UN says 800,000 people have fled Rafah as Israel kills dozens in Gaza
UN says 800,000 people have fled Rafah as Israel kills dozens in Gaza
Israel says it recovered remains of one captive while Hamas claims several attacks against Israeli troops across Gaza.
You're viewing a single thread.
I keep asking pro-Israel people here on Lemmy what the maximum number of children that they feel it is necessary to sacrifice in this war.
I get two answers, usually both together:
- Hamas is the one killing the children.
- If this was your country, you would kill lots of children too.
And they expect me to accept those answers as if they were true.
They're not really engaging with you, just like Israel isn't really interested in a dialogue about the situation. They just need you to think there's a civil dialogue being had so that we don't realize the need to stop them by force.
I keep asking pro-Israel people here on Lemmy what the maximum number of children that they feel it is necessary to sacrifice in this war.
You've got to see this from the Israeli perspective: An inside look at a terrorist group's summer camp for kids
This is quite literally how they see the world. Every child in Rafa is this child. Every adult is a terrorist cell leader. Every refugee is going to want revenge. Every survivor is going to join the next revolt.
Its the same logic American colonists used on First Nations people, as they carved their way westward. Its the logic Serbians used as they butchered their way through Bosnia. Its the logic American soldiers used in Hadditha and Kandahar. Children are just tiny future evil adults and killing them is right because they are incapable of doing anything but wrong.
You had me in the first half.
The going rate is 1:30 Israelis to Palestinians in revenge killing. For killing each Hamas militant they're allowed to kill around 20 as collateral damage. 50% in Gaza are children so 10 kids per Hamas militant is okay according to the Israeli government.
According to some people here, infinite kids per militant is okay to maintain Israeli security.
And I have no idea why they think a state that believes killing large numbers of children is acceptable is worth securing.
They didn't put the kids in with the terrorists, the terrorists did. They don't get to dictate the terms of battle because it makes a small minority of westerners too sad to see any nuance or larger picture.
"They have to kill the children because there are terrorists next to them" is really not a moral defense for killing children. If anything, it makes it seem like the terrorists have a point.
The terrorism came first.
"The terrorism came first" is also not a moral defense for killing children, sorry. I get that you really like the idea of killing people, but that doesn't make it morally defensible.
Yes, there is no moral defense for hamas's decision to let these kids die.
Ah, so now Hamas is letting children die from Israeli bombs and bullets.
Boy do you do some pretzels trying to avoid connecting the victim with the killer.
It makes more sense when you realize how many simply think Israel can do no wrong.
It's so fucking stupid. Even if you're on Israel's side, just admit they do bad things.
They have always been content with letting children die, and with killing children. No pretzels. I have a consistent model. Happy to try and explain any distinction for you.
I mean yes but that's how Israel started
The terrorism against Jews started long before Israel.
In other countries. So they ran to Palestine and started killing the people there. You're not allowed to kill everyone and anyone you want, including innocents ams civilians, just because you were wronged by a completely different population of people once.
Wtf are you talking about? The earliest recorded history of the Levant is in Hebrew, written by Judites. The Ottoman Empire (far right pan Islamists) rounded them up, massacred them, took many as slaves, tortured them, and gave them negligeble rights for the last two thousand years, and it was other own Islamists back and back.
Israel is there now though, and it's not going anywhere. It is a democracy with a legitimate government and Gaza is a failed state occupied by terrorists, sorry to break the reality of political science to you.
The last two thousand years? The Ottoman Empire was a refuge for Jewish people for a long time. It wasn't just a neverending massacre or they wouldn't have kept settling there from other places. It gave then some restrictions, but it did the same to Christians. And comparatively, they lived pretty good lives and thrived, especially compared to the oppression and massacred they faced elsewhere in Europe. It had the largest Jewish population by the end of the 16th century. They came from Russia, Prussia, ran from Spain because of the Spanish Inquisition, or Portugal, etc. It was way better than living under Christians for a long time. They would encourage each other to move there. It wasn't until the 19th century that antisemitism started to ramp up there. And most scholars agree the attitude was imported from Christian Arabs, so it's not just a Muslim thing. It sucks that it started to rise again then, but nationalism does that. It made it worse on both sides, since around that time Zionism started picking up steam, too, and they were buying land and kicking off the native tenants to make a country. Not to excuse the antisemitism, because obviously that is horrible, and there's a long history of it happening all over the world. But the point is, so many immigrated there because of things like the Holocaust in Germany or the Russian pogroms, then started fighting completely unrelated people and kicking them off their land, like was done to them somewhere else. Same reason that even though I respect the struggle of slaves, I don't approve of the colonial way Liberia was founded and the way the colonists treated the indigenous people.
Israel is barely a democracy. There are millions of people under their control who don't get a vote. Their leader is stoking a war and nationalistic fervor to avoid corruption trials. They jail people for criticism, require military service, and have killed more journalists than any recent conflict. They're an apartheid, settler colonial ethnostate that only exists because of racist and antisemitic Western interests. Gaza is not a failed state, because every attempt to become a state is stymied by Israel, the country that actually controls all their infrastructure, food, travel, sea, and air. Israel as a nation state could easily disappear and be replaced by an actual state with equal rights and equality for everyone in the area, without a single person being killed in the process, if the US and the Israeli people or government wished it. And that would be a good thing for both the Palestinians who could live free, and the Israelis who don't want to have to worry about being threatened by actual attacks from rightfully pissed people all the time.
I agree. The history is irrelevant. Israel is there now. Those who stood to oppose it have been defeated politically and military and if they were at all led by legitimate, well intended non-genociral, non-criminals, they'd surrender, sue for peace. They literally don't want peace, though.
They surrendered but then kept getting killed, getting their land taken, and forced into smaller and smaller spaces. Then in those spaces, they were imprisoned, starved, and oppressed and controlled. Human beings want a quality of life Israel won't let them have. They've diplomatically and strategically geographically isolated them away from having a state, had walls built around them, had their food and trade and movement restricted. They get randomly shot or arrested. In the West Bank, they get their food and trees ripped up and their houses taken. You can't ask a people to sit there and accept that. Even if they've been defeated militarily, human beings desire some innate dignity and quality of life. No group of human beings on Earth would accept how Israel has treated them for 70 years. It's why some ghettos revolted in the Holocaust, or the French resistance existed in WW2. Palestinians want peace, but Israel wants an occupied people to sit there quietly while they get oppressed and slowly lose the rest of their land and are forced to emigrate away from their homes or die.
Fucking hell. What is your damage, exactly?
I'm not too sad to see nuance or the bigger picture? I know, when you're flying by your emotion all the time, a collected, rational person must seem crazy.
Imagine how sad you'd be about 30,000,000 deaths; you probably couldn't tie your shoes!
Cool there's already one saying they're okay with all of them being killed
You would give up you basic human rights for them?
Keep in mind, if Israel let hamas stay in power, it will prove to the scattered Isis cells that kidnappings can and will bring democracies to their knees.
What will happen all across Europe in that scenario?
Hamas must be plucked from the root, condemned and thrown away!
And yes, collateral damage is terrible, but it does not give a free pass for genocide.
Isis and Hamas aren't the same https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-gaza-war-islamic-state-group-29e59446a42d077323a3a216127c4978
Killing everyone just makes more terrorists. Answer is making it better for populations not eliminating everything that moves.
Permanently Deleted
You have a very active fantasy life if you think Hamas would stand a chance against the combined forces of NATO.
Really?
What will NATO do when 10 differant sleeper cells each kidnap some children and woman?
Fight or surrender?
If you believe they will fight, then they will quickly start racking up civilian casualties. How will the "progressive" youths react?
You underestimating Hamas's power or intent is a really bad and dangerous thing to.
So you didn't read the article I linked. Not surprised
Once they finish with Israel, they will attack Europe and the Americas.
Why would they?
Either way killing/displacing a population isn't how you stop terrorism
Israel isn't killing a population, it is eradicating a terror organization.
They would became hamas wants to take down the west and the US in particular.
Palestinian protests burned a US flag on US soil. What has this world come to?
eradicating a terror organization.
By eradicating and displacing a population.
Palestinian protests burned a US flag on US soil. What has this world come to?
So? Flag burning has been a protest method for decades (and a way to properly dispose of flags)
By eradicating and displacing a population.
By eny means necessary.
So? Flag burning has been a protest method for decades
I would maybe accept this argument if it wasn't for the fact that the US flag is burned while Palestinian flag is raised in its place and "death to America chants" in the background.
I don't know. Seems like pissing in your own drinking water.
Think I'd rather have that then helping eradicate populations but you do you with your fantasies of ethnic cleansing being justified
Rediculous. They are the same in every respect except where they want the seat of the new Islamic caliphate to be, after they've killed all the Jews.
Hamas can't get its members to stop paying dues to ISIS, and vice versa, the leaders had to declare war against each other to let them know how super serious they are about poaching each others suicidal nutjobs.
You're right, Israel should not get a free pass for genocide or ethnic cleansing.
Hamas began twenty years into the occupation during the first Intifada, with the goal of ending the occupation. Collective punishment has been a deliberate Israeli tactic for decades with the Dahiya doctrine. Violence such as suicide bombings and rockets escalated in response to Israeli enforcement of the occupation and apartheid.
Hamas 1988 Charter and Revised 2017 Charter
The 1988 Charter, which is certainly unreasonable in its fundamentalism with Sharia Law and is antisemitic, does not call for the extermination of all Jewish People. Hamas wants an end to Israel as an Apartheid State, not an extermination of all Israelis. Under Ahmed Yassin in the 1990's, truces were offered in exchange for Israeli to withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank to the 1967 borders. The 2017 Revised charter explicitly accepts a Two-State Solution of the 1967 Borders. Check Article 7 and 13 of the 1988 Charter to see yourself, compare it to Article 20 and 24-26 in the revised charter.
The slogan From the River to the Sea is about Palestinian liberation that started in the 60s by the PLO for a democratic secular state, not Genocide. The Syrian leader Hafez al-Assad in 1966 maybe, but he's not Palestinian.
History of Hamas supported by Netanyahu since 2012
No I don't support Hamas as a ruling party, I want Palestinians to be able to have free fair elections.
I want Palestinians to be able to have free fair elections.
Okay, but what if they vote for the wrong people. Can we go back to genocide then?
What are you talking about? A free and fair election is impossible under an apartheid regime
Edit: oh I think your comment was sarcasm lol, i can be hard to tell without the /s
Okay, but maybe we just take a poll and if too many Palestinians support Hamas we can use that as an excuse not to hold elections.
Tell Palestinians to excise their Iranian corruption, tell us where Hamas is hiding, and where the tunnels are located.
Until then, the Palestinians don't want Palestinians to be able to have free fair elections, who cares that you do?
Yes those are figures. Really speaks to the absolute abysmal failure of Hamas to act like leaders.
How can ethnic cleansing and genocide cause a population to grow?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_State_of_Palestine
Every arab country in the region was clensed of Jews.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world
And, Israel had genocide commuted against it on the 7th of October.
So your accusations of genocide and ethnic cleansing are misplaced.
Free elections is not in their culture at this point in time.
The most powerful tribe takes control by force and that's that.
Just to play this out, if Israel is no longer the common enemy of these tribes, they will turn on each other.
Every arab country in the region was clensed of Jews.
Primarily a consequence of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, the mass movement mainly transpired from 1948 to the early 1970s, with one final exodus of Iranian Jews occurring shortly after the Islamic Revolution in 1979–1980.
The civil war began the day after the adoption of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine on 29 November 1947 – which planned to divide the territory into an Arab state, a Jewish state, and the Special International Regime encompassing the cities of Jerusalem and Bethlehem. At the end of a series of offensives that began April 1948, in which Zionist forces had conquered cities and territories in Mandatory Palestine in preparation for the establishment of a Jewish state, Zionist leaders announced the Israeli Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948
Hmm...
Israel had genocide commuted against it on the 7th of October.
Israeli inquiry finds Oct 7 hostage likely killed by friendly fire
Israeli police break up ultra-Orthodox Jews’ military service protest
An Israeli police raid on the Al-Aqsa Mosque triggers a spate of violence
The IDF is out of control. I don't know if I'd call these acts "genocidal", but its clear that Netanyahu's war has turned inward on any Israeli resident who resists his dictatorial decree.
Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making the society ethnically homogeneous. Along with direct removal such as deportation or population transfer, it also includes indirect methods aimed at forced migration by coercing the victim group to flee and preventing its return, such as murder, rape, and property destruction.
Forced expulsion of Palestinians has been central to Zionism since the 1880's
There are a lot of factors of the Jewish exodus from the Muslim world, but your conflating of the two as justification or minimization of the Nakba doesn't work; unless you somehow think all Arabs or Muslims are the same. But it's pretty clear your racist towards Palestinians or Arabs or Muslims when your argument boils down to 'they are violent primitives and deserve to die,' just going straight to dehumanization and ignoring all material conditions of Apartheid
Iraqi-born Israeli historian Avi Shlaim, speaking of the wave of Iraqi Jewish migration to Israel, concludes that, even though Iraqi Jews were "victims of the Israeli-Arab conflict", Iraqi Jews aren't refugees, saying "nobody expelled us from Iraq, nobody told us that we were unwanted." He restated that case in a review of Martin Gilbert's book, In Ishmael's House.
Yehuda Shenhav has criticized the analogy between Jewish emigration from Arab countries and the Palestinian exodus. He also says "The unfounded, immoral analogy between Palestinian refugees and Mizrahi immigrants needlessly embroils members of these two groups in a dispute, degrades the dignity of many Mizrahi Jews, and harms prospects for genuine Jewish-Arab reconciliation." He has stated that "the campaign's proponents hope their efforts will prevent conferral of what is called a 'right of return' on Palestinians, and reduce the size of the compensation Israel is liable to be asked to pay in exchange for Palestinian property appropriated by the state guardian of 'lost' assets."
Israeli historian Yehoshua Porath has rejected the comparison, arguing that while there is a superficial similarity, the ideological and historical significance of the two population movements are entirely different. Porath points out that the immigration of Jews from Arab countries to Israel, expelled or not, was the "fulfilment of a national dream". He also argues that the achievement of this Zionist goal was only made possible through the endeavors of the Jewish Agency's agents, teachers, and instructors working in various Arab countries since the 1930s. Porath contrasts this with the Palestinian Arabs' flight of 1948 as completely different. He describes the outcome of the Palestinian's flight as an "unwanted national calamity" that was accompanied by "unending personal tragedies". The result was "the collapse of the Palestinian community, the fragmentation of a people, and the loss of a country that had in the past been mostly Arabic-speaking and Islamic.
Israel let hamas stay in power
Worse than that. For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it’s blown up in our faces.
The premier’s policy of treating the terror group as a partner, at the expense of Abbas and Palestinian statehood, has resulted in wounds that will take Israel years to heal from
The idea was to prevent Abbas — or anyone else in the Palestinian Authority’s West Bank government — from advancing toward the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Thus, amid this bid to impair Abbas, Hamas was upgraded from a mere terror group to an organization with which Israel held indirect negotiations via Egypt, and one that was allowed to receive infusions of cash from abroad.
Hamas was also included in discussions about increasing the number of work permits Israel granted to Gazan laborers, which kept money flowing into Gaza, meaning food for families and the ability to purchase basic products.
Israeli officials said these permits, which allow Gazan laborers to earn higher salaries than they would in the enclave, were a powerful tool to help preserve calm.
This was a deliberate strategy of divide-and-conquer by the Israeli government.
Hamas must be plucked from the root, condemned and thrown away!
It'll never be enough, so long as a single living Palestinian still knows about the Nakba and claims a right of return. For Israelis, its not just about Hamas. The only solution to the Palestinian Question is a final one.
As per item 2: If the enemy was using them as hostages I sure as shit wouldn't just bomb the building and kill everyone. I'd prefer to use special forces to go in on foot and secure the building with minimal casualties. And only when diplomacy fails.
The enemy was using them as shields because they didn't think you'd be that fucking stupid to just bomb everyone; they assumed you had some empathy.
I'm neither pro-Israel nor pro-Hamas, but I believe the correct answer is "same as in every other war".
In other words, the maximum rate of Gazan casualties you will accept depends on the maximum rate of Axis casualties you would have accepted in WW2. That might be zero or it might be fairly high.
Not the same as in every war.
https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/death-toll-children-gaza-israel-rcna143269
from 2019 through 2022
That's cherry picking.
The civilian casualty rate in Gaza is about the same as the Second Chechen War and less than on the East Front, in North Korea, or in Vietnam.
Since I asked how many children and not the rate of children, I'm pretty sure a count of children is not cherry picking.
But I guess your answer is that any amount of children killed in a war is acceptable and nothing to be complaining about.
I didn't say it was acceptable. It is no more acceptable than civilian deaths in Germany, Japan, or Chechnya.
People are often more concerned about the rate of deaths because Gaza is relatively small. But if you really are counting how many and not the rate, then the vast majority of wars were worse than Gaza. The number of civilian deaths in Dresden alone is comparable to those in Gaza. Over 150,000 civilians have died in Iraq.
And as I said, some people find one civilian death to be unacceptable, others are willing to accept more than one. I've never met anyone who is willing to accept "any amount".
Interesting that you keep saying 'civilian death' and not 'child.' Seems like we're talking about two very different things.
I’ve never met anyone who is willing to accept “any amount”.
Then see the person who replied to me who says it's worth killing any amount to get rid of Hamas.
Interesting that you keep saying 'civilian death' and not 'child.' Seems like we're talking about two very different things.
Maybe so. But personally, I believe that all civilian deaths are equally tragic whether of a child, an old man, or a mother. In fact, I would object if someone said "X dead women is acceptable, but X dead children is unacceptable", because personally I believe that whatever X you choose should be age-independent. YMMV
I’m neither pro-Israel nor pro-Hamas
What worm ate your brain and made you think that is the choice of sides here?? Fighting for Palestinian emancipation has nothing to do with being pro-Hamas you dingus.
Those are the two sides that are currently at war. They are both religiously motivated right-wing regimes, and I support neither one.
I'm also not fighting for Palestinian "emancipation", for the same reason I'm not fighting to "emancipate" Istanbul from Turks or New York from Americans.
You legitimately one of the dumbest mfers I've ever had the displeasure of interacting with.
If Israel were ONLY attacking Hamas, you'd be correct.
The problem is they are insistant on attacking, bombing, killing, and displacing all of the innocent Palestinians in Gaza as well, because they have been at war with Palestine, not Hamas, for generations now.
They are at war with Palestine just as Americans were at war with Germany and Japan. Many civilians were killed and displaced there, too.
Palestine didn't attack them, Hamas did.
Hamas is the government of Gaza
Tell that to the millions of Palestinians homeless and starving thanks to Israel.
I don't follow.
Hamas is the government of Gaza even though Gazans are suffering thanks to Israel. Just as Hirohito was the leader of the Japanese even though they were suffering thanks to America.
In both cases, a government failed to protect its people.
It's a dumb question. Hamas puts the kids in harm's way, Hamas and their loyal supporters. They love nothing more than their own kids dead from Israeli weapons, it's the only way they will win this war, tricking well meaning people such as yourself.
800,000 people left Rafah safely. Blame Hamas for 0.006% of them being killed. What did Hamas do this time, tell them the evacuation was fake or hold them against their will?
More likely they just indoctrinated them over decades, convinced them it's patriotic and holy to sit inside a room with terrorists to be used as fodder for Qatari and Iranian state media to try to drum of western support. At some point they realized this is more effective than suicide bombings.
Ah, "indoctrinated" children deserve to die. I see.
It's kinda sad how many times they just rephrase that hypothetical to make it sound justified to be able to kill children
Nobody is seeking out kids to kill except Hamas.
Permanently Deleted
What is the maximum number of children who need to die before hamas(Isis) surrender?
"What is the maximum number of hostages police are allowed to kill before they negotiate with the bank robber?"
This isn't a game where the IDF has to grind kids for XP before attacking a final boss, asshole. The answer is "as few as possible, ideally zero", but the IDF has shown that they are either stupidly or maliciously indiscriminate in who they kill.
Obviously collateral damage is terrible, but it is a fact of war.
Hamas(Isis) go out of their way to inflate collateral damage. This should give them a free pass to do as they please?
All the videos of idf soldiers looking happy and excited to either mow the grass or show off all the destruction.
Neither side should be doing it but the trained side should you know actually act trained
If you ask me, I would sacrifice every last one of them in order to eradicating hamas(Isis). Western civilization/values are worth more than the children killed in the hands of hamas(Isis).
I sincerely hope you aren't a parent with that attitude about children.
Now I will direct this question back at you, What is the maximum number of children who need to die before hamas(Isis) surrender?
Zero. Israel should not kill one single child. If they can't defeat Hamas without killing children, then maybe Hamas has a point.
Amazing how hamas can go into Israel, murder children, then get asylum by hiding among its own children.
By your logic I can grab a couple of babies, shoot up school, and I should be untouchable as long as I have a baby vest?
Are you honestly suggesting that the IDF has absolutely no culpability when it comes to killing children? All dead children in Gaza are Hamas' fault?
Because otherwise, you don't understand what you are calling my logic.
Yes, the moment hamas started this war, they condemned the people of Gaza to a hellish decade or two.
So you're saying that even if an IDF soldier shoots a child in the face, it's Hamas' fault? Really?
Yes, because hamas is the reason for this soldier being there.
That's an interesting way to excuse virtually any war crime imaginable if Israel chooses to commit it. "It's Hamas' fault that Israel covered Gaza in anthrax spores, they're the reason Israel did it."
War crimes are crimes. If any happened, Israel will be held accountable.
But still, hamas are the ones who brought this on Gaza.
No if about it.
The right of civilians not to be arbitrarily deprived of life and the prohibitions against killing or maiming civilians are principles firmly enshrined in international humanitarian law, international human rights law and international jurisprudence. The prohibition of violence to civilians, including children, in particular murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture is a principle of customary international law, with universal applicability in all situations of armed conflict.
https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/six-grave-violations/killing-and-maiming/
"They made us do it" is not a way around those laws.
All you're saying is that, to you, it's fine for the IDF to kill every single child in Gaza as long as someone has to pay the price for it in court later.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/pjOEJumoABg?si=KEzu1r6JmT8Wo6VM
https://piped.video/UPomqJz-qYc?si=5StBo5m7vGIXwhoX
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.