> The Deir Yassin massacre took place on April 9, 1948, when Zionist paramilitaries attacked the village of Deir Yassin near Jerusalem, Mandatory Palestine, killing at least 107 Palestinian villagers, including women and children.[1] The attack was conducted primarily by the Irgun and Lehi, who were supported by the Haganah and Palmach.[3] The massacre was carried out despite the village having agreed to a non-aggression pact.
> An Israeli army officer who fired the entire magazine of his automatic rifle into a 13-year-old Palestinian girl and then said he would have done the same even if she had been three years old was acquitted on all charges by a military court yesterday.
Netanyahu is a fascist inspired by Mussolini, all the Hamas talk is just an excuse to do ethnic cleansing and complete the settlement of Palestine. They will not stop at that, they will keep expanding into Syria, Lebanon and Egypt.
Minimizing civilian casualties is a moral imperative. I am sure the engineers behind "Where's Daddy?" are losing sleep if they have any semblance of a moral conscience. Same goes for anyone who is aware of the true nature of Israel's conduct in Gaza yet still providing cover for it.
A mistake? The Israelis didn't understand the extent to which Hamas views itself as engaged in a holy war. They (and many others, including me) thought that Hamas would prioritize building Gaza and providing services to its people over murder/kidnapping raids.
You're underestimating how valuable Hamas has been to the Israeli right. Smotrich called them an asset in 2015 for a reason, and Netanyahu said similar in 2012.
With Hamas in charge, Israel could avoid making new peace agreements or concessions by saying that there was "no partner for peace". The more violent Hamas got, the more cover Israel had for expanding settlements. And now Likud is already talking about what they'll do with all the Gaza land they're taking.
That's one theory. Another one is read the article.
The reason it matters is that under the second one Israel has no moral legitimacy, so saying things like moral imperative show how fucked up your morals are.
People complain about cancel culture but this guy can go around saying genocide is good and absolutely nothing seems to happen to him as a consequence.
create a separate state for palestine under the control of hamas would only legitimise them, allow them to easily get more weapons and go on another oct 7, which will again lead to the bombings currently happening.
Bombing them to death would lead to deaths of many, many women and children cuz gaza is 75% children.
You cannot have peace with hamas, only ceasefire, and even then they havnt stopped launching homemade missiles.
The most sane solution is defeating hamas, establishing a third party control over it to stabilise the region and then return it to democracy, but israel is too trigger happy to do any progress on this field and hamas wants all of israel.
You cannot have peace on the land without destroying hamas. Not even for moral reasons. Maybe there is another solution in ur mind?
My solution, if I was in charge of Israel, would simply be to NOT order the army to destroy most of Gaza and kill tens of thousands of people, and to instead just focus on preventing incursions into Israel. I would also focus on stopping Hamas missiles by using the hugely effective anti-missile system that, conveniently, already exists.
I realise that this is not a perfect solution to the Israel/Palestine problem. It has many flaws in the long term and ignores a bunch of pressing issues. But it does have the benefit of not killing tens of thousands of people, and in that way is a hell of a lot better than the bloodthirsty rampage currently happening.
sooo prolong the problem so that when you are dead, your descendants have to deal with it and you will be free of the responsibility?
Do we forgive oct 7? what precedent would it set for other groups? that you can just go kill and rape people and there will be no response?
Self-defense is supposed to be proportional. If you're killing 30x as many people in "response", and most of them weren't in any way involved in the original attack, that's not justifiable.
No? In india 2019, there was a terrorist attack where the jihadist organisation jaish-e-mohammad blew up a bus carrying soldiers via ramming a car filled with IEDs into the bus killing 40 people.
In response, india did the balakot airstrikes, killing ~300 terrorists in a training camp [identified via the number of phones that were working in the area that was bombed.]
300 is clearly a bigger number than 40, so was the attack wrong? india used it as an excuse to kill more people than what should be considered a good proportional response!
Since that attack[and other operations], JeM and others became fairly inactive and terrorist attacks have gone down by an insane number, what used to be a daily occurrence and a reason to not attend local festival celebrations due to threat of bombs is now a rarity.
Proportionality has nothing to do with defence. Why on earth would u kill only a few terrorists as a response? Israels actions are fucked up but proportionality does not apply to defence. If a state is retaliating to a threat, why would it leave the threat alive, which would only cost lives of more of its people?
Israel's airstrike policy is bad and roof knocking is not enough, the way israel conducts war is wrong and there needs to be intervention that is able to chain israel while eliminating hamas, demilitarising palestinian jihadist groups and stabilising the region.
But proportionality has nothing to do with defence.
you can be disproportional if that means the threat ceases to exist.
> to instead just focus on preventing incursions into Israel.
So after Hamas invaded Israel, massacred over a thousand civilians (and they don't have the "collateral damage" excuse they just gruesomely raped and murdered people because they were apparently subhuman...) and kidnapped hundreds of others, Israel should have just said "aw-shucks.. well they won't get us next time". Really?
That would have actually been worse than the US government doing nothing after 9/11 besides introducing stricter TSA checks.
Now one might legitimately argue whether the reactions in either were necessarily that effective. But not doing anything would have been insanely absurd. You just can't except any non entirely dysfunctional government to behave that way.
It's a horrible situation.. but any suggestion or proposed alternative that wouldn't result in the destruction or significant weakening of Hamas is just not particularly useful (long-term at least).
