I feel like I’ve been kind of in the loop for most of the headlines regarding this confrontation. Yet somehow I can’t find it within myself to actually care about either side. It seems like both are lead by genocidal parties, hell bent on indoctrinating their populace into hating the other side. Yet at the same time people are able to discern which state is the good one. And some going so far as to believe that one state might even be right over the other.

So far from what I’ve read and heard, it seems that overall Isreal is just more successful militarily and is encroaching on Palestinian land, and is exhibiting control over some of it. Is that the reason why one might support Palestine? Is it the fact that Isreal has more direct power in the region and thus can easily execute its will a problematic issue for some? From what I can see, both sides have caused massive civilian casualties and neither side wants a two state solution, so neither of those reasons can be a contributing factor to side picking, right? That being said, I can’t find a reason for supporting Isreal, so does Palestine win out by default? But what of the people that support Isreal, do they do that purely because they’re an American ally? Is any of this side taking have anything to do with the insertion of Jews into the region? What is expected to be done outside of a two state solution or genocide by those taking sides?

I have a lot of questions, and I obviously don’t expect all of them to be answered in a single post. So maybe focusing on the elements you’re highly informed on would be helpful and then I can kind of piece together the details. Thank you in advance!

  • DarkGamer@kbin.social
    21·
    8 months ago

    • Some collateral damage probably occurred on Oct 7, but I fail to see why this is relevant to the discussion. Said deaths could not have occurred without Hamas’ bloody attack on civilians and the chaos it caused.

    • I believe the accusations of rape despite criticism of the NY Times article, even the UN, which is often critical and skeptical of Israel, agrees it happened. And even without this specific claim there was enough barbarity, cruelty, kidnapping, abuse, murder, and genocidal violence (Content warning: NSFL, very disturbing footage) on display that day that I don’t think it would move the ethical needle much on Hamas.

    • According to international law genocide is:

    any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

    • Killing members of the group;
    • Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
    • Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
    • Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
    • Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

    Emphasis mine. Note that political groups like Hamas are not included among the protected classes, and that’s what Israel has been clear they intend to destroy. Not Palestine/Palestinians, who are protected as a national group just as Israelis are. Meanwhile, Hamas has been clear about their own genocidal intentions. This is why I believe Oct 7 was an act of genocide, as defined above, and Israel’s war on Hamas is not.

    • The Oct 7 attack was not just about taking civilian hostages, it was an attempt by Hamas to create a permanent state of war, and part of their strategy to destroy Israel/Jews as established via their original charter and statements from their leader, (citation above.)

    • I’m sure it’s terrible to live in Gaza but that does not change the definition of genocide. Nor does your dislike of people who point out inaccurate definitions.

    • 1948-1967 isn’t, “100’s of years ago!”