I enjoy your presupposition that my post is not in perspective. My perspective is not your perspective. Your perspective is certainly not any more objective than my perspective.
How about you tell me the Gazan perspective as if you were a Gazan? Then tell me the the Hamas perspective as if you were Hamas?
You are losing a bit of nuance by saying I think Israel is intentionally targeting women and children. I did not say Israel is intentionally targeting children and women. I think Israeli leadership is expanding south much like Germany expanded east with Lebensraum and America west with manifest destiny. I think they are doing this while promoting a culture of dehumanization of gazans which results in Israeli soldiers not experiencing gazan deaths as much more significant than mowing the lawn. "Regrettable but necessary" I wonder if that's what the Khmer rouge thought when they were smashing babies against trees.
I hear "tragic," but there's an awful lot of telling and not showing.
I would find Israel's sales pitch more convincing if they had journalists on the ground and with soldiers showing why they had to make the decisions they made, but that's not what happens is it? Instead journalists are bombed, imprisoned, or controlled. Israels actions against journalists is clear Mens Rea. All of the liberal leaning journalism in America (NPR for example) have shown that Israel is the bad guy. WCNSF is showing the damage Israel is doing.
> Hamas makes their goals regarding Israel very clear in their covenant. It's not just about land or politics; it's about an ideology that doesn't recognize jews right to exist in this tiny piece of land.
Israel is making a very compelling case that they are right. I am not convinced this stone isn't thrown from a very glass house.
The 8th (persecution) is unarguably clear. You are textbook in denial which is stage 10. I think the case for 9 (extermination) can be made.
Genocide:
Any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, 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
You have to at least admit at minimum there is a case to be made. What would you estimate the level of mental harm Gazans are experiencing right now? How do you think Gazans would rate the conditions of their life and their agency over those conditions? Not to mention 1 in 100 members of the group dead.
Intent of destruction follows from dehumanization. I can't say it's clear Israel has intent to exterminate, but if I ask "are Israel's actions consistent with slow extermination" my answer is most definitely yes.
> Sure, Israel isn't perfect.
70% of deaths being women and children is pretty far from "not perfect". Judicial coups and strongmen leaders are far from "not perfect."
> "open air prison"...
Based on what I've seen and read, the case that Gaza is an open air prison has been made. I think Gazans have a right to attack Israel in the same way I think Americans had a right to attack the british. No Taxation without Representation. Israel exercises tyrannical control over gaza. Tyranny breeds terrorism.
> In all the conflicts, Israel has actually taken enormous efforts to minimize civilian casualties, like warning civilians of upcoming attacks, especially in this ongoing conflict.
If you listen to American news, this is just not true. Factually incorrect. Is it more likely American news (NPR) is lying to me, or that Israeli news is lying to Israelis?
> Most people would say: stop the threat, make sure it never happens again.
you're not wrong because that is in fact what happens. "We have a conflict with this group, lets solve it by killing them all" is certainly the easiest solution. Genocides wouldn't happen if they didn't have popular support.
> how do you think a country should react to attacks from a group like Hamas? It's a tough question, right? What's the right balance between defending your citizens and ensuring minimal harm to the other side, especially when that side uses civilians as shields?
It's a hard question. I can say for certain not like Israel or like America after 9/11.
My senators won't even ask if Israel is committing war crimes, they don't want to know the answer. My president is called Genocide Joe. I don't know anyone who disagrees with that name.
Your perspective seems to skim the surface of a deeper issue. Let's be direct: what should a country do when 1,200 of its citizens are brutally killed? This isn't just theoretical; it's a grim reality that demands a firm response. Criticizing from the sidelines is easy when you're not offering solutions.
The claim of Lebensraum is far-fetched. Israel withdrew from Gaza nearly two decades ago. This conflict isn't about land; it's about security. For Hamas, even Tel Aviv is considered a settlement.
Regarding journalists: incidents have occurred, but suggesting systematic targeting oversimplifies the complexities and dangers inherent in conflict zones. Not every unfortunate event is part of a larger scheme.
The genocide accusation often seems politically motivated, used by pro-Palestinian groups. This rhetoric can trivialize historical genocides, which were real and horrific. I'm not denying civilian casualties in the conflict, but to say Palestinians are systematically dehumanized, discriminated against, and persecuted is an overstatement. If Palestinians committed to disarmament and ceased targeting civilians, peace could be achievable very quickly.
Consider what would happen if Israel laid down its arms. We saw a hint of this on October 7th. The situation is complex, and simplistic narratives don't capture the reality on the ground.
> what should a country do when 1,200 of its citizens are brutally killed?
Post people with guns on the borders. Investigate what caused the extremely sluggish response by the IDF, too.
Don't use it as an excuse for war crimes and ethnic cleansing, while talking about the hostages that are paraded around as an objective in public, as "pawns" to be sacrificed behind closed doors.
While IDF soldiers make TikToks literally showing off and bragging about war crimes, in the hundreds by now, given licence by hundreds of people from highest ranks of politicians to generals to "journalist" talking about how there are no innocent people, no civilians in Gaza, just "human animals" and so on. And how everyone who talks back is a Hamas supporter and/or antisemitic.
In a self-righteous fury that gets worse, no less. Which isn't explained by grief over a past event or even a knee-jerk "security" reaction, but rather by the increasing guilt: people painting themselves into a corner by running away from crimes they already committed by doubling down on them, and projecting the guilt as hatred onto those who call it out. That's as old as criminals and mobs, and it leads to war crimes in Gaza just as predictably as it emboldens settlers in the West Bank to up attacks, as it does to attacks on people elsewhere:
That way one can dismiss anything. "brutally killed", "grim reality" on the one hand, "incidents", "oversimplification" and "politically motivated rhetoric that trivializes real and horrific genocides" on the other.
"This is the highest share of people facing high levels of acute food insecurity that the IPC initiative has ever classified for any given area or country."
The last number I heard was that 80% of the catastrophically hungry people in the world right now are in Gaza.
Israeli Holocaust Scholar Raz Segal says it's a "textbook case of genocide". Omer Bartov says it might be genocide, but that there are "clear signs of ethnic cleansing" and likely war crimes. To just shrug them and many more off as politically motivated or skimming the surface seems ironic.
> If Palestinians [..] ceased targeting civilians
What does that even mean? As if all Palestinians, instead of starving and freezing, are still holding a rifle pointed at civilians, while IDF soldiers hell bent on keeping innocent people from getting hurt say "drop the weapon"?
Collective punishment is a crime. Nothing you said and nothing anyone could say justifies it.
How about you tell me the Gazan perspective as if you were a Gazan? Then tell me the the Hamas perspective as if you were Hamas?
You are losing a bit of nuance by saying I think Israel is intentionally targeting women and children. I did not say Israel is intentionally targeting children and women. I think Israeli leadership is expanding south much like Germany expanded east with Lebensraum and America west with manifest destiny. I think they are doing this while promoting a culture of dehumanization of gazans which results in Israeli soldiers not experiencing gazan deaths as much more significant than mowing the lawn. "Regrettable but necessary" I wonder if that's what the Khmer rouge thought when they were smashing babies against trees.
I hear "tragic," but there's an awful lot of telling and not showing.
I would find Israel's sales pitch more convincing if they had journalists on the ground and with soldiers showing why they had to make the decisions they made, but that's not what happens is it? Instead journalists are bombed, imprisoned, or controlled. Israels actions against journalists is clear Mens Rea. All of the liberal leaning journalism in America (NPR for example) have shown that Israel is the bad guy. WCNSF is showing the damage Israel is doing.
> Hamas makes their goals regarding Israel very clear in their covenant. It's not just about land or politics; it's about an ideology that doesn't recognize jews right to exist in this tiny piece of land.
Israel is making a very compelling case that they are right. I am not convinced this stone isn't thrown from a very glass house.
> But calling it genocide? That's a stretch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Stages,_risk_factors,...
The 8th (persecution) is unarguably clear. You are textbook in denial which is stage 10. I think the case for 9 (extermination) can be made.
You have to at least admit at minimum there is a case to be made. What would you estimate the level of mental harm Gazans are experiencing right now? How do you think Gazans would rate the conditions of their life and their agency over those conditions? Not to mention 1 in 100 members of the group dead.Intent of destruction follows from dehumanization. I can't say it's clear Israel has intent to exterminate, but if I ask "are Israel's actions consistent with slow extermination" my answer is most definitely yes.
> Sure, Israel isn't perfect.
70% of deaths being women and children is pretty far from "not perfect". Judicial coups and strongmen leaders are far from "not perfect."
> "open air prison"...
Based on what I've seen and read, the case that Gaza is an open air prison has been made. I think Gazans have a right to attack Israel in the same way I think Americans had a right to attack the british. No Taxation without Representation. Israel exercises tyrannical control over gaza. Tyranny breeds terrorism.
> In all the conflicts, Israel has actually taken enormous efforts to minimize civilian casualties, like warning civilians of upcoming attacks, especially in this ongoing conflict.
If you listen to American news, this is just not true. Factually incorrect. Is it more likely American news (NPR) is lying to me, or that Israeli news is lying to Israelis?
> Most people would say: stop the threat, make sure it never happens again.
you're not wrong because that is in fact what happens. "We have a conflict with this group, lets solve it by killing them all" is certainly the easiest solution. Genocides wouldn't happen if they didn't have popular support.
> how do you think a country should react to attacks from a group like Hamas? It's a tough question, right? What's the right balance between defending your citizens and ensuring minimal harm to the other side, especially when that side uses civilians as shields?
It's a hard question. I can say for certain not like Israel or like America after 9/11.
My senators won't even ask if Israel is committing war crimes, they don't want to know the answer. My president is called Genocide Joe. I don't know anyone who disagrees with that name.