It also pointed out that the Israeli authorities denied access to 56% of humanitarian aid missions planned for northern Gaza (34 out of 61) and 25% of missions planned for the middle area (28 out of 114) in January. Since 26 January the number of trucks allowed to enter Gaza, an inadequate metric, never exceeded 218 and was typically below 150.
Waiting for the Zionists in the comments to explain how this is all Egypt or Hamas' fault somehow
They'll just downvote you. They have no arguments at all.
Remember when their propaganda went into overdrive when they hit a hospital and blamed Hamas? Then they blew up all 36 hospitals and just shrugged.
Remember when they kept yapping about the Hamas command centre under the Al Shifa hospital? The hospital they’ve held for over two months now and have provided exactly zero proof that their statements were correct.
Zero proof that you accept.
They've provided photos, videos, and have let journalists tour.
That's more than zero.
Hard to take you seriously when you're so blatantly wrong/ignorant.
They have a report due to the ICJ February 23rd. I'll bet it contains some evidence.
They barely provided anything. They showed an entrance to a service tunnel. They didn’t even go down to showed the supposed “command centre”. That’s it.
Yeah just let israel do more genocide for a month surely we'll see evidence then lmao.
Or call you a hamas supporter/anti Semitic
They don’t come into anything but hypothetical arguments
No you don't get it Hamas lost a lot of Hamas due to Israel's super targeted military response and as a result they need flour to make more Hamas. Israel is cutting off Hamas's Hamas supply and it's not a war crime because human shields.
My favorite was everyone talking about these huge fuel reserves and how they knew they had them.
Yet no one ever blew those sons of bitches up
Wait, so you want Israel to bomb fuel tanks in tunnels hidden beneath civilian buildings? Are you Ben-Gvir?
I mean, if they’re going to be bombing civilian buildings anyway
Ben Gvir throws 2000 pound JDAMs on refugee camps not Hamas fuel supply
Actually, Ben Gvir does nothing but tweet.
I thought Hamas was made with chickpeas?
No no no, it is not Hamas, but Hummas
Did you know they hide their humans among humans?
Don't forget the right wing protesters who are preventing humanitarian aid to reach Gaza, which the Israeli government does very little about.
Seriously one would assume that since they are under investigation by the ICJ for committing of genocide in Gaza, Israeli authorities will be a little bit more concerned with their actions and public image, but they seem to act with impunity and believe they will get another pass by the western governments.
We sanctioned the shit out of Russia and did absolutely nothing here.
Russia is our enemy and Israel our ally and the US, especially the right wing, has been trying to delegitimize the UN for years, mostly so the corporations can keep selling weapons to both our own military as well as our allies. It's not like the sanctions against Russia were ever going to stop the war. They were just designed to give Ukraine a chance to prolong it and sell more weapons to the American people to give to Ukraine. Russia wanted a quick war and that wouldn't be good for business. With Israel, since they're looking to keep the war going until there are no more Muslims, we don't want anything to interfere with that.
FYI most protestors on the border are either family of current Hamas hostages or people who were dislocated due to the war.
they are giving interviews on TV… they are the same right wing leaders and groups that are always doing this bull shit in Israel most of them have no relation to the hostages.
A lot of the kibbutzes in the areas raided were home to much more left-leaning Israelis including peace activists… these are absolutely not the people stopping aid trucks.
And how is starving more than 2 Millions innocent, and mind you a big chunk of those are underage kids, helping their cause?
And Israel can easily prevent this, but they simply don't care about Palestinians, who they are actively trying to dehumanize.
Yeah, go ahead and tell the Israeli Police/Army, who are most likely also a first/second circle of people who got personally affected by the acts of October 7th to forcibly evacuate people who are heart broken by the fact that their relatives are in a terror tunnel in Gaza, and the country which they live in and is supposed to get them out are instead sending aid which has been proven to be stolen by the same terrorists who have their relatives.
When this absurd theater of life interacts with reality not everything is that simple to achieve.
Fuck those poor, helpless, blockaded, starving civilians that have been bombed from their homes, if we give them water/food/power/ceasefire it goes to Hamas
Your bitterness and hatred will just continue the cycle of violence. I hope you do better, but history has shown that we don’t. Look beyond yourself and your pain, and maybe ask why
Fuck those poor, helpless, blockaded, starving civilians that have been bombed from their homes, if we give them water/food/power/ceasefire it goes to Hamas
Where did I say that, why do you misquoted me?
You replied to a commenter pointing out that a million plus civilians are starving to death, with “WHAT ABOUT THE ISRAELI POLICE???”
Everyone except the most hardcore anti-semites was completely horrified on Oct 7-9. Then the IDF began its bombing campaign, and here we are today, quibbling over which hospital is okay to blow up, or how much the Israelis should be allowed to starve the Gazan
Just like the Global War on Terror, the crimes done by America dominate the discussions and history- 9/11 and the civilian deaths is acknowledged as the casus belli but the overreaction is our legacy
quibbling over which hospital is okay to blow up
No hospital was blown up in this conflict according to what I know, I'll be happy if you show me evidence of that.
or how much the Israelis should be allowed to starve the Gazan
Nobody is allowing any such thing:
There are thousands of hostages relatives and friends who are understandably very distraught due to this all situation, and for them sitting, probably not even in their home since October 7th, and seeing the aid pouring into Gaza while their loved ones are rotting in some Hamas terror tunnel will understandably make them want to do something about it.
The police is obviously hesitant to use force on people in this situation, especially given they are most likely affected by the current fighting and understand that Hamas is stealing and abusing this aid to prolong the fighting.
The above is my explanation, not an endorsement for their actions.
I'm sure this matter will be resolved, if not already.
Israel is currently subject to an ICJ judgement to prevent harm to civilians in Gaza
Ignoring that, basic human decency demands that you take measures to help people
Especially if you are blockading that area, so only what you allow goes in
Doubly so if you do not make accommodation for those civilians’s safety or survival outside of the combat zones, but leave them locked in a tiny geographical area
The IDF have been severely limiting aid in not Gaza through all of the checkpoints. This is well documented
Israeli civilians are making their own blockades of the crossings, and the IDF is allowing them to block aid. This is also well documented
So you just proved how racism works. When the suffering of 100 Israelis > suffering of 2M + Palestinians.
That's not racism, that's just your interpretation of these events.
All I did was to correct the commenter about the identity of those protesting.
I doubt you would do anything different if you would be in their shoes.
So what's your solution, let's leave all Palestinians die of hunger?
And again to reiterate, Hamas might have killed a bit less than 1000 civilians, but IDF has killed 20 times more. They are also responsible for the destruction of almost half the civilian infrastructure there, the destruction of civilian homes, agricultural land, mass starvation, has created dire humanitarian catastrophe, damaged hospitals, killed paramedics, kids, manage to turn this war the deadliest for journalists in modern history, committed numerous war crimes, are investigated by the ICJ for committing genocide, etc. and you still defend them?
Shall we also mention that you managed to frustrate greatly even your closest ally the US, who is getting more annoyed with you by the day and now you are planning to attack Rafah, where more than half of the population of Gaza is sheltering, pushing them more to the abyss of despair.
Hamas might have killed a bit less than 1000 civilians, but IDF has killed 20 times more
Notice how you know the exact civilian vs combatant numbers for the Israeli side but not for the Palestinians.
IDF claims a 7-9k dead combatants, so that's an almost 2:1 ratio, which is unheard of especially in this dense urban fighting while Hamas tries to maximize civilian casualties.
They are also responsible for the destruction of almost half the civilian infrastructure there, the destruction of civilian homes, agricultural land, mass starvation, has created dire humanitarian catastrophe, damaged hospitals, killed paramedics, kids, manage to turn this war the deadliest for journalists in modern history, committed numerous war crimes
Yeah, all of that is on Hamas
and you still defend them?
Israel is the only side who had actually strived for peace over the years, that enthusiasm for peace has been tested to the extreme and unfortunately dwindled for obvious reasons, but even after the horrific events of October 7th you can still find voices calling for a two state solution. There was no such attempts for peace from the Palestinians, on the contrary - just more missiles and terror attacks for every attempt at a permanent settlement of the conflict.
So, yeah, of course I defend them.
Shall we also mention that you managed to frustrate greatly even your closest ally the US, who is getting more annoyed with you by the day and now you are planning to attack Rafah, where more than half of the population of Gaza is sheltering, pushing them more to the abyss of despair.
Hamas is an obstacle to peace and must be disabled, they can stop this war now if they wanted by releasing the man, woman, children and babies (!) they currently hold captive, and surrender.
If they don't do that Israel had no other viable course of action to get rid of this threat, hopefully with as little civilian casualties as possible.
And these are indisputable FACTS.
Some facts, some unsubstantiated propaganda, some opinions
What from what I said is unsubstantiated propaganda?
Because these are all facts that can be easily confirmed with a simple google search from sources of Reuters, AP, etc.
Saying that all the civilian casualties, destroyed infrastructure, homes, hospitals, roads are Hamas fault is the most childish and one sided thing you can say.
I think arguing with you is a waste of time, as you seem to be extremely brainwashed.
Dislocated and living in hotels, having access to food, clean water, healthcare.
Shall we talk about the dislocated Gazans who are living in makeshift tents, have no food, water, electricity or access to healthcare?
Regarding your second point - it's a military controlled area, if the military concludes that something is banned in that area due to its abuse by a terrorist group that's the way it should be, especially given the history of weaponization of dual use materials by this group (https://youtu.be/MvvqBcA-9yA).
I agree. It sucks that they let terrorists excavate tunnels under their three cities and then use them to launch a mass shooting of civilians and first responders after decades of rocket attacks and suicide bombings, but they did. Probably should have violently overthrown Hamas instead of enabling it at all costs.
Thanks! We clearly need a de-amping bot in Lemmy too...
There’s an extension on iOS called Amplosion that fixes Amp links. Probably one on Android but I’m not positive.
And I wrote a little bookmarklet to get rid of Google highlighting text and scrolling down like I don’t want to read an entire article. Just make a bookmark and replace the URL with this:
its seems like israel is planning to run a trail of tears and then convert gaza into a metro resort. after thousands of years of assumed moral superiority, claiming to be the light leading humanity? its flabbergasting. its a good will bbq, and likely to fail anyway.
Israel isn't thousands of years old. The Israel that exists today was established in 1948. Israel doesn't have any claim to the Jews or their history, and the younger generations reject the state.
What made you assume they had any moral superiority?
Not just Israel, all the countries that defunded the humanitarian aid.
The article at least mentions that even though the order didn't demand ceasefire, it practically did very explicitly:
The State of Israel shall ... desist from the commission of any and all
acts within the scope of Article II of the Convention, in particular:
(a) killing members of the group;
(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to the members of the group
Many western media had the headline "no ceasefire ordered" which made the order sound like it was nothing. The western media too is complicit in atrocity.
I think many of the people in Palestine felt betrayed that they did not use the words cease fire. When faced with this existential crisis, nothing less is acceptable.
The icj used language that practically meant cease fire, but mid east news expressed disappointment.
So I guess the point I'm trying to make is that you're admonishing "Western" media, but if that was the perspective you heard - No cease fire was called for - it probably accurately represents the sentiment of many of the people there.
The South Africans understood what the icj said, and their comments immediately following the decision illustrated that.
You could be right but the way the media here works is that they do report the facts but bias them. The headline sets the tone, and how the article is written makes it more likely to come to one conclusion. So it would take much more work to make my point. But I'm pretty sure: Even if they do technically report the facts there is a huge bias to manipulate the population in the "free" press.
In this case something like "ooohh too bad the court didn't give the arabs what they wanted poor guys!" while it really was a legal victory - the court specifically ordered them to stop killing of palestinians.
I can't read newspapers without getting super angry lol
The court did not specifically order that. Luckily we have the order and you may read it for yourself. You don't have to rely on the incorrect analysis of the person who said otherwise or this article, which paraphrased the order to make it sound as though it contained something which it did not contain. OP-above used an ellipses to omit a pretty crucial sentence of the order. It does not bar the killing of any Palestinians as the Guardian article and OP have implied with selective paraphrasing and omissions.
JustZ is right in this case, and I always disagree with them lol. They want Israel to stop doing genocidal actions, so inciting genocide, blocking humanitarian aid, the most genocide-like of the collective punishment stuff. But they didn't go as far as to call for a ceasefire or anything like that. They went farther than the Zionists who were calling it a victory, but that doesn't mean they went as far as some people on the left think they did.
Honestly, what gives? The language you are quoting here is neither from the article nor from the ICJ order.
The ICJ order did not require Israel to take a single affirmative step other than to provide a status report on or before February 23rd, as this article mentions in the second paragraph.
As a lawyer that as read the order, it's you that is misrepresenting it not "western media."
The Court considers that, with regard to the situation described above, Israel must, in
accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza,
take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article
II of this Convention, in particular: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or
mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and (d) imposing measures
intended to prevent births within the group. The Court recalls that these acts fall within the scope of
Article II of the Convention when they are committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a
group as such (see paragraph 44 above). The Court further considers that Israel must ensure with
immediate effect that its military forces do not commit any of the above-described acts.
The Court is also of the view that Israel must take all measures within its power to prevent
and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the
Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.
The Court further considers that Israel must take immediate and effective measures to
enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the
adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
Israel must also take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the
preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II and Article III of
the Genocide Convention against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.
Tell me again how you're a lawyer who read the order lol. But we've seen again and again how Israel operatives lie to justify their fascist regime and their genocide.
Yes the language in that first paragraph about the Genocide Convention was left out of the Guardian articl and the person above, who purported to quote the order, but at least used an ellipses to indicate the omission, unlike the Guardian.
This part of the order (P79) refers only to killings to which are barred under the Genocide Conventions, not the mere killing of any Palestinian, which is what OP, you, and the Guardian article falsely implied.
P79 is another good example. You've quoted it here presumably to argue that "see, Israel does have to take affirmative steps." Here Israel must prosecute people for war crimes and incitement to genocide. Well, you're ignoring the part of the order that finds Israel is already doing that, and they are.
80 and 81, same thing. Israel is already in compliance, at least that's what they will argue and provide evidence of in their status report due to the ICJ on February 23.
E: If only down voting me could make your feelings about what's in the order actually match the order.
You said:
The language you are quoting here is neither from the article nor from the ICJ order.
u/LarmyofLone then quoted the order, showing that the language they used was exactly from the order.
Take the L, mate.
Are you dense?
Larmy omitted a key part of the sentence in paragraph 79, which is the paragraph the original news story was paraphrasing. Both Larmy and the Guardian's omission gave a misleading impression that the ICJ ordered Israel not to kill any more Palestinians.
Obviously, that's not what the order said.
The actual text:
Israel must, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention, in particular: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
The paraphrasing:
The State of Israel shall … desist from the commission of any and all acts within the scope of Article II of the Convention, in particular: (a) killing members of the group;
(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to the members of the group
It looks like the only difference here is changing "take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of", to "desist from the commission of", which is fairly reasonable and doesn't change the meaning, since "desist" alone can be taken to mean "refrain from" or "cease".
So yes, I must be dense, because I still can't see how your accusation of changing the language holds water. Also, it seems to be para. 78 we're dealing with, not 79, whose subject is incitement.
You're still missing the key difference. Right, 78.
This is the language that was omitted:
In accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention,
Israel cannot kill Palestinians in violation of the Genocide Convention. No kidding?
That's not the same as saying Israel cannot kill any Palestinians.
Then that's what LarmyofLone said. "Within the scope of the convention." Why can't you back down mate? It'll be good for you. We all make mistakes.
Nah go back further to Larmy's initial comment and the Guardian article linked at the top of this post. Larmy's second post too leaves out the word "Genocide Convention" and just says "convention."
Both altered the text of the actual order to make it appear as though Israel was ordered not to kill any Palestinians, and they did it on purpose to make Israel look like it is violating the order.
It's always illegal by the ICJ standards to kill people in violation of the Genocide Convention. It's not always a violation of the Genocide Convention to kill people, though. That's a significant difference.
Countries de-funded UNRWA because they had people on their payroll that participated in actual genocide on October 7.
Many countries have switched to providing aid through alternative channels.
Really Guterres should resign, because how can an investigation of the UNRWA be trusted when it's in the best interests of the UN Secretary General to prove it didn't happen to avoid responsibility?
At this point the UN is just becoming less and less of a factor in the conflict because of their failures in leadership. I mean trying to make excuses for October 7, then not even apologizing when there's a valid complaint about it. The UN is failing at diplomacy 101. The UN failed to properly vet the people they have working for them. If people on the UN payroll committed genocide, how seriously can we take claims coming from the UN about genocide?
We really need the UN be a part of a potential future peace in Gaza, but the UN is continuously failing in every possible way in regards to Gaza. There needs to be serious changes at the UN. There's a need for an impartial diplomatic organization in the world, and the UN in it's current form simply isn't capable of being that.
Why are you lying? There is zero evidence provided that any UNRWA member participated in the attack.
The "evidence" that was provided by israel was proven fake by Sky News and Channel4.
Sniping doctors performing surgery might have given it away too
Ya think?
Shocked.
Shocked I am.
Boycott, Divest, and Sanction Now.
no shit sherlock
I how Israel realizes that as soon as they're done with the Palestinians the Christians are going to come in and start genociding the Jews. They've demonstrated its legal there.
All g then
The ICJ also ordered Hamas to release all hostages, but never mind that...
Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organization, under international sanctions. Nobody expects them to bow to UN pressure.
Israel is supposedly a responsible and law abiding nation state, with diplomatic ties, international recognition, and is expected to behave according to international law.
If you want equal treatment that can be done, the UN is repeatedly tired of Israel's behavior
But they're such good friends, they allow Hamas to build tunnels below UN HQ.
Weird how the Israeli forces suddenly started finding all of these connections between UNWRA and Hamas hours after the ICJ ruled against them. Also weird that the IDF claims that anything set up to help Palestinian civilians, like UNWRA, hospitals, and refugee camps, are Hamas strongholds, but no one can ever verify these claims (usually because they been obliterated by Israeli air strikes).
Ah we've progressed to delusional conspiracy.
LOL, you are claiming the U.N. is in league with Hamas my guy, please get some perspective.
These allegations have been around for years. Dude, it's the largest employer in Gaza. You don't think there's some overlap between the largest employer and the hugely popular terrorist organization?
You know some of the MAGAs on January 6 probably worked at Wal-Mart, just statistically. Not really much difference here, except the MAGAs probably didn't co-opt Wal-Mart's resources to pull off their attack.
I mean, there are 1,300 of UNWRA employees in Palestine, most of them Palestinian. Do I think it's possible the 13 accused employees were involved in the October attack? Yes, I believe it's possible that literally 1% of them were involved.
Do I think that UNWRA as an institution was working with Hamas? Only in the sense that Hamas is in control of the government, and there is literally no way to carry out their mission of aiding the Palestinian people without working the the ruling government.
Do I think that UNWRA was working the Hamas on planning military attacks, or allowing their building to be used as a base of operations for Hamas terrorists? No, and the IDF is going to have to produce better evidence than a tunnel underneath a building (which they completely leveled) to convince me of otherwise.
13,000 in UNRWA employees in Gaza, as I understand. The IDF's dossier also alleged that 1,300, or 10%, were direct supporters of Hamas whilst 50% have close family or close friends who are members of Hamas.
I don't think UNRWA itself was officially coordinating the attacks, but I have zero doubt that UNRWA negligently let it's resources being coopted, and the world needed a reality check on UNRWA's activities in Gaza. As you said, they do justifiably work with Hamas as much as anyone can justify working with terrorists. The question is how friendly is UNRWA to Hamas and it's strategies in that work? Some of longstanding allegations are that UNRWA teaches that martyrdom is honorable and that martyrs are heroes. Perhaps that explains some of the shocking numbers of civilians killed?
You're right, I misread that statistic...so, literally 0.1%. I highly doubt that 10% number, or at least I believe that they're inflating it with a loose definition of, "support." I suspect that a lot of instances of, "directly supporting," Hamas will turn out to be people working the Hamas government to distribute supplies to civilians, some of which wound up going to militants. The 50% having close friends of family supporting Hamas seems closer to true, but what of it? Going back to your example, I'm sure at least that percentage of Americans have family/friends who support the January 6th rioters, but that doesn't mean they want to overthrow the government.
These allegations seem like war propaganda, and the fact that they came out at the exact same time as the ICJ ruling is even more suspicious. Until they are backed up any other credible source, I will treat them as such.
You can talk to the Wall Street Journal. They think the same thing. But, you can't even accept what your eyes see on video.
Well, I can't read most of the WSJ's coverage because it's behind a pay wall, but it's anything like the AP or Reuters coverage, it's going to say that these claims are only being made by the Israeli military and not independently verified (the opening paragraph of the WSJ coverage seems to line up with this). The AP even notes, "It did not prove definitively that Hamas militants operated in the tunnels underneath the UNWRA facility, but it did show that at least a portion of the tunnel ran underneath the facility’s courtyard." So, did the IDF show that Hamas was working with UNWRA, or did they show some journalists a tunnel near UNWRA building?
So you can't read it, but will tell me what it says? Pretty funny.
I can read the first paragraph, the rest is behind a pay wall. Have you never seen a pay wall? Here's the first sentence: "Hidden deep below the headquarters of the United Nations’ aid agency for Palestinians here is a Hamas complex with rows of computer servers that Israel’s armed forces say served as an important communications center and intelligence hub for the Islamist militant group." My guess is, based on the fact that no news agency is verifying this claim, and the opening sentence of the WSJ coverage is citing Israeli claims, they also don't have any evidence besides the IDF's claims.
But why don't you tell me? You obviously read the entire article, or you wouldn't be referencing it. Does the WSJ have any independent evidence outside of the Israeli presentation show to the news agencies? What evidence is provided by the WSJ that is absent from the AP coverage I linked to? I mean, you must know, you did read the article, not just the headline, right?
Edit: Weird, this guy made 9 comments since I left this reply, including some trying to undermine the AP article I cited, but he hasn't responded to this. If I didn't know any better I'd swear he hadn't read that WSJ article.
Ah yes, an Israeli "AI expert" is really a reliable source of information in this conflict.
Denial is always the first refuge. It's predictable
Man, you really can't accept that you lost this argument and you keep parroting the same line.
I've lost some sort of competition you say? Shucks
You are making a fool of yourself.
Are you some kind of authority?
One doesn't need to be authority to see the obvious.
After so many people proving you wrong with facts and you were only repeating the same nonsensical lines without bringing anything new to the table that would support your point.
Multiple cuts to the video, no verification it is a UNRWA building, nothing linking the tunnel to the UN building is shown. Just talk
Do better, don’t swallow propaganda willfully
Denial. It's for lunch and dinner.
Yes. I’m denying the pathetic ‘evidence’ you tried to insert into the discussion, because it functionally proves nothing:
A tunnel entrance, then the video cuts
Now we’re in a tunnel, looking at computers racks and screens. And another video cut
Now we’re in a BUILDING! Ooooh how’d they get into the building? Hmmmm that’d seem like some actual proof if they showed how the tunnel and building were linked! Too bad they don’t show that part, I wonder why not? 🤔
Ohhh now he’s saying things. “Omg look at the wires, they’re cut! Only eeeevil people cut wires, they must be hiding something” DAMNING PROOF, we clearly need to disband UNRWA immediately
You keep offering these low effort drive-by claims, and reply with cheap arguments or retorts when challenged. There’s plenty that Al-Quassam and Hamas have done wrong, without inventing false narratives that lack evidence.
.There is a double down on denial.
offers dubious evidence
“Oh, so now you’re just deny deny deny, huh?! So typical!”
And the other option is…blind belief in unfounded claims? Here’s a suggestion: back up your claim. Don’t just chant “denial denial denial” like it’s actually an argument.
Back up the claim how? The raw intelligence is classified, no doubt. All anyone ever gets is public statements and watered down facts.
Israel is a democracy though and has traditions of open government and of prosecuting war criminals. Hamas is a far right theocratic authoritarian regime that rules by assassination and wanton use of human shields, i.e., literally building massive tunnel systems under every city and using them to conduct decades of terror attack and indiscriminate rocket attacks in civilian targets. Whenever a bunch of Palestinian's died, usually Israel says "well some of them were Hamas." Hamas on the other hand insists every time that none of the dead are Hamas. For that reason, Israel is more credible.
Yup, you just can't believe your lyin eyes. Can't trust them for sure.
I am sensing some denial here. I'm sure they just accidentally added cuts to the video, surely they wouldn't try to mislead people by fabricating evidence.
Why has there been zero independent verification if the IDF proof is so clear cut?
I mean yeah that’s how international conventions work. There’s not really a thing of “international law”, just a bunch of countries that have all agreed to abide by restrictions. If a country chooses not to follow an “international law”, all you can do is try to coerce them or invade.
And then complain about those that do follow the law and ignore those that don't. I see.
Top tier whataboutism!
Oh sure. Whataboutisism is all you hear when you reference Hamas raping and murdering on October 7th.
That's litrerally whataboutism. You could use your comment as an excellent example of what whataboutism is.
Or maybe what hypocrisy is to those who I responded to.
Does anyone here actually consider Hamas anything other than a terrorist organization that got voted in in 2007 and then shut down election?
Did anyone here actually believe that Hamas were ever the good guys?
We used to think the Israelis weren’t on the same page, and we hope that they will eventually.
As much as we hate them right now, most of us still believe that they might be able to come back.
TLDR: False equivalency
I hate that election talking point. Hamas didn’t even win a majority — they won a plurality against split opposition with Fatah plagued by corruption scandals — and 65% the population was under 25 when this war started (so like unborn or not past third grade in 2007).
Probably pretty safe to assume 80% or so of current Gazans didn’t vote for Hamas.
As much as we hate them right now, most of us still believe that they might be able to come back.
The Allies firebombed 100.000s of Germans to break the resistance. Are you suggesting Israel turns up the heat?
"Others did bad things in the past, that means we can do it now"
What does that have to do with what I said?
Surely you’re not going to what about things to try and make a false equivalency?
Waiting for the Zionists in the comments to explain how this is all Egypt or Hamas' fault somehow
They'll just downvote you. They have no arguments at all.
Remember when their propaganda went into overdrive when they hit a hospital and blamed Hamas? Then they blew up all 36 hospitals and just shrugged.
Remember when they kept yapping about the Hamas command centre under the Al Shifa hospital? The hospital they’ve held for over two months now and have provided exactly zero proof that their statements were correct.
Zero proof that you accept.
They've provided photos, videos, and have let journalists tour.
That's more than zero.
Hard to take you seriously when you're so blatantly wrong/ignorant.
They have a report due to the ICJ February 23rd. I'll bet it contains some evidence.
They barely provided anything. They showed an entrance to a service tunnel. They didn’t even go down to showed the supposed “command centre”. That’s it.
Yeah just let israel do more genocide for a month surely we'll see evidence then lmao.
Or call you a hamas supporter/anti Semitic
They don’t come into anything but hypothetical arguments
No you don't get it Hamas lost a lot of Hamas due to Israel's super targeted military response and as a result they need flour to make more Hamas. Israel is cutting off Hamas's Hamas supply and it's not a war crime because human shields.
My favorite was everyone talking about these huge fuel reserves and how they knew they had them.
Yet no one ever blew those sons of bitches up
Wait, so you want Israel to bomb fuel tanks in tunnels hidden beneath civilian buildings? Are you Ben-Gvir?
I mean, if they’re going to be bombing civilian buildings anyway
Ben Gvir throws 2000 pound JDAMs on refugee camps not Hamas fuel supply
Actually, Ben Gvir does nothing but tweet.
I thought Hamas was made with chickpeas?
No no no, it is not Hamas, but Hummas
Did you know they hide their humans among humans?
Don't forget the right wing protesters who are preventing humanitarian aid to reach Gaza, which the Israeli government does very little about.
Seriously one would assume that since they are under investigation by the ICJ for committing of genocide in Gaza, Israeli authorities will be a little bit more concerned with their actions and public image, but they seem to act with impunity and believe they will get another pass by the western governments.
We sanctioned the shit out of Russia and did absolutely nothing here.
Russia is our enemy and Israel our ally and the US, especially the right wing, has been trying to delegitimize the UN for years, mostly so the corporations can keep selling weapons to both our own military as well as our allies. It's not like the sanctions against Russia were ever going to stop the war. They were just designed to give Ukraine a chance to prolong it and sell more weapons to the American people to give to Ukraine. Russia wanted a quick war and that wouldn't be good for business. With Israel, since they're looking to keep the war going until there are no more Muslims, we don't want anything to interfere with that.
FYI most protestors on the border are either family of current Hamas hostages or people who were dislocated due to the war.
they are giving interviews on TV… they are the same right wing leaders and groups that are always doing this bull shit in Israel most of them have no relation to the hostages.
A lot of the kibbutzes in the areas raided were home to much more left-leaning Israelis including peace activists… these are absolutely not the people stopping aid trucks.
And how is starving more than 2 Millions innocent, and mind you a big chunk of those are underage kids, helping their cause?
And Israel can easily prevent this, but they simply don't care about Palestinians, who they are actively trying to dehumanize.
Yeah, go ahead and tell the Israeli Police/Army, who are most likely also a first/second circle of people who got personally affected by the acts of October 7th to forcibly evacuate people who are heart broken by the fact that their relatives are in a terror tunnel in Gaza, and the country which they live in and is supposed to get them out are instead sending aid which has been proven to be stolen by the same terrorists who have their relatives.
When this absurd theater of life interacts with reality not everything is that simple to achieve.
Your bitterness and hatred will just continue the cycle of violence. I hope you do better, but history has shown that we don’t. Look beyond yourself and your pain, and maybe ask why
Where did I say that, why do you misquoted me?
You replied to a commenter pointing out that a million plus civilians are starving to death, with “WHAT ABOUT THE ISRAELI POLICE???”
Everyone except the most hardcore anti-semites was completely horrified on Oct 7-9. Then the IDF began its bombing campaign, and here we are today, quibbling over which hospital is okay to blow up, or how much the Israelis should be allowed to starve the Gazan
Just like the Global War on Terror, the crimes done by America dominate the discussions and history- 9/11 and the civilian deaths is acknowledged as the casus belli but the overreaction is our legacy
No hospital was blown up in this conflict according to what I know, I'll be happy if you show me evidence of that.
Nobody is allowing any such thing: There are thousands of hostages relatives and friends who are understandably very distraught due to this all situation, and for them sitting, probably not even in their home since October 7th, and seeing the aid pouring into Gaza while their loved ones are rotting in some Hamas terror tunnel will understandably make them want to do something about it. The police is obviously hesitant to use force on people in this situation, especially given they are most likely affected by the current fighting and understand that Hamas is stealing and abusing this aid to prolong the fighting.
The above is my explanation, not an endorsement for their actions. I'm sure this matter will be resolved, if not already.
The IDF have been severely limiting aid in not Gaza through all of the checkpoints. This is well documented
Israeli civilians are making their own blockades of the crossings, and the IDF is allowing them to block aid. This is also well documented
So you just proved how racism works. When the suffering of 100 Israelis > suffering of 2M + Palestinians.
That's not racism, that's just your interpretation of these events. All I did was to correct the commenter about the identity of those protesting.
I doubt you would do anything different if you would be in their shoes.
So what's your solution, let's leave all Palestinians die of hunger?
And again to reiterate, Hamas might have killed a bit less than 1000 civilians, but IDF has killed 20 times more. They are also responsible for the destruction of almost half the civilian infrastructure there, the destruction of civilian homes, agricultural land, mass starvation, has created dire humanitarian catastrophe, damaged hospitals, killed paramedics, kids, manage to turn this war the deadliest for journalists in modern history, committed numerous war crimes, are investigated by the ICJ for committing genocide, etc. and you still defend them?
Shall we also mention that you managed to frustrate greatly even your closest ally the US, who is getting more annoyed with you by the day and now you are planning to attack Rafah, where more than half of the population of Gaza is sheltering, pushing them more to the abyss of despair.
And these are indisputable FACTS.
"Journalists" https://x.com/AdinHaykin1/status/1756743721020690751?s=20
Notice how you know the exact civilian vs combatant numbers for the Israeli side but not for the Palestinians. IDF claims a 7-9k dead combatants, so that's an almost 2:1 ratio, which is unheard of especially in this dense urban fighting while Hamas tries to maximize civilian casualties.
Yeah, all of that is on Hamas
Israel is the only side who had actually strived for peace over the years, that enthusiasm for peace has been tested to the extreme and unfortunately dwindled for obvious reasons, but even after the horrific events of October 7th you can still find voices calling for a two state solution. There was no such attempts for peace from the Palestinians, on the contrary - just more missiles and terror attacks for every attempt at a permanent settlement of the conflict. So, yeah, of course I defend them.
Hamas is an obstacle to peace and must be disabled, they can stop this war now if they wanted by releasing the man, woman, children and babies (!) they currently hold captive, and surrender. If they don't do that Israel had no other viable course of action to get rid of this threat, hopefully with as little civilian casualties as possible.
Some facts, some unsubstantiated propaganda, some opinions
What from what I said is unsubstantiated propaganda?
Because these are all facts that can be easily confirmed with a simple google search from sources of Reuters, AP, etc.
Saying that all the civilian casualties, destroyed infrastructure, homes, hospitals, roads are Hamas fault is the most childish and one sided thing you can say.
I think arguing with you is a waste of time, as you seem to be extremely brainwashed.
Dislocated and living in hotels, having access to food, clean water, healthcare.
Shall we talk about the dislocated Gazans who are living in makeshift tents, have no food, water, electricity or access to healthcare?
Or do you want to comment out on the fact that Israeli authorities are not permitting delivery of tent poles because those poles can be used as weapons? Imagine fighting tanks with tent poles... Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/civilians-or-hamas-dual-use-issue-complicates-gaza-aid-efforts-2024-01-05/
Isn't it nice that a government takes care of its citizens?
The Gazans should complain to their elected government who not only failed to provide them security (see https://www.memri.org/reports/hamas-official-mousa-abu-marzouk-tunnels-gaza-were-built-protect-hamas-fighters-not), but also is the root cause of their suffering.
Regarding your second point - it's a military controlled area, if the military concludes that something is banned in that area due to its abuse by a terrorist group that's the way it should be, especially given the history of weaponization of dual use materials by this group (https://youtu.be/MvvqBcA-9yA).
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/MvvqBcA-9yA
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I agree. It sucks that they let terrorists excavate tunnels under their three cities and then use them to launch a mass shooting of civilians and first responders after decades of rocket attacks and suicide bombings, but they did. Probably should have violently overthrown Hamas instead of enabling it at all costs.
non-amp link
Thanks! We clearly need a de-amping bot in Lemmy too...
There’s an extension on iOS called Amplosion that fixes Amp links. Probably one on Android but I’m not positive.
And I wrote a little bookmarklet to get rid of Google highlighting text and scrolling down like I don’t want to read an entire article. Just make a bookmark and replace the URL with this:
its seems like israel is planning to run a trail of tears and then convert gaza into a metro resort. after thousands of years of assumed moral superiority, claiming to be the light leading humanity? its flabbergasting. its a good will bbq, and likely to fail anyway.
Israel isn't thousands of years old. The Israel that exists today was established in 1948. Israel doesn't have any claim to the Jews or their history, and the younger generations reject the state.
What made you assume they had any moral superiority?
Not just Israel, all the countries that defunded the humanitarian aid.
The article at least mentions that even though the order didn't demand ceasefire, it practically did very explicitly:
Many western media had the headline "no ceasefire ordered" which made the order sound like it was nothing. The western media too is complicit in atrocity.
I think many of the people in Palestine felt betrayed that they did not use the words cease fire. When faced with this existential crisis, nothing less is acceptable.
The icj used language that practically meant cease fire, but mid east news expressed disappointment.
So I guess the point I'm trying to make is that you're admonishing "Western" media, but if that was the perspective you heard - No cease fire was called for - it probably accurately represents the sentiment of many of the people there.
The South Africans understood what the icj said, and their comments immediately following the decision illustrated that.
You could be right but the way the media here works is that they do report the facts but bias them. The headline sets the tone, and how the article is written makes it more likely to come to one conclusion. So it would take much more work to make my point. But I'm pretty sure: Even if they do technically report the facts there is a huge bias to manipulate the population in the "free" press.
In this case something like "ooohh too bad the court didn't give the arabs what they wanted poor guys!" while it really was a legal victory - the court specifically ordered them to stop killing of palestinians.
I can't read newspapers without getting super angry lol
The court did not specifically order that. Luckily we have the order and you may read it for yourself. You don't have to rely on the incorrect analysis of the person who said otherwise or this article, which paraphrased the order to make it sound as though it contained something which it did not contain. OP-above used an ellipses to omit a pretty crucial sentence of the order. It does not bar the killing of any Palestinians as the Guardian article and OP have implied with selective paraphrasing and omissions.
JustZ is right in this case, and I always disagree with them lol. They want Israel to stop doing genocidal actions, so inciting genocide, blocking humanitarian aid, the most genocide-like of the collective punishment stuff. But they didn't go as far as to call for a ceasefire or anything like that. They went farther than the Zionists who were calling it a victory, but that doesn't mean they went as far as some people on the left think they did.
Honestly, what gives? The language you are quoting here is neither from the article nor from the ICJ order.
The ICJ order did not require Israel to take a single affirmative step other than to provide a status report on or before February 23rd, as this article mentions in the second paragraph.
As a lawyer that as read the order, it's you that is misrepresenting it not "western media."
Direct quote from: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf
Tell me again how you're a lawyer who read the order lol. But we've seen again and again how Israel operatives lie to justify their fascist regime and their genocide.
Yes the language in that first paragraph about the Genocide Convention was left out of the Guardian articl and the person above, who purported to quote the order, but at least used an ellipses to indicate the omission, unlike the Guardian.
This part of the order (P79) refers only to killings to which are barred under the Genocide Conventions, not the mere killing of any Palestinian, which is what OP, you, and the Guardian article falsely implied.
P79 is another good example. You've quoted it here presumably to argue that "see, Israel does have to take affirmative steps." Here Israel must prosecute people for war crimes and incitement to genocide. Well, you're ignoring the part of the order that finds Israel is already doing that, and they are.
80 and 81, same thing. Israel is already in compliance, at least that's what they will argue and provide evidence of in their status report due to the ICJ on February 23.
E: If only down voting me could make your feelings about what's in the order actually match the order.
You said:
u/LarmyofLone then quoted the order, showing that the language they used was exactly from the order.
Take the L, mate.
Are you dense?
Larmy omitted a key part of the sentence in paragraph 79, which is the paragraph the original news story was paraphrasing. Both Larmy and the Guardian's omission gave a misleading impression that the ICJ ordered Israel not to kill any more Palestinians.
Obviously, that's not what the order said.
The actual text:
The paraphrasing:
It looks like the only difference here is changing "take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of", to "desist from the commission of", which is fairly reasonable and doesn't change the meaning, since "desist" alone can be taken to mean "refrain from" or "cease".
So yes, I must be dense, because I still can't see how your accusation of changing the language holds water. Also, it seems to be para. 78 we're dealing with, not 79, whose subject is incitement.
You're still missing the key difference. Right, 78.
This is the language that was omitted:
Israel cannot kill Palestinians in violation of the Genocide Convention. No kidding?
That's not the same as saying Israel cannot kill any Palestinians.
Then that's what LarmyofLone said. "Within the scope of the convention." Why can't you back down mate? It'll be good for you. We all make mistakes.
Nah go back further to Larmy's initial comment and the Guardian article linked at the top of this post. Larmy's second post too leaves out the word "Genocide Convention" and just says "convention."
Both altered the text of the actual order to make it appear as though Israel was ordered not to kill any Palestinians, and they did it on purpose to make Israel look like it is violating the order.
It's always illegal by the ICJ standards to kill people in violation of the Genocide Convention. It's not always a violation of the Genocide Convention to kill people, though. That's a significant difference.
Countries de-funded UNRWA because they had people on their payroll that participated in actual genocide on October 7.
Many countries have switched to providing aid through alternative channels.
Really Guterres should resign, because how can an investigation of the UNRWA be trusted when it's in the best interests of the UN Secretary General to prove it didn't happen to avoid responsibility?
At this point the UN is just becoming less and less of a factor in the conflict because of their failures in leadership. I mean trying to make excuses for October 7, then not even apologizing when there's a valid complaint about it. The UN is failing at diplomacy 101. The UN failed to properly vet the people they have working for them. If people on the UN payroll committed genocide, how seriously can we take claims coming from the UN about genocide?
We really need the UN be a part of a potential future peace in Gaza, but the UN is continuously failing in every possible way in regards to Gaza. There needs to be serious changes at the UN. There's a need for an impartial diplomatic organization in the world, and the UN in it's current form simply isn't capable of being that.
Why are you lying? There is zero evidence provided that any UNRWA member participated in the attack.
The "evidence" that was provided by israel was proven fake by Sky News and Channel4.
Sniping doctors performing surgery might have given it away too
Ya think?
Shocked.
Shocked I am.
Boycott, Divest, and Sanction Now.
no shit sherlock
I how Israel realizes that as soon as they're done with the Palestinians the Christians are going to come in and start genociding the Jews. They've demonstrated its legal there.
All g then
The ICJ also ordered Hamas to release all hostages, but never mind that...
Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organization, under international sanctions. Nobody expects them to bow to UN pressure.
Israel is supposedly a responsible and law abiding nation state, with diplomatic ties, international recognition, and is expected to behave according to international law.
If you want equal treatment that can be done, the UN is repeatedly tired of Israel's behavior
But they're such good friends, they allow Hamas to build tunnels below UN HQ.
https://twitter.com/DrEliDavid/status/1756369328184734024?t=x9wntjsdvZaM-H2Yt8eguw&s=19
Weird how the Israeli forces suddenly started finding all of these connections between UNWRA and Hamas hours after the ICJ ruled against them. Also weird that the IDF claims that anything set up to help Palestinian civilians, like UNWRA, hospitals, and refugee camps, are Hamas strongholds, but no one can ever verify these claims (usually because they been obliterated by Israeli air strikes).
Ah we've progressed to delusional conspiracy.
LOL, you are claiming the U.N. is in league with Hamas my guy, please get some perspective.
These allegations have been around for years. Dude, it's the largest employer in Gaza. You don't think there's some overlap between the largest employer and the hugely popular terrorist organization?
You know some of the MAGAs on January 6 probably worked at Wal-Mart, just statistically. Not really much difference here, except the MAGAs probably didn't co-opt Wal-Mart's resources to pull off their attack.
I mean, there are 1,300 of UNWRA employees in Palestine, most of them Palestinian. Do I think it's possible the 13 accused employees were involved in the October attack? Yes, I believe it's possible that literally 1% of them were involved.
Do I think that UNWRA as an institution was working with Hamas? Only in the sense that Hamas is in control of the government, and there is literally no way to carry out their mission of aiding the Palestinian people without working the the ruling government.
Do I think that UNWRA was working the Hamas on planning military attacks, or allowing their building to be used as a base of operations for Hamas terrorists? No, and the IDF is going to have to produce better evidence than a tunnel underneath a building (which they completely leveled) to convince me of otherwise.
13,000 in UNRWA employees in Gaza, as I understand. The IDF's dossier also alleged that 1,300, or 10%, were direct supporters of Hamas whilst 50% have close family or close friends who are members of Hamas.
I don't think UNRWA itself was officially coordinating the attacks, but I have zero doubt that UNRWA negligently let it's resources being coopted, and the world needed a reality check on UNRWA's activities in Gaza. As you said, they do justifiably work with Hamas as much as anyone can justify working with terrorists. The question is how friendly is UNRWA to Hamas and it's strategies in that work? Some of longstanding allegations are that UNRWA teaches that martyrdom is honorable and that martyrs are heroes. Perhaps that explains some of the shocking numbers of civilians killed?
You're right, I misread that statistic...so, literally 0.1%. I highly doubt that 10% number, or at least I believe that they're inflating it with a loose definition of, "support." I suspect that a lot of instances of, "directly supporting," Hamas will turn out to be people working the Hamas government to distribute supplies to civilians, some of which wound up going to militants. The 50% having close friends of family supporting Hamas seems closer to true, but what of it? Going back to your example, I'm sure at least that percentage of Americans have family/friends who support the January 6th rioters, but that doesn't mean they want to overthrow the government.
These allegations seem like war propaganda, and the fact that they came out at the exact same time as the ICJ ruling is even more suspicious. Until they are backed up any other credible source, I will treat them as such.
You can talk to the Wall Street Journal. They think the same thing. But, you can't even accept what your eyes see on video.
Well, I can't read most of the WSJ's coverage because it's behind a pay wall, but it's anything like the AP or Reuters coverage, it's going to say that these claims are only being made by the Israeli military and not independently verified (the opening paragraph of the WSJ coverage seems to line up with this). The AP even notes, "It did not prove definitively that Hamas militants operated in the tunnels underneath the UNWRA facility, but it did show that at least a portion of the tunnel ran underneath the facility’s courtyard." So, did the IDF show that Hamas was working with UNWRA, or did they show some journalists a tunnel near UNWRA building?
So you can't read it, but will tell me what it says? Pretty funny.
I can read the first paragraph, the rest is behind a pay wall. Have you never seen a pay wall? Here's the first sentence: "Hidden deep below the headquarters of the United Nations’ aid agency for Palestinians here is a Hamas complex with rows of computer servers that Israel’s armed forces say served as an important communications center and intelligence hub for the Islamist militant group." My guess is, based on the fact that no news agency is verifying this claim, and the opening sentence of the WSJ coverage is citing Israeli claims, they also don't have any evidence besides the IDF's claims.
But why don't you tell me? You obviously read the entire article, or you wouldn't be referencing it. Does the WSJ have any independent evidence outside of the Israeli presentation show to the news agencies? What evidence is provided by the WSJ that is absent from the AP coverage I linked to? I mean, you must know, you did read the article, not just the headline, right?
Edit: Weird, this guy made 9 comments since I left this reply, including some trying to undermine the AP article I cited, but he hasn't responded to this. If I didn't know any better I'd swear he hadn't read that WSJ article.
Ah yes, an Israeli "AI expert" is really a reliable source of information in this conflict.
Denial is always the first refuge. It's predictable
Man, you really can't accept that you lost this argument and you keep parroting the same line.
I've lost some sort of competition you say? Shucks
You are making a fool of yourself.
Are you some kind of authority?
One doesn't need to be authority to see the obvious.
After so many people proving you wrong with facts and you were only repeating the same nonsensical lines without bringing anything new to the table that would support your point.
Multiple cuts to the video, no verification it is a UNRWA building, nothing linking the tunnel to the UN building is shown. Just talk
Do better, don’t swallow propaganda willfully
Denial. It's for lunch and dinner.
Yes. I’m denying the pathetic ‘evidence’ you tried to insert into the discussion, because it functionally proves nothing:
You keep offering these low effort drive-by claims, and reply with cheap arguments or retorts when challenged. There’s plenty that Al-Quassam and Hamas have done wrong, without inventing false narratives that lack evidence.
.There is a double down on denial.
offers dubious evidence
“Oh, so now you’re just deny deny deny, huh?! So typical!”
And the other option is…blind belief in unfounded claims? Here’s a suggestion: back up your claim. Don’t just chant “denial denial denial” like it’s actually an argument.
Back up the claim how? The raw intelligence is classified, no doubt. All anyone ever gets is public statements and watered down facts.
Israel is a democracy though and has traditions of open government and of prosecuting war criminals. Hamas is a far right theocratic authoritarian regime that rules by assassination and wanton use of human shields, i.e., literally building massive tunnel systems under every city and using them to conduct decades of terror attack and indiscriminate rocket attacks in civilian targets. Whenever a bunch of Palestinian's died, usually Israel says "well some of them were Hamas." Hamas on the other hand insists every time that none of the dead are Hamas. For that reason, Israel is more credible.
Yup, you just can't believe your lyin eyes. Can't trust them for sure.
I am sensing some denial here. I'm sure they just accidentally added cuts to the video, surely they wouldn't try to mislead people by fabricating evidence.
Why has there been zero independent verification if the IDF proof is so clear cut?
Hamas is not a part of the UN
Also why they didn't rule for cease fire
Rulings for some, but not for others?
I mean yeah that’s how international conventions work. There’s not really a thing of “international law”, just a bunch of countries that have all agreed to abide by restrictions. If a country chooses not to follow an “international law”, all you can do is try to coerce them or invade.
And then complain about those that do follow the law and ignore those that don't. I see.
Top tier whataboutism!
Oh sure. Whataboutisism is all you hear when you reference Hamas raping and murdering on October 7th.
That's litrerally whataboutism. You could use your comment as an excellent example of what whataboutism is.
Or maybe what hypocrisy is to those who I responded to.
Does anyone here actually consider Hamas anything other than a terrorist organization that got voted in in 2007 and then shut down election?
Did anyone here actually believe that Hamas were ever the good guys?
We used to think the Israelis weren’t on the same page, and we hope that they will eventually.
As much as we hate them right now, most of us still believe that they might be able to come back.
TLDR: False equivalency
I hate that election talking point. Hamas didn’t even win a majority — they won a plurality against split opposition with Fatah plagued by corruption scandals — and 65% the population was under 25 when this war started (so like unborn or not past third grade in 2007).
Probably pretty safe to assume 80% or so of current Gazans didn’t vote for Hamas.
The Allies firebombed 100.000s of Germans to break the resistance. Are you suggesting Israel turns up the heat?
"Others did bad things in the past, that means we can do it now"
What does that have to do with what I said?
Surely you’re not going to what about things to try and make a false equivalency?