galloog1 @ galloog1 @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

474

Joined

2 yr. ago

Misinformation and disinformation make strange bedfellows. Hamas is a terrorist organization and has an absolute provable track record for creating and applying both. What makes you think anything they say is any more accurate in this current conflict than it has been before?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/3035937/gaza-israel-hamas-palestinian-casualties/%3famp=true

The burden of proof is on the claim maker. Kindly prove that you are not a robot made by fairies in Mordor if you think the burden of proof is otherwise.

That's not a primary source and you are a useful idiot.

Just because you think something is morally wrong, does not mean you understand the full context. What is legal matters because they are the rules by which we play and they set expectations and consequences. Just because something is illegal does not make it wrong but ignorance of the law doesn't help your argument.

The ends don't always justify the means but sometimes they do of it means less suffering.

My claim is that you don't understand the situation and take the claims of religiously motivated murderers at face value. Your claim is that my side are genocidal maniacs who just want them to die. My claims have evidence and I have personally seen them. You base yours on what?

Additionally, my side categorically follows the laws of war, regardless of the narrative.

War is politics. That's been defined since the 1800s by Clausewitz. Your failure to understand that is not anyone's problem but your own. I'd like for war to not exist but it does and it would be nice if people would not be what are known as useful idiots in the western geological community.

I'm saying that you literally cannot trust the things they say and it's been proven more often than not. It's extremely well documented.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/24/hamas-israel-death-toll-health-ministry-trustworthy-reuters/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/3035937/gaza-israel-hamas-palestinian-casualties/%3famp=true

"Over a year later, after the news media had moved on, Hamas Interior Minister Fathi Hammad enumerated Hamas fatalities at 600 to 700, a figure close to the Israeli estimate of 709 and about three times higher than the figure of 236 combatants provided by PCHR in 2009 and cited in the Goldstone Report."

It is immensely consistent over time and they do it because it works.

Cite from it then. You didn't mention it before. Genocide is defined in far more than just the multiple Geneva conventions and so far no one has shown an understanding of it. Cite from it.

Israel is at war. Collective punishment is no longer a relevant claim. They have declared war on the government of Palestine, Hamas. They are no longer in competition and are no longer attempting to use these controls to prevent violence. There is nothing illegal or genocidal about it right now while they conduct literal war.

The key difference to your last paragraph and the current situation is the trustworthiness of the narrative. Hamas has been shown time and time again to show complete disregard to the truth when they make claims of war crimes and civilians killed by Israel. I am sorry that you have any trust in them at all but you should validate your sources. Every militant struck is claimed to be a civilian. Every single one.

Your source is that you know a person who heard it once from a journalist speaking their opinion? I'll let that speak for itself.

You know what's funny about genocide denial rhetoric? It is exactly the same thing as the truth when there is no genocide. I trust Israel's rhetoric infinitely more having seen the evidence myself.

Not one militant has been killed by Israel according to Hamas. They were all civilians. I don't just mean in the current conflict but in the last 17 years. Find me one single example that wasn't a high-profile commander that they could not explain away and then we can talk. When your entire army is made up of what you claim is civilians, genocide is an easy claim to make but a hard one to prove to those dying by your hand.

I think I will be just fine in 20 years and maybe we will actually have a Palestinian sovereign state when they do not have a literal terrorist organization as its elected government.

You mean the refugee camp that has been there so long there are multistory buildings and voting residents? Just because it is labeled as a refugee camp does not mean it functions as such. Is it worse than Hamas hiding in a regular residential area? If so, you should not be demonizing the Israeli military but instead Hamas who is using it for military purposes. Go look at what was labeled as a refugee camp and tell me that it was not an area with permanent structures. Striking legitimate targets in civilian areas is ethical, full stop. You cannot provide a legal argument otherwise and being unwilling to strike targets in those areas encourages militaries to use civilian shields further endangering civilians.

I have been involved in targeting within the conduct of warfare before. Yes, this is how it is done by the best armies on earth. It is infinitely better than indiscriminate artillery fire that preceded directed munitions. Yes, the prior solution was to level entire sections of the city in prior wars. This is not abhorrent within the context of military conflict.

I highly encourage you to look into the history of targeting approaches and see which is the more ethical approach. If you would like to compare it to other more recent conflicts with less sophisticated weapons, please look into the following.

2022 Bakhmut 2017 Mosul 1945 Manilla

Let me be completely clear. The above examples of absolute depravity are legal and ethical within armed conflict. Israel has declared war on the government of the West Bank, Hamas. They did so in reaction to a horrific terrorist attack against unarmed civilians planned and executed by real flesh and blood people and not as a result of mistaken intelligence. Israel has every right to absolutely level the West Bank as they fight to take it block for block within the laws of armed warfare. You may not like it but they do. It is not genocide. It is not a war crime. It is just simply war. It is simultaneously much worse for Palestine and much safer for Israel and that should be remembered that they are not choosing to take that approach.

They have lessened their approach to potentially minimize civilian casualties. They did not have to do this. You actively discourage them from doing this when you demonize them anyway. Why bother giving the enemy time to prepare and kill more of your forces if it does not further you towards your political goals? There is a reason why the coalition came out on the better end of the conflict in Syria instead of Russia/Assad's government. The coalition was not indiscriminate in their targeting and Russia was.

Furthermore, every chance that they have given the Palestinian people to better their position is used as leverage to wage more war against Israel. Without the removal of Hamas, they will continue to leverage their position to conduct further attacks against Israel because they have done it continuously and increasingly since 2006. I do not envy the position they are in but I certainly understand it. It should be remembered that Israel plays by the laws of war and Hamas does not.

I too am not okay with the deaths of innocent people which is why Israel is stopping with these half-assed solutions and is going in to remove Hamas. This is a limited ground operation even though they have declared war. You are using these terms that you do not even understand. They have never claimed otherwise as an organization and have remained consistent with that in their decision-making. When they get a system in charge there that can be trusted to not literally use every resource they have to kill innocent Israelis, they can open back up the movement corridors and start working towards autonomy again like they were in 2003. I do not see a fully sovereign Palestinian state until then which I actually do believe Israel wants. They just don't want one led by literal terrorists. A fully sovereign and stable Palestinian state is the only lasting peace that can end the bloodshed. Simply declaring Hamas full power and autonomy is a quick way to enable the spread of violence into a much wider and more deadly conflict.

Got a primary source for that?

I'm not familiar with that record but I'm sure that if it is true it has something to do with the former title. People get emotional sometimes. That doesn't make it policy.

See everyone else's comments on how inaccurate your statements are. We are not the ones with our heads in the sand. Stop trusting Palestinian government sources. It's literally Hamas. There's a reason that they beat the Israelis to the narrative. They do not validate their information. They say whatever makes Israel look bad, no matter what the truth is.

The elected government of Palestine, Hamas. Yes, that organization. Yet they still are targeting Hamas instead of intentionally enacting collective punishment.

There UN source simply defines them at war, not genocide. Name a war that did not produce suffering. The UN source does not show that they are intentionally targeting a people, just that they are suffering as they target the elected Hamas government.

Hiding amongst your own civilians when you just killed a bunch of Jewish civilians could also be considered collective punishment. They are targeting the enemy. The enemy is commiting a war crime. If Israel intentionally targeted civilians not around the enemy because they elected Hamas as their government this enabling state sponsors terrorism, it would be considered collective punishment.

Based on those definitions, what Israel went through is considered genocide against them and multiple times including the recent attacks as they absolutely targeted Israeli civilians.

This is an overly broad definition and includes literally every war ever. Air strikes against seemingly military targets that end up not being military targets does not constitute genocide. Not by a long shot.

Your UN article simply states that there is suffering. Name a single war where that wasn't the case. Is all war genocide? Your other articles simply define that they are at war in response to a massive terrorist attack. That is not genocide by this definition as it does not define the difference between a justified defensive war and a genocide.

Israel was at war the second they were attacked. War is not pretty. It is not genocide. You would be far better off scoping your argument outside of the confines of the current conflict as they were attacked by an elected organization by Palestine.

Bro, I'm a primary source. Have fun not impacting the world at all.

There's only one side in this conflict claiming death to one side and it's not Israel. When a group tells you who they are, you should believe them.

You cannot even define the difference between capitalism and fascism. I do think you should change what you are doing.