No it obviously isn't. The deaths of Palestinian civilians are collateral damage, while Israel's tolerance for collateral damage has gone up the intent is not to destroy them. They have been very clear about intent: to destroy Hamas and get the hostages back, to achieve meaningful safety for Israel. If Hamas surrendered the war would end, because that is who this war is on.
If they wanted to destroy Palestinian civilians I suspect they could make all of Gaza into a crater in an afternoon. Why don't they? Because Israel is not genocidal, no matter how often you repeat the mantra.
I wonder why they settled, I thought emulators were protected as long as they don't contain any copyrighted stuff. Was it because they circumvented DRM?
The reason there's a massive security apparatus around Palestine is not to oppress Palestinians or impose racial hierarchy, it is because they have been trying to murder Jews for the last 70+ years.
The violence against Israel is the reason for this. Hamas is a cause of the violence. They create the very situation they say they want to end.
If they want the walls to come down and the blockade to end, they need to show a commitment to peace, rather than a commitment to genocide.
Israel didn't like the terms and they have most of the leverage, Anthony Blinken said there were a lot of "non-starters" in the offer. What exactly those were I don't think has been made public.
As you say, they have very little leverage. What they can offer is returning the hostages and a guarantee of safety for Israel and in exchange, they can get peace and relative freedom. At this point they should probably negotiate for whatever they can get, because the alternative is complete destruction. Belligerence hasn't worked out well for them, perhaps they should try something else.
I wouldn't expect any trust and goodwill considering their stated goal is to genocide Jews and destroy Israel.
That explains a lot of the behaviors, very similar to Hitler and the third Reich, they were also hopped up on stimulants and making bad decisions as a result of it.
Well I guess I no longer consider myself a supporter of the DSA. I'm incredibly disappointed by the American left's response to this conflict, they seem to want to simp for belligerents that don't share their values at all and throw the allied country that does under the bus.
The New York times is highly credentialed and has more pulitzers than any other newspaper.
Sure, sometimes they don't get it right, but that doesn't mean they're not a damn good source for journalism.
Hostages are worth nothing dead, that would make them lose the last tiny bit of leverage they had. But, then again they seem to be operating more on anger than logic so who knows.
I don’t think this is exactly the response Hamas was hoping to get.
It's sad that the pro Palestine left doesn't understand what genocide is, seems like they're on a mission to make the term meaningless, making its misuse their call to action.
No it obviously isn't. The deaths of Palestinian civilians are collateral damage, while Israel's tolerance for collateral damage has gone up the intent is not to destroy them. They have been very clear about intent: to destroy Hamas and get the hostages back, to achieve meaningful safety for Israel. If Hamas surrendered the war would end, because that is who this war is on.
If they wanted to destroy Palestinian civilians I suspect they could make all of Gaza into a crater in an afternoon. Why don't they? Because Israel is not genocidal, no matter how often you repeat the mantra.
I'll upvote what I please.