▲ 1265 ▼ The state of the discourse. (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by STRIKINGdebate2@lemmy.world to c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world 445 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] an_onanist@lemmy.world 55 points 2 years ago (4 children) And if it turns out that the accusation Hamas was using the basement as a command post is true, is that the new bottom? permalink fedilink source hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] not_that_guy05@lemmy.world 141 points 2 years ago (7 children) Using the hospital for anything other than helping people is a bottom. They are both trash entities. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] devz0r@kbin.social 49 points 2 years ago (5 children) And fun fact: bombing/attacking a hospital is not a war crime per the Geneva Conventions Article 52, if it is being used as a military objective. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Makfreeman@lemmy.world 38 points 2 years ago (1 child) Might be a fun fact but it is not correct. Article 52 of the fourth convention is not related to hospitals. Article 52 of the 1st additional protocol is related to hospitals and it does not mean what you are saying it does. Geneva conventions do not define war crimes, that definition is given in the ICC Rome statutes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] devz0r@kbin.social 43 points 2 years ago (9 children) Fair enough. The ICC Rome Statute specifically refers to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. But per the ICC Rome statute on war crimes, Article 8, Section 2, Subsection (b), Clause (ix), the following is a war crime: "Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected,provided they are not military objectives;" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Still the collateral damage needs to be proportional and adequate measures need to be taken to minimise civillian casualties. So at least they would need to be able to evacuate. But Israel intentionally destroyed ambulances, cut water, electricity, fuel and communications, so it is impossible to evacuate the hospital. Israel did everything to make sure the civillian casualties will be high and that is nothing but a war crime and heinous murder. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kbotc@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) https://www.newarab.com/news/israel-gives-hospitals-gaza-hours-evacuate According to the Hamas propaganda Israel literally gave a one month head start on that demand when they did not control the area around the hospital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (8 replies) [–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 27 points 2 years ago (3 children) I mean, that makes a certain degree of sense, because if using protected places as a place to put one's military operations doesn't remove that protection, then it would become a common strategy to intentionally use vulnerable civilians as shields in that manner, and since no military is realistically going to just let their opponent attack them without a response when capable of delivering one, such a scenario would just lead to the whole idea of places like hospitals being protected being abandoned. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] count_dongulus@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago That's exactly what Hamas does. No better than Al-Qaida. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (2 replies) [–] 11181514@lemm.ee 15 points 2 years ago (1 child) Oh ok phew. I didn't know it wasn't a war crime per the Geneva convention article 52. Keep bombing those infants, baby! Woohoo! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 years ago So glad Israel is the good guy here! permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sneptaur@pawb.social 9 points 2 years ago We will have to see. Both sides have all the incentive to lie. permalink fedilink source parent [–] letsgocrazy@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Both populations Palestine and Israel hate their leadership and want them gone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Israelis regularly voted Netanyahu and that even last year despite him being head over heels in dozens of currpotion scandals. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Instigate@aussie.zone 9 points 2 years ago* (2 children) There were five hung elections in a row where he couldn’t form a majority before he was able to form this government. Israel has only ever had one majority government (that is, not a coalition of parties) from 1968-1969, well before Likud was even established and while Bibi was still serving in the military. Likud has literally never held a majority in the Knesset. How can you so ardently state that Israelis “voted Netanyahu”, especially when they’re a multiparty Westminster parliamentary representative democracy whose parliamentary leaders elect the Prime Minister? Come on, mate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (6 replies) [–] yukichigai@kbin.social 30 points 2 years ago (1 child) I mean what's worse: using a human shield, or deciding "nah fuck them kids shoot through them anyway." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 45 points 2 years ago (36 children) What if they were shooting your kids while hiding behind their own? Would you let them keep doing it while insisting that reprisals are off limits? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 40 child comments replies: [–] rosymind@leminal.space 52 points 2 years ago (5 children) Yeah, this is the problem I'm having with people picking sides. It's a giant crap-pile of the worst of humanity. People act like there's a good side. Nah, everything's a mess of generational hatred and I hate it all. There needs to be a cease-fire. Hamas needs to release all hostages and then be permanently removed from power in Gaza, and Israel needs to help the Palestinians rebuild what has been destroyed, burry their dead with dignity and respect, and heavily compensate the families of those who have died. The whole thing is out of control permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] stewsters@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (4 children) There was a ceasefire, then Hamas attacked. Hard to rebuild trust after that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) [–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Well said. The only angels here are the innocents being slaughtered. The belligerents are all devils. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Zorque@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (7 children) Interesting that you mentioned the removal of Hamas from power but not the current Isreali government. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 18 points 2 years ago* (8 children) If polling is accurate, they will be voted out soon enough. To remove Hamas one needs the ammo box, as they have removed the ballot box as an option. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments load more comments (8 replies) [–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 3 points 2 years ago* The government of Israel is at least somewhat democratic. That makes removing it a bit more thorny than removing an organization like Hamas, because one either has to effectively just force an election there, which carries the risk that the same people (or people with the same ideology, if you forbid the specific people currently in power) might just win it and keep things the same, or replace the entire system with something that isn't democratic, which is generally viewed as a bad thing in itself. It's also move salvageable though for the same reason: there's little chance that someone wanting peace and resolution will somehow take over Hamas, it would be antithetical to what their organization even is, but the policies of a government like Isreal's at least have the potential to dramatically shift if people wanting those things take hold of it. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (2 replies) [–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago There's an infinite spectrum between "not shooting children" and "letting the other guy shoot yours" Also, this "oh we're so much better and civilized" act really falls short when it has to be explained to you why shooting children is still bad even when you do it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] yukichigai@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) False dilemma. There are ways to react that don't involve shooting children. Even if there weren't, I wouldn't say "yeah shoot some children." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago* (4 children) You're misrepresenting my position. It's, "yeah definitely shoot the terrorist, try to avoid shooting their hostages if you can." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [–] Makfreeman@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Wouldn't proportionality be a thing here? Reprisals would be acceptable if they did not result in a disproportionate loss of innocent civilians. Unfortunately it seems like Palestinian children's lives are much cheaper than Israeli lives. I hate saying it because I think all children deserve protection regardless of the actions of the people in power, be it hamas or idf. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (32 replies) [–] TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago (1 child) Still not a good reason to kill babies... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) I would resign on the spot if I ever got an order like that. I don't care if Nazis are resurrecting Hitler in the basement of the hospital, I can't trade babies and children as acceptable collateral. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] not_that_guy05@lemmy.world 141 points 2 years ago (7 children) Using the hospital for anything other than helping people is a bottom. They are both trash entities. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] devz0r@kbin.social 49 points 2 years ago (5 children) And fun fact: bombing/attacking a hospital is not a war crime per the Geneva Conventions Article 52, if it is being used as a military objective. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Makfreeman@lemmy.world 38 points 2 years ago (1 child) Might be a fun fact but it is not correct. Article 52 of the fourth convention is not related to hospitals. Article 52 of the 1st additional protocol is related to hospitals and it does not mean what you are saying it does. Geneva conventions do not define war crimes, that definition is given in the ICC Rome statutes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] devz0r@kbin.social 43 points 2 years ago (9 children) Fair enough. The ICC Rome Statute specifically refers to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. But per the ICC Rome statute on war crimes, Article 8, Section 2, Subsection (b), Clause (ix), the following is a war crime: "Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected,provided they are not military objectives;" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Still the collateral damage needs to be proportional and adequate measures need to be taken to minimise civillian casualties. So at least they would need to be able to evacuate. But Israel intentionally destroyed ambulances, cut water, electricity, fuel and communications, so it is impossible to evacuate the hospital. Israel did everything to make sure the civillian casualties will be high and that is nothing but a war crime and heinous murder. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kbotc@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) https://www.newarab.com/news/israel-gives-hospitals-gaza-hours-evacuate According to the Hamas propaganda Israel literally gave a one month head start on that demand when they did not control the area around the hospital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (8 replies) [–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 27 points 2 years ago (3 children) I mean, that makes a certain degree of sense, because if using protected places as a place to put one's military operations doesn't remove that protection, then it would become a common strategy to intentionally use vulnerable civilians as shields in that manner, and since no military is realistically going to just let their opponent attack them without a response when capable of delivering one, such a scenario would just lead to the whole idea of places like hospitals being protected being abandoned. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] count_dongulus@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago That's exactly what Hamas does. No better than Al-Qaida. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (2 replies) [–] 11181514@lemm.ee 15 points 2 years ago (1 child) Oh ok phew. I didn't know it wasn't a war crime per the Geneva convention article 52. Keep bombing those infants, baby! Woohoo! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 years ago So glad Israel is the good guy here! permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sneptaur@pawb.social 9 points 2 years ago We will have to see. Both sides have all the incentive to lie. permalink fedilink source parent [–] letsgocrazy@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Both populations Palestine and Israel hate their leadership and want them gone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Israelis regularly voted Netanyahu and that even last year despite him being head over heels in dozens of currpotion scandals. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Instigate@aussie.zone 9 points 2 years ago* (2 children) There were five hung elections in a row where he couldn’t form a majority before he was able to form this government. Israel has only ever had one majority government (that is, not a coalition of parties) from 1968-1969, well before Likud was even established and while Bibi was still serving in the military. Likud has literally never held a majority in the Knesset. How can you so ardently state that Israelis “voted Netanyahu”, especially when they’re a multiparty Westminster parliamentary representative democracy whose parliamentary leaders elect the Prime Minister? Come on, mate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (6 replies)
[–] devz0r@kbin.social 49 points 2 years ago (5 children) And fun fact: bombing/attacking a hospital is not a war crime per the Geneva Conventions Article 52, if it is being used as a military objective. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Makfreeman@lemmy.world 38 points 2 years ago (1 child) Might be a fun fact but it is not correct. Article 52 of the fourth convention is not related to hospitals. Article 52 of the 1st additional protocol is related to hospitals and it does not mean what you are saying it does. Geneva conventions do not define war crimes, that definition is given in the ICC Rome statutes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] devz0r@kbin.social 43 points 2 years ago (9 children) Fair enough. The ICC Rome Statute specifically refers to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. But per the ICC Rome statute on war crimes, Article 8, Section 2, Subsection (b), Clause (ix), the following is a war crime: "Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected,provided they are not military objectives;" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Still the collateral damage needs to be proportional and adequate measures need to be taken to minimise civillian casualties. So at least they would need to be able to evacuate. But Israel intentionally destroyed ambulances, cut water, electricity, fuel and communications, so it is impossible to evacuate the hospital. Israel did everything to make sure the civillian casualties will be high and that is nothing but a war crime and heinous murder. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kbotc@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) https://www.newarab.com/news/israel-gives-hospitals-gaza-hours-evacuate According to the Hamas propaganda Israel literally gave a one month head start on that demand when they did not control the area around the hospital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (8 replies) [–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 27 points 2 years ago (3 children) I mean, that makes a certain degree of sense, because if using protected places as a place to put one's military operations doesn't remove that protection, then it would become a common strategy to intentionally use vulnerable civilians as shields in that manner, and since no military is realistically going to just let their opponent attack them without a response when capable of delivering one, such a scenario would just lead to the whole idea of places like hospitals being protected being abandoned. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] count_dongulus@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago That's exactly what Hamas does. No better than Al-Qaida. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (2 replies) [–] 11181514@lemm.ee 15 points 2 years ago (1 child) Oh ok phew. I didn't know it wasn't a war crime per the Geneva convention article 52. Keep bombing those infants, baby! Woohoo! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 years ago So glad Israel is the good guy here! permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sneptaur@pawb.social 9 points 2 years ago We will have to see. Both sides have all the incentive to lie. permalink fedilink source parent [–] letsgocrazy@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Both populations Palestine and Israel hate their leadership and want them gone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Israelis regularly voted Netanyahu and that even last year despite him being head over heels in dozens of currpotion scandals. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Instigate@aussie.zone 9 points 2 years ago* (2 children) There were five hung elections in a row where he couldn’t form a majority before he was able to form this government. Israel has only ever had one majority government (that is, not a coalition of parties) from 1968-1969, well before Likud was even established and while Bibi was still serving in the military. Likud has literally never held a majority in the Knesset. How can you so ardently state that Israelis “voted Netanyahu”, especially when they’re a multiparty Westminster parliamentary representative democracy whose parliamentary leaders elect the Prime Minister? Come on, mate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Makfreeman@lemmy.world 38 points 2 years ago (1 child) Might be a fun fact but it is not correct. Article 52 of the fourth convention is not related to hospitals. Article 52 of the 1st additional protocol is related to hospitals and it does not mean what you are saying it does. Geneva conventions do not define war crimes, that definition is given in the ICC Rome statutes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] devz0r@kbin.social 43 points 2 years ago (9 children) Fair enough. The ICC Rome Statute specifically refers to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. But per the ICC Rome statute on war crimes, Article 8, Section 2, Subsection (b), Clause (ix), the following is a war crime: "Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected,provided they are not military objectives;" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Still the collateral damage needs to be proportional and adequate measures need to be taken to minimise civillian casualties. So at least they would need to be able to evacuate. But Israel intentionally destroyed ambulances, cut water, electricity, fuel and communications, so it is impossible to evacuate the hospital. Israel did everything to make sure the civillian casualties will be high and that is nothing but a war crime and heinous murder. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kbotc@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) https://www.newarab.com/news/israel-gives-hospitals-gaza-hours-evacuate According to the Hamas propaganda Israel literally gave a one month head start on that demand when they did not control the area around the hospital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (8 replies)
[–] devz0r@kbin.social 43 points 2 years ago (9 children) Fair enough. The ICC Rome Statute specifically refers to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. But per the ICC Rome statute on war crimes, Article 8, Section 2, Subsection (b), Clause (ix), the following is a war crime: "Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected,provided they are not military objectives;" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Still the collateral damage needs to be proportional and adequate measures need to be taken to minimise civillian casualties. So at least they would need to be able to evacuate. But Israel intentionally destroyed ambulances, cut water, electricity, fuel and communications, so it is impossible to evacuate the hospital. Israel did everything to make sure the civillian casualties will be high and that is nothing but a war crime and heinous murder. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kbotc@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) https://www.newarab.com/news/israel-gives-hospitals-gaza-hours-evacuate According to the Hamas propaganda Israel literally gave a one month head start on that demand when they did not control the area around the hospital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (8 replies)
[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Still the collateral damage needs to be proportional and adequate measures need to be taken to minimise civillian casualties. So at least they would need to be able to evacuate. But Israel intentionally destroyed ambulances, cut water, electricity, fuel and communications, so it is impossible to evacuate the hospital. Israel did everything to make sure the civillian casualties will be high and that is nothing but a war crime and heinous murder. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kbotc@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) https://www.newarab.com/news/israel-gives-hospitals-gaza-hours-evacuate According to the Hamas propaganda Israel literally gave a one month head start on that demand when they did not control the area around the hospital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] kbotc@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) https://www.newarab.com/news/israel-gives-hospitals-gaza-hours-evacuate According to the Hamas propaganda Israel literally gave a one month head start on that demand when they did not control the area around the hospital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 27 points 2 years ago (3 children) I mean, that makes a certain degree of sense, because if using protected places as a place to put one's military operations doesn't remove that protection, then it would become a common strategy to intentionally use vulnerable civilians as shields in that manner, and since no military is realistically going to just let their opponent attack them without a response when capable of delivering one, such a scenario would just lead to the whole idea of places like hospitals being protected being abandoned. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] count_dongulus@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago That's exactly what Hamas does. No better than Al-Qaida. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (2 replies)
[–] count_dongulus@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago That's exactly what Hamas does. No better than Al-Qaida. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 11181514@lemm.ee 15 points 2 years ago (1 child) Oh ok phew. I didn't know it wasn't a war crime per the Geneva convention article 52. Keep bombing those infants, baby! Woohoo! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 years ago So glad Israel is the good guy here! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 years ago So glad Israel is the good guy here! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Sneptaur@pawb.social 9 points 2 years ago We will have to see. Both sides have all the incentive to lie. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] letsgocrazy@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Both populations Palestine and Israel hate their leadership and want them gone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Israelis regularly voted Netanyahu and that even last year despite him being head over heels in dozens of currpotion scandals. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Instigate@aussie.zone 9 points 2 years ago* (2 children) There were five hung elections in a row where he couldn’t form a majority before he was able to form this government. Israel has only ever had one majority government (that is, not a coalition of parties) from 1968-1969, well before Likud was even established and while Bibi was still serving in the military. Likud has literally never held a majority in the Knesset. How can you so ardently state that Israelis “voted Netanyahu”, especially when they’re a multiparty Westminster parliamentary representative democracy whose parliamentary leaders elect the Prime Minister? Come on, mate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies)
[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Israelis regularly voted Netanyahu and that even last year despite him being head over heels in dozens of currpotion scandals. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Instigate@aussie.zone 9 points 2 years ago* (2 children) There were five hung elections in a row where he couldn’t form a majority before he was able to form this government. Israel has only ever had one majority government (that is, not a coalition of parties) from 1968-1969, well before Likud was even established and while Bibi was still serving in the military. Likud has literally never held a majority in the Knesset. How can you so ardently state that Israelis “voted Netanyahu”, especially when they’re a multiparty Westminster parliamentary representative democracy whose parliamentary leaders elect the Prime Minister? Come on, mate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Instigate@aussie.zone 9 points 2 years ago* (2 children) There were five hung elections in a row where he couldn’t form a majority before he was able to form this government. Israel has only ever had one majority government (that is, not a coalition of parties) from 1968-1969, well before Likud was even established and while Bibi was still serving in the military. Likud has literally never held a majority in the Knesset. How can you so ardently state that Israelis “voted Netanyahu”, especially when they’re a multiparty Westminster parliamentary representative democracy whose parliamentary leaders elect the Prime Minister? Come on, mate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies)
[–] yukichigai@kbin.social 30 points 2 years ago (1 child) I mean what's worse: using a human shield, or deciding "nah fuck them kids shoot through them anyway." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 45 points 2 years ago (36 children) What if they were shooting your kids while hiding behind their own? Would you let them keep doing it while insisting that reprisals are off limits? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 40 child comments replies: [–] rosymind@leminal.space 52 points 2 years ago (5 children) Yeah, this is the problem I'm having with people picking sides. It's a giant crap-pile of the worst of humanity. People act like there's a good side. Nah, everything's a mess of generational hatred and I hate it all. There needs to be a cease-fire. Hamas needs to release all hostages and then be permanently removed from power in Gaza, and Israel needs to help the Palestinians rebuild what has been destroyed, burry their dead with dignity and respect, and heavily compensate the families of those who have died. The whole thing is out of control permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] stewsters@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (4 children) There was a ceasefire, then Hamas attacked. Hard to rebuild trust after that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) [–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Well said. The only angels here are the innocents being slaughtered. The belligerents are all devils. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Zorque@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (7 children) Interesting that you mentioned the removal of Hamas from power but not the current Isreali government. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 18 points 2 years ago* (8 children) If polling is accurate, they will be voted out soon enough. To remove Hamas one needs the ammo box, as they have removed the ballot box as an option. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments load more comments (8 replies) [–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 3 points 2 years ago* The government of Israel is at least somewhat democratic. That makes removing it a bit more thorny than removing an organization like Hamas, because one either has to effectively just force an election there, which carries the risk that the same people (or people with the same ideology, if you forbid the specific people currently in power) might just win it and keep things the same, or replace the entire system with something that isn't democratic, which is generally viewed as a bad thing in itself. It's also move salvageable though for the same reason: there's little chance that someone wanting peace and resolution will somehow take over Hamas, it would be antithetical to what their organization even is, but the policies of a government like Isreal's at least have the potential to dramatically shift if people wanting those things take hold of it. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (2 replies) [–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago There's an infinite spectrum between "not shooting children" and "letting the other guy shoot yours" Also, this "oh we're so much better and civilized" act really falls short when it has to be explained to you why shooting children is still bad even when you do it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] yukichigai@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) False dilemma. There are ways to react that don't involve shooting children. Even if there weren't, I wouldn't say "yeah shoot some children." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago* (4 children) You're misrepresenting my position. It's, "yeah definitely shoot the terrorist, try to avoid shooting their hostages if you can." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [–] Makfreeman@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Wouldn't proportionality be a thing here? Reprisals would be acceptable if they did not result in a disproportionate loss of innocent civilians. Unfortunately it seems like Palestinian children's lives are much cheaper than Israeli lives. I hate saying it because I think all children deserve protection regardless of the actions of the people in power, be it hamas or idf. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (32 replies)
[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 45 points 2 years ago (36 children) What if they were shooting your kids while hiding behind their own? Would you let them keep doing it while insisting that reprisals are off limits? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 40 child comments replies: [–] rosymind@leminal.space 52 points 2 years ago (5 children) Yeah, this is the problem I'm having with people picking sides. It's a giant crap-pile of the worst of humanity. People act like there's a good side. Nah, everything's a mess of generational hatred and I hate it all. There needs to be a cease-fire. Hamas needs to release all hostages and then be permanently removed from power in Gaza, and Israel needs to help the Palestinians rebuild what has been destroyed, burry their dead with dignity and respect, and heavily compensate the families of those who have died. The whole thing is out of control permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] stewsters@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (4 children) There was a ceasefire, then Hamas attacked. Hard to rebuild trust after that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) [–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Well said. The only angels here are the innocents being slaughtered. The belligerents are all devils. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Zorque@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (7 children) Interesting that you mentioned the removal of Hamas from power but not the current Isreali government. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 18 points 2 years ago* (8 children) If polling is accurate, they will be voted out soon enough. To remove Hamas one needs the ammo box, as they have removed the ballot box as an option. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments load more comments (8 replies) [–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 3 points 2 years ago* The government of Israel is at least somewhat democratic. That makes removing it a bit more thorny than removing an organization like Hamas, because one either has to effectively just force an election there, which carries the risk that the same people (or people with the same ideology, if you forbid the specific people currently in power) might just win it and keep things the same, or replace the entire system with something that isn't democratic, which is generally viewed as a bad thing in itself. It's also move salvageable though for the same reason: there's little chance that someone wanting peace and resolution will somehow take over Hamas, it would be antithetical to what their organization even is, but the policies of a government like Isreal's at least have the potential to dramatically shift if people wanting those things take hold of it. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (2 replies) [–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago There's an infinite spectrum between "not shooting children" and "letting the other guy shoot yours" Also, this "oh we're so much better and civilized" act really falls short when it has to be explained to you why shooting children is still bad even when you do it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] yukichigai@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) False dilemma. There are ways to react that don't involve shooting children. Even if there weren't, I wouldn't say "yeah shoot some children." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago* (4 children) You're misrepresenting my position. It's, "yeah definitely shoot the terrorist, try to avoid shooting their hostages if you can." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [–] Makfreeman@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Wouldn't proportionality be a thing here? Reprisals would be acceptable if they did not result in a disproportionate loss of innocent civilians. Unfortunately it seems like Palestinian children's lives are much cheaper than Israeli lives. I hate saying it because I think all children deserve protection regardless of the actions of the people in power, be it hamas or idf. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (32 replies)
[–] rosymind@leminal.space 52 points 2 years ago (5 children) Yeah, this is the problem I'm having with people picking sides. It's a giant crap-pile of the worst of humanity. People act like there's a good side. Nah, everything's a mess of generational hatred and I hate it all. There needs to be a cease-fire. Hamas needs to release all hostages and then be permanently removed from power in Gaza, and Israel needs to help the Palestinians rebuild what has been destroyed, burry their dead with dignity and respect, and heavily compensate the families of those who have died. The whole thing is out of control permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] stewsters@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (4 children) There was a ceasefire, then Hamas attacked. Hard to rebuild trust after that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) [–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Well said. The only angels here are the innocents being slaughtered. The belligerents are all devils. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Zorque@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (7 children) Interesting that you mentioned the removal of Hamas from power but not the current Isreali government. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 18 points 2 years ago* (8 children) If polling is accurate, they will be voted out soon enough. To remove Hamas one needs the ammo box, as they have removed the ballot box as an option. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments load more comments (8 replies) [–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 3 points 2 years ago* The government of Israel is at least somewhat democratic. That makes removing it a bit more thorny than removing an organization like Hamas, because one either has to effectively just force an election there, which carries the risk that the same people (or people with the same ideology, if you forbid the specific people currently in power) might just win it and keep things the same, or replace the entire system with something that isn't democratic, which is generally viewed as a bad thing in itself. It's also move salvageable though for the same reason: there's little chance that someone wanting peace and resolution will somehow take over Hamas, it would be antithetical to what their organization even is, but the policies of a government like Isreal's at least have the potential to dramatically shift if people wanting those things take hold of it. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (2 replies)
[–] stewsters@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (4 children) There was a ceasefire, then Hamas attacked. Hard to rebuild trust after that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies)
[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Well said. The only angels here are the innocents being slaughtered. The belligerents are all devils. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zorque@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (7 children) Interesting that you mentioned the removal of Hamas from power but not the current Isreali government. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 18 points 2 years ago* (8 children) If polling is accurate, they will be voted out soon enough. To remove Hamas one needs the ammo box, as they have removed the ballot box as an option. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments load more comments (8 replies) [–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 3 points 2 years ago* The government of Israel is at least somewhat democratic. That makes removing it a bit more thorny than removing an organization like Hamas, because one either has to effectively just force an election there, which carries the risk that the same people (or people with the same ideology, if you forbid the specific people currently in power) might just win it and keep things the same, or replace the entire system with something that isn't democratic, which is generally viewed as a bad thing in itself. It's also move salvageable though for the same reason: there's little chance that someone wanting peace and resolution will somehow take over Hamas, it would be antithetical to what their organization even is, but the policies of a government like Isreal's at least have the potential to dramatically shift if people wanting those things take hold of it. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (5 replies)
[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 18 points 2 years ago* (8 children) If polling is accurate, they will be voted out soon enough. To remove Hamas one needs the ammo box, as they have removed the ballot box as an option. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments load more comments (8 replies)
[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 3 points 2 years ago* The government of Israel is at least somewhat democratic. That makes removing it a bit more thorny than removing an organization like Hamas, because one either has to effectively just force an election there, which carries the risk that the same people (or people with the same ideology, if you forbid the specific people currently in power) might just win it and keep things the same, or replace the entire system with something that isn't democratic, which is generally viewed as a bad thing in itself. It's also move salvageable though for the same reason: there's little chance that someone wanting peace and resolution will somehow take over Hamas, it would be antithetical to what their organization even is, but the policies of a government like Isreal's at least have the potential to dramatically shift if people wanting those things take hold of it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago There's an infinite spectrum between "not shooting children" and "letting the other guy shoot yours" Also, this "oh we're so much better and civilized" act really falls short when it has to be explained to you why shooting children is still bad even when you do it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] yukichigai@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) False dilemma. There are ways to react that don't involve shooting children. Even if there weren't, I wouldn't say "yeah shoot some children." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago* (4 children) You're misrepresenting my position. It's, "yeah definitely shoot the terrorist, try to avoid shooting their hostages if you can." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago* (4 children) You're misrepresenting my position. It's, "yeah definitely shoot the terrorist, try to avoid shooting their hostages if you can." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Makfreeman@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Wouldn't proportionality be a thing here? Reprisals would be acceptable if they did not result in a disproportionate loss of innocent civilians. Unfortunately it seems like Palestinian children's lives are much cheaper than Israeli lives. I hate saying it because I think all children deserve protection regardless of the actions of the people in power, be it hamas or idf. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago (1 child) Still not a good reason to kill babies... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) I would resign on the spot if I ever got an order like that. I don't care if Nazis are resurrecting Hitler in the basement of the hospital, I can't trade babies and children as acceptable collateral. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) I would resign on the spot if I ever got an order like that. I don't care if Nazis are resurrecting Hitler in the basement of the hospital, I can't trade babies and children as acceptable collateral. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
