We keep being reminded that Israel has a right to defend itself, but nobody has ever explained how killing 30,000 civilians, mostly children, helps Israel defend itself.
Someone on reddit said that hamas used young children to attack israel on october 7th and therefore children are not innocent. I shit you not…
Was the vietnam war a genocide? The US killed ~600,000 civilians during the Vietnam war.
If your point of comparison is the Vietnam War, you’ve already lost.
When did I defend the vietnam war?
You drug it into this.
To be clear, discussing the Vietnam war is just fine, and more than that, important. But this isnt that.
Edit a distinct thread on such a topic is welcome and appropriate.
I brought is up because I am unsure where the line of genocide is especially since wars that involve the US tend to have loads of civilian deaths.
Over 100,000 civilians died in Iraq and Afghanistan during “the war on terror”.
That’s worth it because of 9/11 tho /s
The US does a lot of war crimes. They’ve just been historically more powerful than the people who prosecute war crimes.
They also aren’t a member of many international legal bodies and thus do not consider themselves bound by international law. Frustratingly, they are basically right - international law is opt-in.
Yes, it pretty clearly was, the fact that they restricted operations to the south out of worry of a Chinese invasion meant that commanders on the ground literally began measuring mission progress entirely by how many Vietnamese people they’d killed in a given period.
Yes.
Gotta love the brain dead whataboutism.
My Lai massacre
Are all massacres genocide?
Any nation that intentionally blockades food, medicine, and potable water to a population it considers inconvenient is a government internally committing genocide.
So all sieges are genocide.
It’s not about the numbers, it’s about the intent.
Indeed and israel has very clearly expressed intent.
Sbrenica had 8000 people killed and was deemed a Genocide. And the statements there were far less severe than the extreme genocide rhetoric from israel.
Completely agree. That was what I tried to say.
High civilian casualties means genocide. Duh. Hamas wants high civilian casualties. So that way they can make people call this a genocide. That gets people on their side. Hamas literally committed genocidal acts but the number of deaths was much less so people don’t care as much. Hamas was literally targeting Jewish people in general. Israel is targeting Hamas members not Palestinians. Unfortunately Hamas took the last 17 years building tunnels underneath civilians. So there are a lot of unfortunate civilian casualties trying to get to Hamas and its leaders. Israel should do better but I’m afraid it’s very difficult with the logistics of this fight. It’s a terrible situation all the way around.
Israel totally is a normal country, and not an apartheid state committing genocide threatening the ICC Chief Prosecutor AND THEIR FAMILY!
Apartheid against a people that has gone to war with you and lost multiple times? I suppose post WWI germany was also an apartheid state. Or even post WWII japan.
Tell me, in your esteemed opinion, is genocide ever justified?
Is apartheid ever justified?
Apartheid might be justified in the case of enemy nations that lost at war. Attempting to wipe out a specific genetic lineage is never justified.
What is Nakba?
The start of the Palestinian “ethnic cleansing” and genocide, immediately following the creation of Israel by the League of Nations (led by colonial empires) — when zionists/IDF terrorised and murdered enough Palestinians that 750k fled and arabs became the minority.
I had to look it up too because I wasn’t sure either.
Honestly at this point the settlers have fucked everything too much,
Israel and Palestine should both be disbanded by force, the leadership of both should be transferred at gun point to the Hague, all their militaries, paramilitaries, blackops whatevers need to be disbanded, and the two states need to be reformed into a single confederation who’s military defense is left entirely to an international coalition force that polices the shit out of the place the way the union policed the south after the civil war before Hayes bumble fucked it.
We’ve tried to solve this problem with recognizing sovereign rights, now it is time to put the fear of god into anyone who would even dream of trying to keep the fight for total domination over the strip going. Sovereignty and defense independence are for the good little children who don’t try to Lebensraum their neighbors with it.
Coexistence at gunpoint until the settlers are cowed, the Palestinians have their freedom of movement and shelter re-established sufficiently, and the antidemocratic leaders of both sides blatantly chasing war forever to maintain their own power are hung as examples to future would be tyrants and shit stirrers.
Mmk but Israel has nukes so good luck
Surely this will not cause religious friction. I can see no flaws with this plan.
Solving a problem of violence with even greater violence seems to be shortsighted at best, and would probably cause more unforeseen future issues. I’m no expert, but surely there must be some nuanced position in between “cheer them on like a cage match” and “total authoritarian control over two peoples.” It just seems so reactionary and extreme to say “oh just forcibly disarm them and make them be nice to each other. With force.” It won’t cure decades of cultural friction and religious tension, and seems a bad precedent to set. On whose authority would this coalition act? They have the absolute power to dissolve two states? Could they do this to anyone they dislike? Where is the line?
Obviously you weren’t genuinely proposing this as a real solution, but reactionary takes like that just dilute the discussion and inflame emotions.
Nah, do it the way they did in the immediate reconstruction era south. Lynch mobbers get the rope and their friends and families get to watch.
Jesus Christ. Take it down a notch, if you want anyone to take you seriously. Perpetuating a cycle of violence leads to lasting resentment and hatred. Sometimes violence is necessary to make voices heard, but that’s from the oppressed against the violence of their oppressors. Violence should never be used to control.
It worked in the south, and it’d have kept working too if we hadn’t been dumb enough to let up on their shit.
Violence is not cyclic inherently, and terrorists are inhuman scum who waste every breath they take, so going full Spartacus over their shit is fully warrantable and highly likely to work.
Especially with a nice little top off of spacing the effigies to mingle the war criminals amongst each other as they are hand in hand in the oppression of the people.
Where anyone tries to pick either torch up, crush them, and effigize them all the same. There can be no tolerance for any sort of return to the barbarism we see on display even from before the war.
You can have any opinion you like, just not supremacism. Supremacists get the rope. Yeah it just keeps going, but for a cause as righteous as reminding supremacists they rightfully ought to fear for their lives under the eyes of decent society, then it is an effort well worth it just keeping on going.
Fuck the supremacists gonna do? Team up to stop people from stopping the war continuing? That just makes them all the more worthy of final humiliation.
When was Vaush Pro-Zionist?
Yeah… all of his controversies aside, last time I checked he’s a staunch critic of Zionism.
Tankies hate vaush, so I guess he’s the default soyjack for some of em?
Unless you count “Hamas is also bad, but created by Israel, also Israel is hard to be undone today” kind of takes a Zionism, which tankies also like to, besides the usual bad faith criticism of him being painted as an unironically evil entity.
Started self defensing all over the place
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
So we want to exterminate Israel or what? I’m genuinely confused what the anti-zionists want.
The state of Israel, yes, the Israelis, not even remotely, the answer to genocide isn’t more genocide, it’s coexistence.
The states of Israel and Palestine must both be dismantled for an internationally defended and policed Levantine Confederation, where all Arabs and Israelis are equal voting citizens.
The solution is something neither side will agree to? Basically resurrecting Mandatory Palestine?
Now I’m even more confused.
Sovereignty is a right for leaders who don’t have active designs on lebensrauming neighbors’ territory
You can have Germany without Nazi Germany.
You can have Palestine without israel.
So you want to give control of the entire Levant to Hamas? The weird coded language only reinforces my previous assumptions about the linguistics involved here.
Sorry when did Palestine == Hamas I must have missed that.
By the way Hamas has stated they will participate in elections of a Palestinian state and accept the result.
Do you have a source for that claim that Hamas is willing to participate in secular government?
Democracy isn’t secularism. Israel is in no way secular either. America arguably isn’t secular.
Hamas is a not just a resistance movement but also a political party that would participate in elections. Comparable to the ANC in South Africa.
Hamas official says group would lay down its arms if an independent Palestinian state is established
First of all, Hamas could have held elections in Gaza or joined the PA any time. Second, the debate over what Hamas has or has not done with its opportunity to govern in Gaza, or to what degree it has had a real opportunity to build a society post-occupation, or whether it can be a trustworthy partner, are all secondary to my question here.
My understanding of the anti-zionist stance is that there can be no two state solution, and that Israel must be forcibly dissolved, typically with little concern about what comes after that. That is what I am trying to better grasp here.
Is an opposition to settlements, condemnation of functional apartheid and being in favor of a two state solution really anti-zionism now? I have held those stances for a long time, but I have serious concerns about mixing those positions with what has historically been perceived as a significantly more extreme stance, via language used by some particularly problematic groups I do not want as bedfellows.
The anti Zionist stance is simple: Currently israel can accept a two state solution as offered by the Palestinians. Even Hamas is offering this. If israel accepts it israel loses their status as Nazi terror colonizers and gains the right to exist.
But because israel is Nazi-like state that wants to keep expending their Lebensraum far beyond Palestine into Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and even as far as Turkey in the future, israel will not accept this. It’s like asking if Hitler could just divide the land
Now for your other question, Hamas is a resistance movement not the government of the state of Palestine. If the state of Palestine is re established it can hold elections and Hamas will be a candidate in the political race.
Then you are not very bright.
Or more likely you’re very disingenuous with this comment.
Have you tried asking any or googling it?
That’s what I’m doing
