This is genocide by the book. After almost 2 decades of being kept poor & isolated, comes in an ultra modern army to do exactly what?
I'm German and anti Hamas.
Where's the fight against Hamas taking place, btw? There should be footage of destroyed Hamas stuff or some dead Hamas Soldiers to be seen, or am i missing something?
Israel has been bombarding for days
Where do you think Hamas is hiding???
"Hiding" doesn't justify killing civilians.
Above commenter asked where the fight with Hamas is taking place.
But that's not fighting, that's exterminating.
How would you be able to tell the difference between a dead hamas soldier and a dead civilian? They don't carry weapons all the time, you know, and terrorist organizations don't exactly wear uniforms.
I think fighting terrorism and warning citizens before bombing is not genocide. Telling citizens they are, in fact, should not run (hamas does that), is closer to genocide.
Actual process of getting rid of terrorists is not exactly something anyone should require to trust someone, but you can check a lot of videos they publish of destroying specific buildings in Gaza.
Be sure to also check the videos of Palestinians killing innocents left and right in Israel. They recorded those themselves.
Bear with me a bit, if you will. There's a sharp point, at least I think so.
If you've never lived on the ground for a disaster like a hurricane or tornado, it's worse than any picture or video can depict. I wept in the street, on my knees, the morning after Hurricane Ivan. It was 10AM, a cool, leafless autumn morning, but it had been summer 12-hours earlier. 10 of those hours was darkness and that nonstop goddamned freight train sound.
"My god, what happened to my new city?" Had no notion of the blast radius, all I could see was what I could see. Watched the blue fireworks of exploding transformers all night. Still didn't hit me. Thinking I was on my own, I wept a bit when the Guard rolled in. "We're getting help?!
What? Why? How?"
After living though Ivan, I cried my eyes out seeing what happened to my neighbors in southern Mississippi after Katrina. And then I went and saw for myself. My poor words cannot do justice.
My father-in-law, after picking up a pair of Bronze Stars in Iraq, came home and fought his way through to save those people. They sawed fucking houses in half to open the roads. This old white man was so fond of his memories, showing us pictures of the little black kids they gave salvaged Walmart bikes to. He looked like a proud papa. And then he disintegrated.
He was fine after Iraq, held it together. His Katrina PTSD led him to leave his wife of 32-years and ignore his only child, blew his family apart.
And here's the tip of the spear:
This is an order of magnitude worse. This isn't some blameless natural disaster. These aren't first-world country folks, cranking up the gennies, sharing what they got with anyone in need, pulling together in the face of tragedy. This is a modern nation state purposefully and with malice aforethought conducting genocide on a weaker neighbor. National Guard ain't rolling in for these folks. They're truly on their own.
Damn bro I feel that. Thanks for sharing 😔
Way to make this about you
I took it to be them anchoring in their own experiences and trying to use those experiences as a way to help others understand even 1/10 of what the Gazans are going through. Felt like it was coming from a place of support and empathy. I can see your interpretation too, though.
Way to make this about you
You're really, really stupid if that's what you got from it.
It's illegal to share experiences now?
They shared theirs so you can have context on how bad the situation is on gaza. Chill on your projections bro.
The single downvote on each of the replies are you, aren't they?
Can someone give me the straight talk on why western countries, who usually at least try to look like they have the moral high ground, are falling all over themselves in support of Israel?
What is the non-conspiracy nutter reason why the US feels the need to provide billions of dollars in support to Israel?
Clearly actions on both sides are reprehensible, some more-so than others. There's no goodies and baddies here. There's aggressors, innocents, and victims on all sides.
Because Israel is ultimately a problem created by western nations like the UK and US, have more similar culture to the west and are their strategic partner for the area whereas the arab nations are traditionally backed by Russia. So they basically HAVE to give them unconditional support to Israel or lose their influence on the region.
I've done some reading and listening since I asked this question and I think that this is the correct answer.
They're the only non-muslim country in the middle-east, and therefore our closest ideological partner, and therefore our best strategic partner.
War is about resources. USA and Britain don't give a shit about giving the land (that they stole from Palestinians) to Jewish people. Israel and Saudi Arabia are their only ways to project power in the region to have leverage against countries with more oil.
There's the historic precedent that people have already discussed here.
There's the very effective Israeli lobby, which has integrated itself into many different governments.
There's the fact that Israel is pro-western, in the Middle East, so they serve Western interests. They can be the foil for Western influence in the Middle East, without directly implicating the West. Need a weapon site bombed in Iran? Israel will do it. This is probably the biggest reason.
The country of Israel has integrated itself into the Western global intelligence Network, especially in terms of special operations, and special intelligence gathering tools, and a weapon supplier for missile defense, drone defense etc. For all intents and purposes their military ally for the west.
The West has a bias against Muslims, and Islam. Not necessarily a deliberate bias, but there is a bias. There is a reluctance for full trust. Israel is a religious country, based on Judaism, which makes them more palatable for Western people to think about.
All that being said, is Western support guaranteed? No. At the international level real politic is extremely fickle, you have to continue to be useful. If another country with better trade-off showed up in the region, it's very likely they would also receive this Western appreciation.
Hamas are terrorists and Western governments support combatting them. Hamas hides behind civilians who tragically are the victims of the war Hamas started this time
That's not really an answer though - obviously there's a question of degree.
If there were 20,000 terrorists with access to advanced weaponry then a few hundred civilian casualties is probably acceptable. If there's 100 terrorists with access to some home made rockets then a few thousand civilian casualties probably isn't acceptable.
Is the present campaign against Gaza with the mode of engagement by Israel really the surest path to peace with the least civilian casualties? Hard to believe given that there was a stale mate just a few weeks ago.
Besides which, you can't kill all the terrorists, that's not how extremism works.
Of course it's an answer.
Ok, well it doesn't address the question, at all.
Of course it does. Fighting terrorism gives the perception of moral high ground
Israel is creating a humanitarian crisis. If you're getting the perception of moral high ground I don't really know what to say to you.
Palestine doesn't have an army, they're not allowed to.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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."
"War isn't Hell. War is war, and Hell is Hell. And of the two, war is a lot worse. There are no innocent bystanders in Hell. War is chock full of them - little kids, cripples, old ladies. In fact, except for some of the brass, almost everybody involved is an innocent bystander." -- MAS*H
Genocide
If Israel's genocidal campaign is actually halted (likely temporarily), the lingering effects of this bombing campaign will continue to claim lives. There will be an increase in premature deaths, at least until Israel decides to complete its final solution. Weapons manufacturers and those who use their products aren't known for "green" initiatives.
So far a lot of the news coverage on here about the israel-palestine conflict is from aljazeera. Why is that?
I would imagine because in the west there is a ton of pressure to side with Israel no matter what, to the point people are losing their jobs for showing any support for Palestine or being critical of Israels actions.
Thanks for the information. I know this conflict has been one of the most controversial and politically confusing wars ever. I guess it's hard for people at large news sites to write about it.
And I've noticed their before and after photos show a before of the suburbs and any after photos showing the city. Cheap tricks. Not that I doubt the main message, but it cheapens the integrity.
In the article linked here. There is one before after and it's a slider. It's the same area. The photos taken from maybe one or two degrees of a different angle so things don't line up perfectly but they line up 99%.
If you're going to criticize them, criticize them for what they've done, or at least link to their disingenuous photos. It's not in this article
Ah — that slider is a new experience for me, and it wasn't clear that vertical bar isn't a photo border. That thing should be marked as interactive.
Kudos for the clarification.
We shouldn't take any single news source at face value, every new source has biases, including the political environment it publishes in. The more traditional newer sources like the BBC and Reuters and AP, have the Western bias, and the West is aligned with Israel. So it's difficult for those organizations to talk about the human toll inside of Gaza.
Al Jazeera is based in Qatar, and funded by the Qatari government. They've demonstrated themselves to be excellent reporters, but they have the biases of their environment as well. And some of that bias includes pro Palestinian sentiment.
Net net, the Arab language reporters are more likely to get data directly from Arab sources, Al Jazeera is more likely to have reporters inside of Palestine, and Al Jazeera has the appetite to show the human toll inside of the Gaza strip.
I can't speak for the non-English version, but the English version of Al Jazeera is biased in what they cover, but when they do speak of things I have not noticed any blatant lies.
To the credit of the Western reporters, they're not denying that there's a human tragedy in Gaza, they're just not talking about it. Are they lying? No. But they are demonstrating a massive bias.
I personally consider Al Jazeera a credible source, but a single source, and I still take my news as the aggregate of AP, the economist, Reuters, the BBC, the guardian, Al Jazeera. We can't rely on any single organization to provide us objectivity, cuz everybody has biases. We have to synthesize an approximation of truth by what is said and not said by the various reporters
Because Lemmy is just as hell-bent on making Israel look like the only bad guy in that conflict as Aljazeera is.
Reminds me of Mariupol.
It seems the only solution to the conflict is the most inhumane, and both sides know this. Maybe the conflict is better than the solution.
Would it be a a final solution of sorts? Sounds familiar
They also unironically have been using "the Palestinian Question"
So damn infuriating
The problem with fascism is it works. It's so much harder to have a representative democracy that survives, response to people's grievances and needs... it requires a sense of community.
Wow just take that damn mask off why don't you?
Could you elaborate? I'm not pro fascist, I'm saying being a open democracy is hard, and its tempting for people in power to default to fascist tools.
Maybe the conflict is better than the solution.
Please expound.
If only genocide can resolve the conflict, I'd be happier with the conflict as is. (Unlike all those facists downvoting my comment)
"We've tried nothing and we're all out of solutions, so we'll have to genocide them"
This is genocide by the book. After almost 2 decades of being kept poor & isolated, comes in an ultra modern army to do exactly what?
I'm German and anti Hamas.
Where's the fight against Hamas taking place, btw? There should be footage of destroyed Hamas stuff or some dead Hamas Soldiers to be seen, or am i missing something?
Israel has been bombarding for days
Where do you think Hamas is hiding???
"Hiding" doesn't justify killing civilians.
Above commenter asked where the fight with Hamas is taking place.
But that's not fighting, that's exterminating.
How would you be able to tell the difference between a dead hamas soldier and a dead civilian? They don't carry weapons all the time, you know, and terrorist organizations don't exactly wear uniforms.
I think fighting terrorism and warning citizens before bombing is not genocide. Telling citizens they are, in fact, should not run (hamas does that), is closer to genocide.
Actual process of getting rid of terrorists is not exactly something anyone should require to trust someone, but you can check a lot of videos they publish of destroying specific buildings in Gaza.
Be sure to also check the videos of Palestinians killing innocents left and right in Israel. They recorded those themselves.
Bear with me a bit, if you will. There's a sharp point, at least I think so.
If you've never lived on the ground for a disaster like a hurricane or tornado, it's worse than any picture or video can depict. I wept in the street, on my knees, the morning after Hurricane Ivan. It was 10AM, a cool, leafless autumn morning, but it had been summer 12-hours earlier. 10 of those hours was darkness and that nonstop goddamned freight train sound.
"My god, what happened to my new city?" Had no notion of the blast radius, all I could see was what I could see. Watched the blue fireworks of exploding transformers all night. Still didn't hit me. Thinking I was on my own, I wept a bit when the Guard rolled in. "We're getting help?! What? Why? How?"
After living though Ivan, I cried my eyes out seeing what happened to my neighbors in southern Mississippi after Katrina. And then I went and saw for myself. My poor words cannot do justice.
My father-in-law, after picking up a pair of Bronze Stars in Iraq, came home and fought his way through to save those people. They sawed fucking houses in half to open the roads. This old white man was so fond of his memories, showing us pictures of the little black kids they gave salvaged Walmart bikes to. He looked like a proud papa. And then he disintegrated.
He was fine after Iraq, held it together. His Katrina PTSD led him to leave his wife of 32-years and ignore his only child, blew his family apart.
And here's the tip of the spear:
This is an order of magnitude worse. This isn't some blameless natural disaster. These aren't first-world country folks, cranking up the gennies, sharing what they got with anyone in need, pulling together in the face of tragedy. This is a modern nation state purposefully and with malice aforethought conducting genocide on a weaker neighbor. National Guard ain't rolling in for these folks. They're truly on their own.
Damn bro I feel that. Thanks for sharing 😔
Way to make this about you
I took it to be them anchoring in their own experiences and trying to use those experiences as a way to help others understand even 1/10 of what the Gazans are going through. Felt like it was coming from a place of support and empathy. I can see your interpretation too, though.
You're really, really stupid if that's what you got from it.
It's illegal to share experiences now?
They shared theirs so you can have context on how bad the situation is on gaza. Chill on your projections bro.
The single downvote on each of the replies are you, aren't they?
Can someone give me the straight talk on why western countries, who usually at least try to look like they have the moral high ground, are falling all over themselves in support of Israel?
What is the non-conspiracy nutter reason why the US feels the need to provide billions of dollars in support to Israel?
Clearly actions on both sides are reprehensible, some more-so than others. There's no goodies and baddies here. There's aggressors, innocents, and victims on all sides.
Because Israel is ultimately a problem created by western nations like the UK and US, have more similar culture to the west and are their strategic partner for the area whereas the arab nations are traditionally backed by Russia. So they basically HAVE to give them unconditional support to Israel or lose their influence on the region.
I've done some reading and listening since I asked this question and I think that this is the correct answer.
They're the only non-muslim country in the middle-east, and therefore our closest ideological partner, and therefore our best strategic partner.
War is about resources. USA and Britain don't give a shit about giving the land (that they stole from Palestinians) to Jewish people. Israel and Saudi Arabia are their only ways to project power in the region to have leverage against countries with more oil.
There's the historic precedent that people have already discussed here.
There's the very effective Israeli lobby, which has integrated itself into many different governments.
There's the fact that Israel is pro-western, in the Middle East, so they serve Western interests. They can be the foil for Western influence in the Middle East, without directly implicating the West. Need a weapon site bombed in Iran? Israel will do it. This is probably the biggest reason.
The country of Israel has integrated itself into the Western global intelligence Network, especially in terms of special operations, and special intelligence gathering tools, and a weapon supplier for missile defense, drone defense etc. For all intents and purposes their military ally for the west.
The West has a bias against Muslims, and Islam. Not necessarily a deliberate bias, but there is a bias. There is a reluctance for full trust. Israel is a religious country, based on Judaism, which makes them more palatable for Western people to think about.
All that being said, is Western support guaranteed? No. At the international level real politic is extremely fickle, you have to continue to be useful. If another country with better trade-off showed up in the region, it's very likely they would also receive this Western appreciation.
Hamas are terrorists and Western governments support combatting them. Hamas hides behind civilians who tragically are the victims of the war Hamas started this time
That's not really an answer though - obviously there's a question of degree.
If there were 20,000 terrorists with access to advanced weaponry then a few hundred civilian casualties is probably acceptable. If there's 100 terrorists with access to some home made rockets then a few thousand civilian casualties probably isn't acceptable.
Is the present campaign against Gaza with the mode of engagement by Israel really the surest path to peace with the least civilian casualties? Hard to believe given that there was a stale mate just a few weeks ago.
Besides which, you can't kill all the terrorists, that's not how extremism works.
Of course it's an answer.
Ok, well it doesn't address the question, at all.
Of course it does. Fighting terrorism gives the perception of moral high ground
Israel is creating a humanitarian crisis. If you're getting the perception of moral high ground I don't really know what to say to you.
Palestine doesn't have an army, they're not allowed to.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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."
"War isn't Hell. War is war, and Hell is Hell. And of the two, war is a lot worse. There are no innocent bystanders in Hell. War is chock full of them - little kids, cripples, old ladies. In fact, except for some of the brass, almost everybody involved is an innocent bystander." -- MAS*H
Genocide
If Israel's genocidal campaign is actually halted (likely temporarily), the lingering effects of this bombing campaign will continue to claim lives. There will be an increase in premature deaths, at least until Israel decides to complete its final solution. Weapons manufacturers and those who use their products aren't known for "green" initiatives.
So far a lot of the news coverage on here about the israel-palestine conflict is from aljazeera. Why is that?
I would imagine because in the west there is a ton of pressure to side with Israel no matter what, to the point people are losing their jobs for showing any support for Palestine or being critical of Israels actions.
Thanks for the information. I know this conflict has been one of the most controversial and politically confusing wars ever. I guess it's hard for people at large news sites to write about it.
And I've noticed their before and after photos show a before of the suburbs and any after photos showing the city. Cheap tricks. Not that I doubt the main message, but it cheapens the integrity.
In the article linked here. There is one before after and it's a slider. It's the same area. The photos taken from maybe one or two degrees of a different angle so things don't line up perfectly but they line up 99%.
If you're going to criticize them, criticize them for what they've done, or at least link to their disingenuous photos. It's not in this article
Ah — that slider is a new experience for me, and it wasn't clear that vertical bar isn't a photo border. That thing should be marked as interactive. Kudos for the clarification.
We shouldn't take any single news source at face value, every new source has biases, including the political environment it publishes in. The more traditional newer sources like the BBC and Reuters and AP, have the Western bias, and the West is aligned with Israel. So it's difficult for those organizations to talk about the human toll inside of Gaza.
Al Jazeera is based in Qatar, and funded by the Qatari government. They've demonstrated themselves to be excellent reporters, but they have the biases of their environment as well. And some of that bias includes pro Palestinian sentiment.
Net net, the Arab language reporters are more likely to get data directly from Arab sources, Al Jazeera is more likely to have reporters inside of Palestine, and Al Jazeera has the appetite to show the human toll inside of the Gaza strip.
I can't speak for the non-English version, but the English version of Al Jazeera is biased in what they cover, but when they do speak of things I have not noticed any blatant lies.
To the credit of the Western reporters, they're not denying that there's a human tragedy in Gaza, they're just not talking about it. Are they lying? No. But they are demonstrating a massive bias.
I personally consider Al Jazeera a credible source, but a single source, and I still take my news as the aggregate of AP, the economist, Reuters, the BBC, the guardian, Al Jazeera. We can't rely on any single organization to provide us objectivity, cuz everybody has biases. We have to synthesize an approximation of truth by what is said and not said by the various reporters
Here's an article that showed up on Lemmy, and it talks about biases as well. The article is very biased, but it doesn't change the fact the biases they point out are demonstrable and real. So it's interesting to read https://www.medialens.org/2023/the-absolute-right-to-commit-war-crimes-gaza-israel-and-labour-opposition/ to me it just reinforces we have to get our news from multiple sources, with multiple biases.
Because Lemmy is just as hell-bent on making Israel look like the only bad guy in that conflict as Aljazeera is.
Reminds me of Mariupol.
It seems the only solution to the conflict is the most inhumane, and both sides know this. Maybe the conflict is better than the solution.
Would it be a a final solution of sorts? Sounds familiar
They also unironically have been using "the Palestinian Question"
So damn infuriating
The problem with fascism is it works. It's so much harder to have a representative democracy that survives, response to people's grievances and needs... it requires a sense of community.
Wow just take that damn mask off why don't you?
Could you elaborate? I'm not pro fascist, I'm saying being a open democracy is hard, and its tempting for people in power to default to fascist tools.
Please expound.
If only genocide can resolve the conflict, I'd be happier with the conflict as is. (Unlike all those facists downvoting my comment)
"We've tried nothing and we're all out of solutions, so we'll have to genocide them"