Yes, I don't think terrorism is always bad. Would you condemn the ANC, the Native Americans, the Viet Cong, Nat Turner, and the Algerians for doing what they had to do to fight oppression?
Did any of them ever win their fight?
Seriously, what do you propose? Israel doesn't want to spend resources on war. Hamas doesn't want to spend resources on anything but war. Israel will not liv
And you still didn't explain exactly what's happening to Palestinians that would suggest their choices are justified. Maybe if they'd be forced to live near an active volcano or something I'd consider stuff. But as it is now, they are being thrown to get killed, by hamas and not anyone else.
The native Americans and nat turner lost, the Viet Cong, the ANC, and the algerians won.
I did explain what conditions justified revolutionary violence and you said apartheid is ok actually. If you aren't willing to listen, I'm just gonna stop responding.
the Viet Cong, the ANC, and the algerians won.
Did any of them practice terrorist attacks on peaceful citizens, took hostages, broke their limbs, beheaded them and let their citizens spit on their bodies? Which exact part of strategies like that worked for them?
I did explain what conditions justified revolutionary violence
No, your explanation is literally "they lost homes and were getting killed" with no specifics. It doesn't add up with anything: how it was (not) exposed in media for years, how those deaths are only a result of specific acts of violence from Palestinians themselves, how they live in a "total isolation" that allows them to get work permits in Israel (whose numbers were increasing too), how hamas produces tons of fake news to appear more of a victim, how there is no evidence of systematic hate from the Israel side and tons of evidence of systematic hate from Palestinians' side.
Palestinians'/hamas' desire to destroy Israel is ungrounded, irresponsible, and idiotic, which basically means their violence is unprovoked. Israel is the opposite. Same as Putin with his idiotic reasoning for violence, hamas with their idiotic reasoning for violence should either surrender or be defeated as aggressors.
Yes, the ANC used to put suspected collaborators in tires and burn them alive. They also took civilian hostages and killed civilians in bombings. The Viet Cong killed about 150k civilians. The algerians killed French people regardless of their combatant status.
If we go back in history, Israel was built on ethnically cleansed land. In 1948, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were ethnically cleansed by the Zionists militaries. Since then they've continuously been oppressed, and their land has continued to be stolen. Currently, they live under apartheid conditions according to human rights organizations.
This justifies armed resistance.
Yes, the ANC used to put suspected collaborators in tires and burn them alive. They also took civilian hostages and killed civilians in bombings. The Viet Cong killed about 150k civilians. The algerians killed French people regardless of their combatant status.
Why do I have a feeling all these parties still have much less in common with hamas?
If we go back in history
If we do we'll surely find that many other people lived there, not just these 2. But some people still want to judge a land by it's past when it benefits them.
Again you didn't explain how exactly this affects their lives to an extent that they see violence as the only option.
This justifies armed resistance.
I would even agree with that. If only it would look even remotely as a resistance. As something that would eventually give a chance to anyone to get whatever they call "freedom". But it's just not that. It's a suicide. Hamas can't defeat Israel with terrorism, and even in a strange course of events it would, I can't see how it can become a proper country anyway. They would lose all support and wouldn't be able to sustain themselves.
If we do we’ll surely find that many other people lived there, not just these 2. But some people still want to judge a land by it’s past when it benefits them.
Interestingly, Palestinians (muslims christians and jews) can trace their ancestry to the Caananites mostly, which in turn decended partially from Neolithic farmers that lived in the area and partially from immigration. So it really has just been 1 people genetically and the differences are mostly just made up. If we look to today, their land is still being stolen. Israel continues to build illegal settlements in the west bank. Palestinians are denied a right to return, while people from New York are allowed to kick a Palestinian out of their home and take it. The Nakba was 75 years ago, people who were kicked out as children are still alive.
Again you didn’t explain how exactly this affects their lives to an extent that they see violence as the only option.
Again, I'll point you to human rights organizations describing the current conditions as Apartheid. They see violence as the only option, since when they peacefully protest (eg. great march of return), they get shot. And no, throwing stones does not justify that. Israeli soldiers got at most a few bruises.
There is continues settler colonialism in the West Bank, with regular violence against Palestinians living there (journalists and children included). Israel regularly overreacts to violence from Gaza by leveling civilian infrastructure without providing proof that it's being used by Hamas. In 2006, they tried to starve the population of Gaza (not to death, just to the point where they started suffering) to try and force Hamas out. Over 1000 palestinians are being held in Israeli prisons without any charges against them. Some children in prisons are held in solitary confinement (torture). A while ago it came out that Israel used to harvest organs from dead Palestinians, and currently they haven't given back a few hundred bodies iirc. And human rights organizations have describes Gaza as an open air prison. It does a garbage job keeping weapons out, but it does do a great job hurting everyday Palestinian civilians (collective punishment, a war crime).
Hamas can’t defeat Israel with terrorism
I agree with you that it seems improbable for Palestinians to beat a huge military power like Israel, but plenty of things seemed impossible yet still happened. A lot of people thought the Viet Cong couldn't win but they did. All that needs to happen is enough violence to force Israel to the bargaining table. Preferably the western world would do a BDS campaign against Israel, like we did with South Africa, but that also seems unlikely considering how much money the defense industry makes from them.
They would lose all support and wouldn’t be able to sustain themselves.
This is just speculation, we don't know what it would look like if the Palestinians won. Some post colonial states did ok for themselves, others didn't. They're surrounded by other Arab countries, so even if the western powers decide to sanction them, they'll still have some trading partners, but they would definitely be behind for a bit. Worth it in my opinion, if it means that there is relative peace.
So it really has just been 1 people genetically and the differences are mostly just made up.
As with the whole Earth population.
I couldn't find proofs that Palestinians have deeper or bigger presence over time there than Israeli.
But either way, this is something I refuse to accept as an argument. Nations move. Some not but it doesn't mean they are unable to. I'd check out specific reasons like natural disasters, resources etc. But I see no such arguments - everyone just scream "this is our land and we must take it back". Humans don't work like that and there is no need to spend tons of resources to fight for it. Adaptation is how everyone lives. Sure, spend some resources on figuring out diplomacy, but terrorism is beyond the adequate line.
I'll point you to human rights organizations describing the current conditions as Apartheid
And I thought the current condition is war.
They see violence as the only option, since when they peacefully protest (eg. great march of return), they get shot. And no, throwing stones does not justify that. Israeli soldiers got at most a few bruises.
If there was anything like throwing stones with slongshots then it wasn't a peaceful protest. We know palestinians are raised with "gotta kill a jew to become a hero and make my parents proud" thought, and it's easy to realize those were aggression actions masked as "protests". Before you judge an army for shooting them, you have to consider palestinian "protesters" would not be judged if they manage to kill anyone with a stone, they would be praised instead.
Israel regularly overreacts to violence from Gaza
"Chill up Israel, it's just a child's play"?
by leveling civilian infrastructure without providing proof that it's being used by Hamas
Maybe we should ask hamas to provide proofs that they fire missiles at military objects in Israel?
Over 1000 palestinians are being held in Israeli prisons without any charges against them. Some children in prisons are held in solitary confinement (torture)
You really can compare that to (and justify) what happend at October 7? At this point I'll kindly ask you to agree that you are applying different judgement systems for 2 nations. You allow palestinians be bloody monsters but you require that israeli would not touch them no matter what happens.
A while ago it came out that Israel used to harvest organs from dead Palestinians, and currently they haven't given back a few hundred bodies iirc.
Spooky. Any investigations of that at all?
And human rights organizations have describes Gaza as an open air prison.
It's just a nice word. If you can build rockets surely you can build something more useful, and it can't happen in a prison.
considering how much money the defense industry makes from them
There is a contradiction when people first expect the western world to take the side of Gaza in order to save lifes, and then say that the same western world really sell defense equipment for profit only and not to save lifes.
This is just speculation, we don't know what it would look like if the Palestinians won.
Basically, it would look like there is no more Israel, and a lot more of "Allahu Akbar" screams everyday all over the world, probably.
Worth it in my opinion, if it means that there is relative peace.
Worth it to get rid of Israel? Or worth it to leave a terrorist organization in power of 2 million people alone?
if it means that there is relative peace
And I thought people learned a lesson from the WW2, from the Ukraine war. Once you appease the aggressor there is no way back. And certainly no way for a peace.
You really can compare that to (and justify) what happend at October 7? At this point I’ll kindly ask you to agree that you are applying different judgement systems for 2 nations. You allow palestinians be bloody monsters but you require that israeli would not touch them no matter what happens.
No, that isn't the only justification. You are ignoring the apartheid and settler colonialism and focusing on one or two other things I said.
Maybe we should ask hamas to provide proofs that they fire missiles at military objects in Israel?
I mean any rocket at tel aviv could be aimed at a military target, the IDF headquarters is in the middle of a densely populated area. But yeah, a lot of those rockets are simply to hurt anyone they can. Again, do I need to point you at the people killed by the various other organizations that used terror to fight for freedom? It's horrible, yes, but the way to stop it is by giving people their freedom.
There is a contradiction when people first expect the western world to take the side of Gaza in order to save lifes, and then say that the same western world really sell defense equipment for profit only and not to save lifes.
I can expect someone to do the right thing, but also recognize that they have no morals and so they won't do it.
Worth it to get rid of Israel? Or worth it to leave a terrorist organization in power of 2 million people alone?
I don't think you understand what it would be like if the Palestinians won. Even in the best case scenario for the Palestinians, it wouldn't be Hamas completely taking over Israel. That is definitely physically impossible. It would be both groups come together and negotiate, and either Israel turns into a secular state and swallows the west bank and gaza, or a new secular state is formed that encompasses the whole area. That's what "from the river to the sea" means.
You are ignoring the apartheid and settler colonialism
I'm ignoring it because it bleaks when compared to terrorism. Another reason is like I said, I can't see how territorial confinement could affect adequate people to the point they would prefer suicide over trying to live further. Either there is some horrible details about the apartheid that I don't know (and tons of media don't tell, only mentioning "losing homes" and "unable to use certain roads") or they are not exactly adequate.
I mean any rocket at tel aviv could be aimed at a military target
These rockets apparently don't have enough accuracy for anyone to be able to aim them anywhere.
Again, do I need to point you at the people killed by the various other organizations that used terror to fight for freedom? It's horrible, yes
It's not as horrible as the way hamas uses its civilians to act as both living shield and terrorist recruits. Children are being told they need to kill jews from the tv, and parents tell them they would be proud of they become "heroes" that way.
I can expect someone to do the right thing, but also recognize that they have no morals and so they won't do it.
Especially when they have a record, right? Those other conflicts you mentioned were ended when they recognized and supported the oppressed parties, if I get it right. But at the same time they have no morals, sure.
It would be both groups come together and negotiate
I don't think you understand that odds of that happening. I can imagine Israel saying "sure, you killed quite many our people and we won't forget that, but we are ready to negotiate if it means end of terrorism". But can I imagine hamas saying anything like "sure, we vowed to destroy Israel and trained terrorists just for that for generations, but if it means we won't need to do it anymore, and if we get some land we always asked for, we are ready to negotiate"? No. Because these people never showed that they even cared for their own population, and negotiations would mean they would need to actually work towards establishing a proper state and take care of themselves. If they couldn't do the same before that, they will never do it properly. Not hamas.
It’s not as horrible as the way hamas uses its civilians to act as both living shield and terrorist recruits. Children are being told they need to kill jews from the tv, and parents tell them they would be proud of they become “heroes” that way.
Ok lets look at this claim. The main radicalizing factor isn't TV, it's bombs killing children's families, and those bombs are a million times more effective at turning people into terrorists than antisemetic TV shows. Hamas only has ~25,000 soldiers though, while Israel propagandizes its civilians and forces most of them into either jail or military service when they reach military age. They also put military infrastructure in crowded civilian areas just like Hamas. If you're worried about turning people into terrorists and using them as human shields, this is obviously worse right?
Also, I notice you brought up Russia earlier. Ukraine set up bases in civilian areas, including schools. But we still consider Russia the bad guys, for obvious reasons.
Especially when they have a record, right? Those other conflicts you mentioned were ended when they recognized and supported the oppressed parties, if I get it right. But at the same time they have no morals, sure.
Sure man, I don't really think its worth talking about it. We might decide to sacrifice profits for a moral high ground, who knows. That would be great, but I personally don't think its likely.
I don’t think you understand that odds of that happening.
No I'm aware that it's very very very low.
Because these people never showed that they even cared for their own population, and negotiations would mean they would need to actually work towards establishing a proper state and take care of themselves.
They literally did. How do you think Hamas got elected over Fatah. It wasn't because Palestinians love terrorism or any racist shit like that. Straight from the wikipedia page:
In the 1990s, some 85% of its budget was allocated to the provision of social services. Hamas has been called perhaps the most significant social services actor in Palestine. By 2000, Hamas or its affiliated charities ran roughly 40% of the social institutions in the West Bank and Gaza and, with other Islamic charities, by 2005, was supporting 120,000 individuals with monthly financial support in Gaza. Part of the appeal of these institutions is that they fill a vacuum in the administration by the PLO of the Palestinian territories, which had failed to cater to the demand for jobs and broad social services, and is widely viewed as corrupt. As late as 2005, the budget of Hamas, drawing on global charity contributions, was mostly tied up in covering running expenses for its social programmes, which extended from the supply of housing, food and water for the needy to more general functions such as financial aid, medical assistance, educational development and religious instruction.
And how long do you mean by generations, cause Hamas has only resorted to terrorism against civilians from the 1990s. Hamas literally has in its charter that it is willing to accept a 2 state solution on the 1967 lines, so yes it would absolutely be willing to negotiate.
a 280 page report / an article with no substance
There is something wrong with the subject if it needs those for anyone to understand the bad nature. You don't need that with terrorism. Hamas kills -> people die -> hamas must be stopped.
The main radicalizing factor isn't TV
Then how come it needs to be about how everyone should kill jews?
while Israel propagandizes its civilians and forces most of them into either jail or military service when they reach military age
An army is very different from what terrorists do.
They also put military infrastructure in crowded civilian areas just like Hamas.
Well they also put meaningful effort into protecting all of that. I wouldn't imagine anyone would do that otherwise.
Ukraine set up bases in civilian areas, including schools. But we still consider Russia the bad guys, for obvious reasons.
Is that sarcasm? Do I need to explain how Russia knowingly bombs non-military targets with no military personnel?
They literally did. How do you think Hamas got elected over Fatah.
It was mentioned (here too I think) that those elections were not exactly what you'd expect from proper elections, and yet you want to use this as an argument...
Straight from the wikipedia page
Well look at how things changed. What was the moment hamas decided to go full terrorist and spend resources on arming up, and how did Palestinians feel about that?
Hamas literally has in its charter that it is willing to accept a 2 state solution on the 1967 lines, so yes it would absolutely be willing to negotiate.
Straight from the wikipedia page:
Destroying Israel and establishing an Islamic theocracy in Palestine is essential;
Negotiated resolutions of Jewish and Palestinian claims to the land are unacceptable.
Wow, guy is seriously trying to justify terrorism.
Yeah. Glad you noticed. Would you say the Viet Cong and the ANC weren't justified?
I'm not sure what the ANC is, but the Viet Cong were absolutely not justified in their actions. They were part of an attempt to force communism on South Vietnam. In effect, they used force of arms in lieu of democracy to get what they wanted. They committed atrocities and were unjustified in their actions.
Any group that rejects political and democratic solutions to its problems in favor of violence is unjustified. Violence is a last resort.
Says someone who defends terrorism?
Yes, I don't think terrorism is always bad. Would you condemn the ANC, the Native Americans, the Viet Cong, Nat Turner, and the Algerians for doing what they had to do to fight oppression?
Did any of them ever win their fight?
Seriously, what do you propose? Israel doesn't want to spend resources on war. Hamas doesn't want to spend resources on anything but war. Israel will not liv
And you still didn't explain exactly what's happening to Palestinians that would suggest their choices are justified. Maybe if they'd be forced to live near an active volcano or something I'd consider stuff. But as it is now, they are being thrown to get killed, by hamas and not anyone else.
The native Americans and nat turner lost, the Viet Cong, the ANC, and the algerians won.
I did explain what conditions justified revolutionary violence and you said apartheid is ok actually. If you aren't willing to listen, I'm just gonna stop responding.
Did any of them practice terrorist attacks on peaceful citizens, took hostages, broke their limbs, beheaded them and let their citizens spit on their bodies? Which exact part of strategies like that worked for them?
No, your explanation is literally "they lost homes and were getting killed" with no specifics. It doesn't add up with anything: how it was (not) exposed in media for years, how those deaths are only a result of specific acts of violence from Palestinians themselves, how they live in a "total isolation" that allows them to get work permits in Israel (whose numbers were increasing too), how hamas produces tons of fake news to appear more of a victim, how there is no evidence of systematic hate from the Israel side and tons of evidence of systematic hate from Palestinians' side.
Palestinians'/hamas' desire to destroy Israel is ungrounded, irresponsible, and idiotic, which basically means their violence is unprovoked. Israel is the opposite. Same as Putin with his idiotic reasoning for violence, hamas with their idiotic reasoning for violence should either surrender or be defeated as aggressors.
Yes, the ANC used to put suspected collaborators in tires and burn them alive. They also took civilian hostages and killed civilians in bombings. The Viet Cong killed about 150k civilians. The algerians killed French people regardless of their combatant status.
If we go back in history, Israel was built on ethnically cleansed land. In 1948, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were ethnically cleansed by the Zionists militaries. Since then they've continuously been oppressed, and their land has continued to be stolen. Currently, they live under apartheid conditions according to human rights organizations.
This justifies armed resistance.
Why do I have a feeling all these parties still have much less in common with hamas?
If we do we'll surely find that many other people lived there, not just these 2. But some people still want to judge a land by it's past when it benefits them.
Again you didn't explain how exactly this affects their lives to an extent that they see violence as the only option.
I would even agree with that. If only it would look even remotely as a resistance. As something that would eventually give a chance to anyone to get whatever they call "freedom". But it's just not that. It's a suicide. Hamas can't defeat Israel with terrorism, and even in a strange course of events it would, I can't see how it can become a proper country anyway. They would lose all support and wouldn't be able to sustain themselves.
Interestingly, Palestinians (muslims christians and jews) can trace their ancestry to the Caananites mostly, which in turn decended partially from Neolithic farmers that lived in the area and partially from immigration. So it really has just been 1 people genetically and the differences are mostly just made up. If we look to today, their land is still being stolen. Israel continues to build illegal settlements in the west bank. Palestinians are denied a right to return, while people from New York are allowed to kick a Palestinian out of their home and take it. The Nakba was 75 years ago, people who were kicked out as children are still alive.
Again, I'll point you to human rights organizations describing the current conditions as Apartheid. They see violence as the only option, since when they peacefully protest (eg. great march of return), they get shot. And no, throwing stones does not justify that. Israeli soldiers got at most a few bruises.
There is continues settler colonialism in the West Bank, with regular violence against Palestinians living there (journalists and children included). Israel regularly overreacts to violence from Gaza by leveling civilian infrastructure without providing proof that it's being used by Hamas. In 2006, they tried to starve the population of Gaza (not to death, just to the point where they started suffering) to try and force Hamas out. Over 1000 palestinians are being held in Israeli prisons without any charges against them. Some children in prisons are held in solitary confinement (torture). A while ago it came out that Israel used to harvest organs from dead Palestinians, and currently they haven't given back a few hundred bodies iirc. And human rights organizations have describes Gaza as an open air prison. It does a garbage job keeping weapons out, but it does do a great job hurting everyday Palestinian civilians (collective punishment, a war crime).
I agree with you that it seems improbable for Palestinians to beat a huge military power like Israel, but plenty of things seemed impossible yet still happened. A lot of people thought the Viet Cong couldn't win but they did. All that needs to happen is enough violence to force Israel to the bargaining table. Preferably the western world would do a BDS campaign against Israel, like we did with South Africa, but that also seems unlikely considering how much money the defense industry makes from them.
This is just speculation, we don't know what it would look like if the Palestinians won. Some post colonial states did ok for themselves, others didn't. They're surrounded by other Arab countries, so even if the western powers decide to sanction them, they'll still have some trading partners, but they would definitely be behind for a bit. Worth it in my opinion, if it means that there is relative peace.
As with the whole Earth population. I couldn't find proofs that Palestinians have deeper or bigger presence over time there than Israeli.
But either way, this is something I refuse to accept as an argument. Nations move. Some not but it doesn't mean they are unable to. I'd check out specific reasons like natural disasters, resources etc. But I see no such arguments - everyone just scream "this is our land and we must take it back". Humans don't work like that and there is no need to spend tons of resources to fight for it. Adaptation is how everyone lives. Sure, spend some resources on figuring out diplomacy, but terrorism is beyond the adequate line.
And I thought the current condition is war.
If there was anything like throwing stones with slongshots then it wasn't a peaceful protest. We know palestinians are raised with "gotta kill a jew to become a hero and make my parents proud" thought, and it's easy to realize those were aggression actions masked as "protests". Before you judge an army for shooting them, you have to consider palestinian "protesters" would not be judged if they manage to kill anyone with a stone, they would be praised instead.
"Chill up Israel, it's just a child's play"?
Maybe we should ask hamas to provide proofs that they fire missiles at military objects in Israel?
You really can compare that to (and justify) what happend at October 7? At this point I'll kindly ask you to agree that you are applying different judgement systems for 2 nations. You allow palestinians be bloody monsters but you require that israeli would not touch them no matter what happens.
Spooky. Any investigations of that at all?
It's just a nice word. If you can build rockets surely you can build something more useful, and it can't happen in a prison.
There is a contradiction when people first expect the western world to take the side of Gaza in order to save lifes, and then say that the same western world really sell defense equipment for profit only and not to save lifes.
Basically, it would look like there is no more Israel, and a lot more of "Allahu Akbar" screams everyday all over the world, probably.
Worth it to get rid of Israel? Or worth it to leave a terrorist organization in power of 2 million people alone?
And I thought people learned a lesson from the WW2, from the Ukraine war. Once you appease the aggressor there is no way back. And certainly no way for a peace.
No, that isn't the only justification. You are ignoring the apartheid and settler colonialism and focusing on one or two other things I said.
I mean any rocket at tel aviv could be aimed at a military target, the IDF headquarters is in the middle of a densely populated area. But yeah, a lot of those rockets are simply to hurt anyone they can. Again, do I need to point you at the people killed by the various other organizations that used terror to fight for freedom? It's horrible, yes, but the way to stop it is by giving people their freedom.
I can expect someone to do the right thing, but also recognize that they have no morals and so they won't do it.
I don't think you understand what it would be like if the Palestinians won. Even in the best case scenario for the Palestinians, it wouldn't be Hamas completely taking over Israel. That is definitely physically impossible. It would be both groups come together and negotiate, and either Israel turns into a secular state and swallows the west bank and gaza, or a new secular state is formed that encompasses the whole area. That's what "from the river to the sea" means.
I'm ignoring it because it bleaks when compared to terrorism. Another reason is like I said, I can't see how territorial confinement could affect adequate people to the point they would prefer suicide over trying to live further. Either there is some horrible details about the apartheid that I don't know (and tons of media don't tell, only mentioning "losing homes" and "unable to use certain roads") or they are not exactly adequate.
These rockets apparently don't have enough accuracy for anyone to be able to aim them anywhere.
It's not as horrible as the way hamas uses its civilians to act as both living shield and terrorist recruits. Children are being told they need to kill jews from the tv, and parents tell them they would be proud of they become "heroes" that way.
Especially when they have a record, right? Those other conflicts you mentioned were ended when they recognized and supported the oppressed parties, if I get it right. But at the same time they have no morals, sure.
I don't think you understand that odds of that happening. I can imagine Israel saying "sure, you killed quite many our people and we won't forget that, but we are ready to negotiate if it means end of terrorism". But can I imagine hamas saying anything like "sure, we vowed to destroy Israel and trained terrorists just for that for generations, but if it means we won't need to do it anymore, and if we get some land we always asked for, we are ready to negotiate"? No. Because these people never showed that they even cared for their own population, and negotiations would mean they would need to actually work towards establishing a proper state and take care of themselves. If they couldn't do the same before that, they will never do it properly. Not hamas.
Here's Amnesty international's report, theres a 280 page report that outlines most of the atrocities that constitute apartheid in it. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/
Here's a UN article regarding the settler colonialism. Settler colonialism is effectively a slow invasion and ethnic cleansing. https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/10/1129942
Ok lets look at this claim. The main radicalizing factor isn't TV, it's bombs killing children's families, and those bombs are a million times more effective at turning people into terrorists than antisemetic TV shows. Hamas only has ~25,000 soldiers though, while Israel propagandizes its civilians and forces most of them into either jail or military service when they reach military age. They also put military infrastructure in crowded civilian areas just like Hamas. If you're worried about turning people into terrorists and using them as human shields, this is obviously worse right?
Also, I notice you brought up Russia earlier. Ukraine set up bases in civilian areas, including schools. But we still consider Russia the bad guys, for obvious reasons.
Sure man, I don't really think its worth talking about it. We might decide to sacrifice profits for a moral high ground, who knows. That would be great, but I personally don't think its likely.
No I'm aware that it's very very very low.
They literally did. How do you think Hamas got elected over Fatah. It wasn't because Palestinians love terrorism or any racist shit like that. Straight from the wikipedia page:
In the 1990s, some 85% of its budget was allocated to the provision of social services. Hamas has been called perhaps the most significant social services actor in Palestine. By 2000, Hamas or its affiliated charities ran roughly 40% of the social institutions in the West Bank and Gaza and, with other Islamic charities, by 2005, was supporting 120,000 individuals with monthly financial support in Gaza. Part of the appeal of these institutions is that they fill a vacuum in the administration by the PLO of the Palestinian territories, which had failed to cater to the demand for jobs and broad social services, and is widely viewed as corrupt. As late as 2005, the budget of Hamas, drawing on global charity contributions, was mostly tied up in covering running expenses for its social programmes, which extended from the supply of housing, food and water for the needy to more general functions such as financial aid, medical assistance, educational development and religious instruction.
And how long do you mean by generations, cause Hamas has only resorted to terrorism against civilians from the 1990s. Hamas literally has in its charter that it is willing to accept a 2 state solution on the 1967 lines, so yes it would absolutely be willing to negotiate.
There is something wrong with the subject if it needs those for anyone to understand the bad nature. You don't need that with terrorism. Hamas kills -> people die -> hamas must be stopped.
Then how come it needs to be about how everyone should kill jews?
An army is very different from what terrorists do.
Well they also put meaningful effort into protecting all of that. I wouldn't imagine anyone would do that otherwise.
Is that sarcasm? Do I need to explain how Russia knowingly bombs non-military targets with no military personnel?
It was mentioned (here too I think) that those elections were not exactly what you'd expect from proper elections, and yet you want to use this as an argument...
Well look at how things changed. What was the moment hamas decided to go full terrorist and spend resources on arming up, and how did Palestinians feel about that?
Straight from the wikipedia page:
Wow, guy is seriously trying to justify terrorism.
Yeah. Glad you noticed. Would you say the Viet Cong and the ANC weren't justified?
I'm not sure what the ANC is, but the Viet Cong were absolutely not justified in their actions. They were part of an attempt to force communism on South Vietnam. In effect, they used force of arms in lieu of democracy to get what they wanted. They committed atrocities and were unjustified in their actions.
Any group that rejects political and democratic solutions to its problems in favor of violence is unjustified. Violence is a last resort.