or preventing Palestine from having an army
Are you seriously trying to argue that Israel doing this to Palestine for the past half century should be ignored? Just because maybe the majority of years it was less deaths? Do you seriously not understand why Palestinians are fighting back? Or do you seriously believe that Palestinians are the aggressors here?
They're not decimating the whole of Palestine. They're attacking the parts that Hamas rules.
There are Israelis who pour concrete mix into the water in the West Bank.
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2023-07-30/ty-article-opinion/.premium/we-even-destroy-their-water-wells/00000189-a31f-d00f-a7db-b39f5f280000
That's horrendous. And is part of the reason why violence in the West Bank hasn't gotten the support for reprisals like violence from Gaza has.
So why is it that civilians keep dying then? Attacking the parts they rule makes it okay that civilians die?
That's just not analogous though.
I am loathe to defend hamas, but the UN stats just don't portray them as the aggressors.
If Australian aboriginals started terrorising the rest of us, of course we would use reasonable force to bring that to a stop. We would also be negotiating, and compromising. If we decided that peaceful solutions had been exhausted, I can assure you other countries wouldn't be sending us billions of dollars worth of hardware with which to exterminate them.
For the first years of Australia's colonization, there was militant Aboriginal resistance - of course, given their technological disadvantages, it was not successful and the indigenous population were slaughtered at every turn.
The most well-known and feared of the early insurrectionists - a Bidjigal man named Pemulwuy - is today celebrated by white Australian culture - one of Sydney's suburbs is named for him. The British were somewhat less charitable in 1802, when he was finally captured, shot and beheaded after many years of fighting against their presence in early Sydney.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_frontier_wars
https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/pemulwuy
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Yes colonists did some very bad things in Australia 200 years ago. Should we not strove to hold ourselves to a higher standard?
"Yes Israel is creating a humanitarian crisis, but we it's fine to support their endeavours because we did some very bad things 200 years ago".
Sorry for the misunderstanding, I didn't say anything like that - go easy on those quote marks ;) - I'm just talking about Australian history, not the current events. I am cautious discussing history in this contentious thread because I'm really just interested in the discussion about indigenous Australians, who did resist occupation, to the extent they could. The colonial response to that became "The Frontier Wars". Which was quasi-official genocide.
There are parallels in colonization throughout history, of course, which is presumably how this particular discussion came about, but today's situation is obviously a vastly different time and place to early Australia and I'm not informed enough to opine on what's happening now. I'm just here reading stuff on Lemmy.
Having said all this, indigenous Australians were living for thousands of years without any formalized state, political or military structure. No metal, wheels, writing or permanent dwellings. Had there been less difference in technology and logistical capabilities between aboriginal Australians and the British in the early 1800s, then Australia would probably look very different than it does today.
Sure. I actually don't know that much about Australia's colonisation other than what we were taught in school, which I can assure you doesn't focus on the genocide part.
I've always found the "terra nullius" aspect of international law to be fascinating. James Cook is generally credited with Australia's discovery, but the West Coast had been visited many times by the dutch, and my favorite description of Cook is that he was "just the guy that steered the boat for Joseph Banks". Although they declared that there were no permanent settlements of any note, in the most recent decades this has been found to be false, in courts of law, many times over.
I am perhaps naively hopeful that the education curriculum has evolved since you were at school, although quite likely not. The genocide part is not a palatable discussion to most people and probably a little heavy for high school.
The British knew full-well what they were doing. The legal maneuvering necessary to dispossess the indigenous population is not unique to Australia's colonial history - and the British had plenty of practice subjugating more aggressive native populations before they founded Sydney.
You're quite right - the Dutch, and to a lesser extent the French were already aware of the Australian continent and must have made some contact with Aboriginal people. There were also informal outposts of whalers and seal-hunters that were probably established to some extent several years before British occupation.
There were many aboriginal people living on the continent when Cook and Banks dropped anchor in Sydney. The earliest accounts usually mention seeing smoke from campfires all along the coast. Most of the initial deaths were from disease. The British took smallpox cultures to Sydney with the first fleet in 1788 - within a year of their arrival in Sydney, disease killed between 50 and 90 percent of the indigenous population. Whether the British deliberately introduced smallpox to the aboriginal population is still debated, although I don't know why else they would carry smallpox cultures on the first fleet - maybe they already knew how to vaccinate with it - but I would think you could get the cultures from an infected person were that the case. What other reason for carrying smallpox to Australia on the first fleet could there be, unless it was a biological weapon?
https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/smallpox-epidemic
In Van Diemen's Land (now Tasmania) the resistance to the settlers moving in on aboriginal hunting grounds became so troublesome that the government set up a program to capture or exterminate all native people in 1830 - by which time the Aboriginal population had already been reduced by 90 percent since settlement - the remaining few thousand aboriginal people were extremely hostile to the encroaching settlements and they were raiding and burning houses, killing settlers.
https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/the-black-line
As in all conflicts, there are nuances and factors that we can't fully appreciate or empathize with from our current perspective, but what happened to the Aboriginal population during Australia's settlement should be a cause for national introspection - this makes the referendum result last week seem so disappointing to those who would like to see a more open acknowledgement of the darker history of Australia's founding - and greater efforts made to redress it.
Do you support Genociding the current European Australian population to return the land to the Aboriginals? Because that's what Hamas and the majority of Palestinians want and have been working towards for decades.
This is such a daft question.
A lot of land which has been occupied by Aboriginals has already been "returned" under a process known as native title claims. Its an ongoing process and yes I support this process.
That said, I'm sure you're proposing the absurdity of somehow returning all of Australia, which is not possible and no one supports that.
Similarly, returning Israel's land is not reasonably possible and no one would support that excepting radicalised Palestinians.
Your question is based on the flawed premise that one or other combatant is "right". They're both wrong.
That's precisely what Hamas is demanding in Israel. Hamas is the reigning government in Gaza and according to polling is not only popular but would win an open election in the West Bank.
Mr Dog muffins, if the Aboriginals in Australia started a campaign of war against the white Austrailians, what makes you think the casualty numbers would be less skewed there?
Well congrats now you're doing the same thing Israel is doing. Peaceful solutions with Hamas have been exhausted.
How would you feel if we sent billions of dollars of Aid to the people trying to genocide you instead? What if we continued to commit billions in aid in the form of materials we knew were being used to create weapons to indiscriminately kill Australians. And then we condemned you for trying to stop that miltilitary aid?
The good news is, for countries like ours; we don't have to pretend to sit up on our high horse like the Europeans do. We have complicated, often evil histories with our colonized populations. But as much as we can and should call out that history as evil, as genocide; we should also know that you can't answer a genocide with genocide.
Those stats aren't from war-time - this isn't a spears vs guns situation. Sorry maye you're welcome to criticise me all you like for Australia's treatment of first nations people but your aboriginal metaphor is not analogous to the gaza conflict and isn't helping illustrate your point.
The core of our disagreement is the level of force used in response.
Forgive me, but I've come to expect a "fucked around and found out" mode of diplomacy from the US. As in, hamas threw the first punch so theres a moral imperative to grind gaza into the dust.
I don't see it that way. A few weeks ago there was a stale mate. Israel has adequate defences. Securing Israel with minimal loss of life ought to be the priority.
I'm happy to disagree in this regard, neither of us are going to change our positions.
That's objectively wrong. There were several active conflicts during that time period. With similar targeted bombing campaigns, in 2008-2009, 2012 and 2014 with several smaller skirmishes in between.
The West knows they messed up with the actual historical countries of the area. Too many milenia of trying to take over and cause havoc (like in 63 BC when the Romans left a few hundred people alive of the natives like the Samaritans, the Crusades, etc.). They saw what the Germans did to European Jews and saw an opportunity: "If we can't make friends in the traditional sense, we'll create one."
They shipped Jews from all over the world to Palestine. As their citizens of these Western countries are either Christian or come from Christian families, all this Israel nonsense sounds vaguely correct. These countries acted like dogs. It got to the point where France even pretended to allies to Arabic countries, only to reveal it was a lie/trap.
Then the media comes in and sneakily replaces Palestinians with Hamas when it benefits Israel's cause even though Hamas hasn't went through elections in nearly two decades and the average age of someone from Gaza is somewhere between 14 and 18.
Israel is just a western invention to give the West an ally in the region and it worked because it all sounds vaguely biblical correct to a world where Christianity just means "I hate gays and abortions and we don't actually need to act like Jesus who was kind of Jewish anyways."