https://www.politico.eu/article/israel-united-nations-antonio-guterres-hamas-attack-vacuum-comments/
Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the UN secretary-general addressed the 15-member UN Security Council Tuesday.
They didn't call the UN chief an anti-Semite. I guess that's progress right?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B3nio_Guterres
What a terrible human being, looking at his life filled with works trying to improve people. He should be ashamed, trying to look at the cause instead of the effect of global situations.
But in all seriousness, the chilling effect is real, because he's the UN secretary general they're holding back a little bit, but they're demonstrating for everybody you better not say anything we don't agree with. And that has a real impact on political speech globally.
What is more worrying is that there is a witch hunt and if you support the regular Palestinian human rights you are kind of automatically condemned as anti-Semitic and supporter of terrorists.
And I fully agree with Antonio and I am really happy that he is one of the very few people who openly stands against Israel's policies of constant suppression of Palestine.
I don't know what the plan of Israel is for the Palestinians, and what they are exactly hoping to achieve apart from making those people hate them even more and actually involuntarily boosting Hamas popularity in the region and radicalizing even more people there.
According to Hamas’ own charter, “the cause” is that a Jew somewhere in the world has a pulse.
So I think it’s reasonable for us to say, no, we’re not going to address their stated grievances.
Hamas is not the underprivileged good guy here. It's the plight of the Palestinian people, that gives power to Hamas, that is the thing that needs to be addressed.
So saying looking at the situation that enables Hamas to get political power is a reasonable thing for a politician to say. That's literally the game they play every day. Trying to remove the power from an antagonistic belligerent is a good thing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Charter
For what it's worth Hamas is a political organization, and they respond to political realities, in 2017 they attempted to amend their charter to give them the ability to negotiate.
The 2017 charter accepted for the first time the idea of a Palestinian state within the borders that existed before 1967 and rejects recognition of Israel which it terms as the "Zionist enemy".[2]
Again, not apologizing for them, not condoning them.. but there are political organization that exists in political reality is, and examining the realities that enable them to draw power from a population, is a reasonable thing to do, and in fact the job of a global politician - like the UN Secretary general.
What's your point? Because Hamas are an extremist dictatorship it's okay to deprive the civilian population of food and water, and bomb indiscriminately?
Half the population are children. Do they also deserve to suffer?
Not at all! my point was that people seem to see this as a "State of Israel" vs "the people of Palestine and Hamas" issue, when in reality we all need to call out Hamas for what they are.
I don't think I've seen a single comment on Lemmy that equates Hamas with Palestine, or is even pro-Hamas. I also haven't seen any news or stats that indicate the average Israeli disagrees with the Israeli government's treatment of Palestinian civilians... Quite the opposite, in fact. I've never seen any indication that anything but a small minority of Israeli's and jews agree that Palestinian's have suffered any injustice.
I fully expect the average Palestinian to hate Israel, but I can't blame them because they're an uneducated, impoverished, 3rd world people who've been disregarded and shat on by the entire developed world for 75+ years. The land they, or their direct ancestors, were born on was stolen from them by colonial powers, and handed to foreigners whose ancestors hadn't lived there for millennia.
So my question for you is, shouldn't the highly educated, wealthy, developed, democracy be held to a significantly higher standard than the uneducated, impoverished, non-state, dictatorship, whose population is 50% children? In what world are these populations on a remotely comparable playing field?
I don’t think I’ve seen a single comment on Lemmy that equates Hamas with Palestine
Then you're turning a blind eye or somehow missing it, this place is overrun with calls to violence against Israel and its people. This place is also overrun with support for Hamas. Look at how heavily downvoted my comments (and the parent comments merely stating that Hamas are in the wrong) are. I'm not supporting the Israeli government, I'm not going "woo, IDF, let's go!". I'm not even saying "Israel has every right to attack".
I support Palestine in that I want Palestinian people to have their own internationally recognized state. I want them to be allowed to be self-sufficient, to not be blockaded, to not be encroached upon. I also think that Israeli people deserve to exist in their own state. Both states deserve to exist without constant threat of war, sanction, or terrorism. If we can't agree to those basic statements -- and I've seen comments here that will disagree with them, especially Israel's legitimacy via the mandate of Palestine -- then I don't know what else to say.
shouldn’t the highly educated, wealthy, developed, democracy be held to a significantly higher standard?
Yes, absolutely. The only thing I've said (or implied, maybe I needed to spell it out) is that Hamas is a terrorist organization that has stolen from the very people it was supposed to protect. It has deprived them of life and liberty, it has prevented fair elections for nearly two decades purely to maintain its own grasp on power. There's no need for whataboutism, Israel is also depriving them of the same I just accused Hamas of doing. That doesn't make Hamas right. In an alternate timeline there would have been a Palestine run by elected officials who respect the election process, instead of a terrorist organization, and those officials would better represent the wants and needs of the people. And they would not have orchestrated a massacre on civilians and tourists.
2006/2007 - the results didn't go the way external parties would have liked....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah%E2%80%93Hamas_conflict
There was a bit of a coup and intervention, and then Palestine was effectively fractured with two defacto governments. As far as I can tell from the internet, Hamas runs as a religious dictatorship since 2007.
A pretty good video summary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is6hIUw0KzM
That’s exactly the kind of thinking that the Israeli government had a month ago, that by negotiating with them, they could find mutual self interest. 10/7 has disabused them of that delusion.
When someone says their goal is genocide, you should probably take them at their word.
I take issue with the implication that moving the Palestinians into reservations, and embargoing them from all trade, economic development, and movement is 'finding mutual self interest', but sure, fine, lets go with it, I preserve the issue for appeal, but not worth arguing here.
So Israel has been punished for treating The Gaza strip with dignity and mutual self interest... What should the new strategy be?
If the goal is to minimize ongoing future violence, what do you do now?
So Israel has been punished for treating The Gaza strip with dignity and mutual self interest… What should the new strategy be?
I have no idea. I don't see a path from where we are to peace. But I am realistic about the fact that Hamas isn't just some club of would-be liberal democrats just yearning for freedom. That's just not realistic. They don't want a two-state solution. They don't want a "Jews still being alive" solution. And increasingly, it doesn't seem like most Israelis want a two state solution either.
I don't have a solution for you.
I don't think anybody here is saying Hamas is a good guy. I haven't seen a single comment in this thread defending Hamas.
A lot of people however, are rationally, and correctly, pointing out that organizations like Hamas are a symptom of an oppressed people. Like an apartheid state, or slave state, we can look at history for examples of people striking out over and over again. It's not a justification, it is however an observation based on history. Slave rebellions are bloody affairs, and the innocent are killed, but the solution to slave rebellions is not harder slavery.
The two-state solution is no longer viable. It is impossible to break apart Palestine from Israel. Especially looking at how fractured the West Bank is, all of the Israeli exclaves, and all of the Palestinian reservations or intermixed - one might say even deliberately to prevent a two-state solution from being viable.
I can't speak for the next 10 to 20 years, but the long-term viable solution in 30 years is going to be a single country encompassing both current Israel and current Palestine, in a secular, non-ethnocentric, non-religious democratic organization. Where people are equal regardless of their ethnicity, religion, or language.
And it's going to be a very bloody time to get to that stage, but it's the only stable steady state.
A lot of people however, are rationally, and correctly, pointing out that organizations like Hamas are a symptom of an oppressed people. Like an apartheid state, or slave state, we can look at history for examples of people striking out over and over again.
You can see it that way, but you also have to take Hamas's stated goal into consideration. Their stated goal is not to liberate their people, it's to be the new oppressor, and a far worse one than that.
Let's put it another way. There are around two million Arab Israelis. They're in the Israeli parliament, they serve in its courts, in the military, etc. Would they be liberated if Hamas achieved its goal? They would probably be viewed as collaborators and executed.
This myth that Hamas are just freedom fighters, like Nelson Mandela or Gandhi, really needs to be dispelled. It has no basis in reality.
There's this weird urge in the minds of people to try to find a hero story. There's no hero story. And if groups like Hamas weren't wreaking havoc in the area for the past 50+ years, realistically, a Palestinian state would probably exist.
I can’t speak for the next 10 to 20 years, but the long-term viable solution in 30 years is going to be a single country encompassing both current Israel and current Palestine, in a secular, non-ethnocentric, non-religious democratic organization. Where people are equal regardless of their ethnicity, religion, or language.
Except no one in the region wants that. Certainly not Hamas.
The whataboutism on this issue is off the charts. If your best defense of Israel's government is to compare it to a terrorist group, don't be surprised when people think of it as a terrorist group.
I didn't mention the Israeli government, except to point out that they were delusional. This isn't whataboutism.
This is a statement free of whataboutism: Hamas is a terrorist organization intent on killing as many Jews as possible, worldwide, without stopping.
That's it. No need to expand on that. That's a statement free of whataboutism.
I'm sure you're probably not wrong in spirit, being a terrorist organization charter and all... but a good way to convince people you're taking out of your ass is to quote a source and have the text of the quote not be in the source.
The context is not that the Hamas charter is reasonable, it's that the sentiment that birthed the charter may have historical foundation. Just like Israeli animosity towards muslims as a whole has historical foundation.
That’s a little like saying you have to understand that Hitler’s rise was in the wake of World War 1’s devastating reparations. Or Stalin’s purges were after Nicholas II and his various misdeeds.
Everyone knows Hamas seized power about a half century after the British two-state division. And about a quarter century after the 1967 war. It also matters not one iota.
It is factually accurate to say that the economic and political aftermath of WW1 was a defining factor in Hitler's rise to power.
Saying that does not in any way endorse the despicable beliefs they espoused.
Of course it's accurate. All world events, all of them, happen in some kind of context. Everyone knows that. No one believes that there was some kind of parallel universe where Israel and Hamas were just plopped down onto a map with no history and no context. Everyone knows the context.
The problem, however, is when people say stupid shit like, "Well, we can't condemn Hamas without first discussing--..."
That's when you can stop them. You can say, actually, yes, you can condemn Hamas without caveat or whataboutism. It's a really simple thing to do. We do it all the time.
That’s when you can stop them. You can say, actually, yes, you can condemn Hamas without caveat or whataboutism.
No, no you can't. Not at an intellectually honest level of trying to resolve an issue.
How a person reacts to you is based not on just that moment in time, but everything that leads up to that moment.
You can't ignore history if you want to fix the present for a better future. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
That’s when you can stop them. You can say, actually, yes, you can condemn Hamas without caveat or whataboutism.
No, no you can’t.
I just did.
I'll do it again. I categorically condemn Hamas. There.
Everyone knows Hamas seized power about a half century after the British two-state division.
Perhaps you're not in the US, but no. This is absolutely not true. You're wildly overestimating the number of people who have a contextual understanding of this situation.
I'm an American living in Europe. In both countries, I'd say people are aware there is a context. Maybe they don't fully know what the context is, but they know there is a context.
But again, you don't need context to condemn Hamas. You might need it to understand Hamas, but you don't need it to condemn Hamas.
Again, wildly overestimating the intelligence of the average American. Especially when it comes to history of things that aren't in America. Or just history in general.
In my experience abroad, Americans have a decent handle on it, at least compared to Europeans. I've met more than one Irish person who, for example, did not know that the Six Day War ever happened.
But again, you don’t need context to condemn Hamas.
You can condemn the actions, but if you want to fix the problem, then you better learn the context in which the actions take place. Otherwise it's just going to be centuries more of throwing bombs at each other.
You can condemn the actions, but if you want to fix the problem, then you better learn the context in which the actions take place.
According to Hamas, their grievance is that Jews are alive. I'm not going to address that grievance.
Otherwise it’s just going to be centuries more of throwing bombs at each other.
That seems likely, but just denying the objectives of Hamas isn't going to bring peace either. For the last 20 years, the international community has been trying to follow the Oslo and Camp David peace accords, but there's been only one even remotely interested partner.
Pretty sure the average American would struggle to find Israel on a map, let alone know that there is context to the current situation.
As an American, it's sad of me to say this, but trying to get an American to be able to tell you the location of just all 50 states in the US would be problematic.
Our education system situation has truly been downgraded for quite a while.
Those things are completely accurate and it's odd that you would bring them up as examples. In which way is it not appropriate to understand the historical context in which an event took place?
Hamas gets almost all of its direct funding from Iran and Russia.
Israel, along with the United Nations, United States, EU, etc funds humanitarian projects in Gaza. Some of that aid is surely diverted to Hamas and Hamas controls Gaza, but the moral case for allowing some aid to be diverted to Hamas in exchange for avoiding a humanitarian catastrophe is strong.
Toward the end of Netanyahu’s fifth government in 2021, approximately 2,000-3,000 work permits were issued to Gazans. This number climbed to 5,000 and, during the Bennett-Lapid government, rose sharply to 10,000.
That's what counts as empowering Hamas? Letting Palestinians earn a living?
I mean I guess you can spin it that way, but it's a spurious claim to make.
The idea was to prevent Abbas — or anyone else in the Palestinian Authority’s West Bank government — from advancing toward the establishment of a Palestinian state. Thus, amid this bid to impair Abbas, Hamas was upgraded from a mere terror group to an organization with which Israel held indirect negotiations via Egypt, and one that was allowed to receive infusions of cash from abroad.
Along with the rest of the article this describes the point in general terms. You can research more if you want to
I mean, maybe there was some kind of conspiracy to pit Hamas against Fatah.
To me, it seems more likely that they were trying to treat Hamas as what people here act like it is: some kind of governing party in Gaza to be negotiated with. That was obviously an error.
Or maybe Israelis are the ones who are not facing reality. You keep a malnourished and abused big dog chained in your backyard, you're going to get bitten sooner or later.
...And now that they've been bitten, they're going to beat it to death, and god help anyone that thinks what they're doing is cruel and unnecessary (and terrorism, and a war crime).
Ok I want to start by saying I agree with you in principle. I’m not commenting on substance, but on form. I know this metaphor. It’s provocative and is used frequently. But I don’t love the idea of comparing Palestinians to dogs. Is there any way it can be tweaked to not refer to an oppressed people as animals?
I don’t comment this directly at you either. I’m asking the broader Lemmy community. Can we workshop an adjustment?
Maybe label it as a camp where people of a specific ethnicity are gathered, or concentrated, and not allowed to leave.
I get it. Reality sucks.
Also, people want to see themselves in an underdog. They want a "good guy" to root for.
People aren't rooting for Hamas as a good guy. That statement is so insanely stupid, it's off the charts. Palestinians are an oppressed controlled people. They are forced into poverty, every aspect of their lives is controlled by Israel. Their land is constantly stolen. What do they do, they fight back. Yes there has been strife between Jews and Muslims long before Great Britain set this entire situation on fire by creating Israel from the majority of Palestine. Yes, Muslims have attacked Israel because of this happening. Israel is 100 times stronger than them. They have 1000s of times more money and resources. If a Palestinian kills one Israeli, Israel kills 100s of Palestinians in response. They destroy entire neighborhoods, they steal more land, burn their agricultural land, and cut of even more access to the outside world. Israel, being the bigger stronger party here, does not act in good faith to end this situation. Israel acts just as genocidal as you say Hamas is. I am not saying Hamas are good guys, they have done terrible reprehensible things. Hamas is trying to fight an asymmetrical war, and doing it in the worst way possible.
The chance for peace existed years ago, but it required Israel pulling back to '67 borders, and they absolutely refused to even consider the idea.
I don't back any side in this. I think they both are acting reprehensibly. I want to see a cease fire. I want Bibi removed from power, no good negotiations will come with him there. I want to see a change in leadership in Hamas. Then I want to see a real attempt at honest negotiations.
Sure you can find individual people who say that. As a whole, that's not a majority sentiment. You will, in the west the majority sentiment is to cheerlead Israel to do what ever the fuck they want.
It's not a majority sentiment in the US, no.
It's surprisingly common in certain circles though.
Also, people want to see themselves in an underdog. They want a “good guy” to root for.
IMO, and having read over all your comments in this thread, and not just the one I'm quoting above, you are too dismissal/simplifying of other people's intelligence and wisdom.
Humanity done right is a differential engine, and ignoring a section of the data set because you don't agree with it does not get you any closer to the truth of things.
I'm not ignoring anyone. I'm trying to think of a reasonable explanation for people's incoherence. I think people wanting to root for the underdog really explains a lot of seemingly incoherent beliefs.
This clearly shows the power of Israel regarding having a public opinion that goes against their book… no one dare speak ill of Israel government narrative
The UN Chief resigning as a result would be a show of power. Calling for it and not getting is a show of weakness.
Israel doesn't give a shit. They have most of the west oligarchy fellating them, "donating" billions of dollars in "aid" and weapons, and approving of their entire history of human rights abuses and genocide of Palestine.
I read that they put the names, pictures, and personal info of the Harvard students that spoke out on ad trucks and drove them around the Harvard campus.
The lengths to which they're going to suppress dissent are getting pretty scary. I would not be at all surprised if threats have been made through back channels.
https://canarymission.org/students
Its psychotic. And then they have the balls to mix actual anti-semites in next to people who just don't think we should fund a government that kills thousands of civilians with impunity
Ironically that was done by a company called "Accuracy In Media." If you go to their site aim.org you can see the truck for yourself. It had giant LED screens on both sides playing a sideshow of doxxing students.
Mostly when governments are obviously responsible for a war, it's not controversial to state that truth. The Israeli government isn't special in the way you seem to think it is.
Stay with the facts please. He did not talk about responsibilities at all, only said the attack did not happen in a vacuum. Everyone bending the actual facts to fit their preferred narrative the way you do, is most counterproductive in any discussion.
The speech was very balanced and fair. The problem to the israeli government is that it did not throw all of the blame on palestinians or hamas, and therefore they took offence.
Oh, no, it's not that, at all. It's just a good media manipulation tactic. The Israeli ambassador pitches a fit and calls for his resignation, then the news cycle turns to the spat over whether Guterres should resign, and we forget about the truths he spoke. Truths which are unflattering and inconvenient for Israel. Mission accomplished.
No, equating all Jewish people with the oppressive apartheid state Israel
Where did he say (or equate) all Jewish people?
The remarks by the Secretary General were about the actions of the Israeli government and not about Jewish people in general.
Antisemitism is bigotry against all Jewish people because they're Jewish, not valid criticism of a government because it has committed countless atrocities for many decades.
Yes? But also why type that as a response here, now? Screams whataboutism even if that wasn't the intention.
Claiming that all criticism of Israeli government is antisemitic (which is what the one I responded to seemed to be doing) amounts to declare that government representative of all Jews, which is itself antisemitic.
So unless I misunderstood his meaning, I stand by my original reply.
Context is anti semitic
It's sarcasm the way I'm reading it, i.e. he is saying the the UN chief is providing context and that is being deemed as antisemitic, which it's not.
The Israeli ambassador is conflating the state with the entire set of Jewish people, which as you said is itself antisemitic
I think you're both on the same page
Oh! Guess I'm the idiot with a malfunctioning sarcasm detector then! My bad!
(That wasn't sarcasm btw, in case there's any doubt)
The person you replied to was being sarcastic, but that is what Israel is claiming and always has.
From the article: “There is no justification or point in talking to those who show compassion for the most terrible atrocities committed against the citizens of Israel and the Jewish people,” he added on the social media platform.
Your leap "[..] amounts to declare that government representative of all Jews" is large enough to qualify for a world record of some form. How in Earth's name did you reach that conclusion? If I imply that criticizing the King of England is hateful against Englishmen am I really then implying that every Englishman loves the King? Even his detractors?
I can't at all follow your logic. The poster is mocking Israel for the habit of supporters of the Israeli government of accusing any non-Jew criticizing them of antisemitism.
If I imply that criticizing the King of England is hateful against Englishmen am I really then implying that every Englishman loves the King?
No, but you ARE falsely conflating criticism of (the actions of) a person with bigotry towards a people. Those things are in no way the same.
Even worse in the case of Israel, where being Jewish isn't a nationality but an ethnicity and a religion with many of the people belonging to both or either being in fierce opposition to the atrocities of the Israeli government.
When the Jewish peace groups sat in for a ceasefire in Washington, spokespeople for the ADL in effect denied their status as Jews and said antizionism is the same as antisemitism.
You can't enforce ethnic land claims without perpetual suppression of undesirables, and the completely predictable effects that will cause.
TBF, zionists resent even orthodox american Jews for having rejected the initial call on ideological grounds.
You can see it in modern discourse where American Jews that support Palestine are dismissed out of hand by Israelis and zionists as "just being stupid Americans"
Yeah there's always been this stuff but it just seems to have made it's way in to the official statements a lot more this time around, like there isn't that awareness of how most people perceive it that's been keeping things less weird in the past. I could see past responses to this being something like "Jews have differing opinions on the subject of Zionism but we all agree that protecting Jewish lives and securing a safe homeland for Jews is important." Now what used to be the extreme response is the mainstreamed one.
It's odd how often anti-zionism is equated with anti-Semitism. Zionism is the opposite of tolerance, and anti-Semitism is intolerance.
People seem to forget the Nazis were Zionists. They sent some of the Jewish population to Palestine. They also had plans of creating a Jewish state in Madagascar.
German had lost the ability to do either late in the war, when they took there hate to it final destination. People are right to be worried about what a state does to an oppressed class of people. Especially when said state wants those people gone and there is nowhere for them to go.
They also had plans of creating a Jewish state in Madagascar.
German had lost the ability to do either late in the war, when they took there hate to it final destination. People are right to be worried about what a state does to an oppressed class of people. Especially when said state wants those people gone and there is nowhere for them to go.
This bullshit. Hi bullshit, been a while - you still stink like you always did.
It’d be nice if you explained why it’s bullshit. Germany did plan to send the Jews to Madagascar there for a bit - so they could live in a german police state isolated on an island that might not have the resources to support all of them. People would die, Germany didn’t care, emigration was forced, and it certainly wasn’t meant to be the foundation of a Zionist state. It’d be a concentration camp on an island.
Exactly, concentration camp. Not some idyllic destination that the other bullshit artist is trying to sell.
Yeah, sorry I wasn’t trying to correct you. I skimmed the article first, and I missed the key point (concentration camp, not Zionist state). Figured I’d save some else the trouble.
The numbers never added up. You know, this is why I linked to a cited comment. The Nazis never planned for Jews to settle in Madagascar - it was just never a realistic or rational choice.
Oh yes, of course the Nazis. Historically recognized for their realistic, rational and congruent way of thinking.
/s
Looks like that comment is an accurate representation of the wikipedia page you shared so I fail to see where the bullshit is alleged to be.
Zionism is about an independent Jewish state, not a German police-state/penal colony. To say Nazi Germany was Zionist shows a lack of understanding of either the Nazis, Zionism or both.
It looks like the comment I'm responding to is imprecise and only directly quoting the accuracies rather than the inaccuracies. Basically the Nazis and Zionist Congress overlapped on the territories explored to be a "home" for the Jews, with obviously different intentions. So the inaccuracy here would be the conflation of the two on ideological grounds, but not necessarily on the logistical matters.
Where the conflation may not apply, is from the turn of the century to the rise of the Third Reich, did anti-Semites support the idea of Jews relocating elsewhere by their own volition, since (in their minds) it would have been a mutually beneficial arrangement? Debatably none of the major powers were friendly towards Jews (Bolsheviks at least disavowed antisemitism in an official capacity) at the time, hence a motivating factor for why the WZO was created.
Yeah well Israel was offended by the UN sending out an untargeted reminder that the Geneva conventions exist.
Let them seethe and cope.
It triggers me every single time I read it. When did journalists forget how to write like adults? Who as we all know, would use criticize instead of slam.
I think a lot of them do it on purpose because they know it will drive up engagement with people posting about the shitty titles.
100% chance this was an editor decision. Their mission is not only to edit what the journalist wrote, but to also sell it, make it engaging, bring in eyes for ads or subscription. I've never met a journalist who had the title of their article intact as written. That is almost always rewritten entirely by an editor or a team of editors.
Hamas terrorist attacks sucked. Bombing whole city blocks in retaliation sucks. Indeed.
Personally I'm astonished how many seems to find it easy picking a side. The more I learn the less I feel sure about anything except that the whole situation sucks.
Picking a side sucks. Not picking a side sucks. I'm glad I don't have political influence for this one.
As a tangent I feel it's a bit symptomatic of our social media landscape having trust issues when we can't allow ourselves to delegate having an opinion about one of the most infected and complex conflicts that is way out of most people's control.
I don't blame social media for this one. I dk where you grew up but being from the US... our government lies to us all the fucking time.
(sorry for what I'm about to do)
'Member Iraq has WMDs? 'member Abu Ghraib? 'member Gitmo? 'member "waterboarding isn't torture"? 'member we had no warning about 9/11? 'member the "kill team" who took human body parts? 'member Iran-Contra? 'member "I am not a crook"?
And those are just the popular ones.
I don't want to turn it into a sides thing, Obama bombed a few hospitals of his own and Biden is fumbling pretty fucking hard right now.
More examples that come to mind:
Tuskegee Syphilis study and the Regan administrations response to AIDS
More than 5,700 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli airstrikes since the war began, according to the Hamas-run Ministry of Health in Gaza, the New York Times reported.
I would take this number always with a grain of salt. Keep in mind that this ministry is run by the Hamas and that it immediately made Israel responsible for the shelling of the Hospital parking lot and put up a very high number of casualties for that said parking lot.
Otherweise Israel’s ambassador is acting quite childish in my oppinion and it surely does not help Israel at all to behave in such a way at the U.N. I also have no answer on how to deal with those terrorists of the Hamas, but casually accepting civilian casualites without much precision is definitely not the right thing to do...
And of course nothing that is happening there in the middle east is happening in a vacuum. Neither Israel or the people of Palestine lived in peace in the last decades.
Even if you halve that number, it still more than 2,500 people so far.
It’s appropriate to call Hamas terrorists and monsters.
It’s also appropriate to call the Israeli response extremely excessive- and appropriate to point out that the powers that are created this mess specifically to gain/keep power in Israel.
Both things can be true.
It’s also worth pointing out, that if you figure for every civilian killed, they’re making another Hamas soldier? Or whatever it is that comes after Hamas?
EDIT: NPR hourly newsupdate quoted seven thousand now. Granted that's probably from the Ministry of Health and suspect... (it was a 30 second blurb while I was driving home.)
It's probably officially more than died in the last gaza invasion, and it's only going to get worse.
It’s also appropriate to call the Israeli response extremely excessive- and appropriate to point out that the powers that are created this mess specifically to gain/keep power in Israel. Both things can be true.
I absolute agree!
It's also reasonable to assume that given any number you choose to accept of Palestinian casualties. Statistically speaking, its highly probable that at least half of them have been under 16 years of age, children.
People keep bringing up the parking lot incident as if admitting that there isn't definitive proof it wasn't Israel is the same thing as proof that is was Hamas, and errors in reporting mean nothing reported is credible. Building your propaganda model on split hairs is back-firing badly for you. Humanistic Judaism can not be constrained by the straight-jacket of colonial Zionism.
The Undisputed Facts in Gaza Are Enough by Eric Levitz
The case for a ceasefire in Gaza does not rest on Israel’s culpability for any single air strike. The undisputed facts are more than enough to indicate that Israel’s campaign against Hamas has featured a callous disregard for civilian suffering. We don’t need to rely on Hamas to know that Israel has cut off food, fuel, electricity, and water to much of Gaza’s population. Israel’s own government has told us that. Similarly, data from the Gaza Health Ministry is not our only indication that there have been massive civilian casualties in Gaza. The U.N. tells us that Gaza is running out of body bags, while photos published by the IDF portray the large-scale decimation of civilian infrastructure.
Indeed.
And even beyond respecting human rights and international law, I would also like to add the following.
Israel and Biden are showing a total lack of consideration for the hostages or for foreign nationals stuck in Gaza.
In fact, they are giving priority to opportunistic and illegal land grabs in the West Bank above all else.
The West should put way more pressure on Israel to stop the war crimes they are committing right now, and to put more effort in securing the release and safety of our own citizens.
Fact is, that hospital disaster wouldn't have happened if Hamas hadn't slaughtered 1500 people in their homes.
No, I agree. I just mean that Hamas wanted to sow chaos and destruction by doing what they did, and well, that's what they got. It's still unclear who fired that rocket, whether it was a misfire or whatever, but if Hamas hadn't attacked, there would be no israeli ground offensive, half of Gaza wouldn't have been ordered to evactuate, and a lot of innocents would still be alive today.
..And Hamas wouldn't have wanted to sow chaos and destruction if Israel had been negotiating in good faith since 1967. But they haven't. So here we are.
Hamas is an entity of Israel's creation, and was funded by Israel to remove support from other, less militant Palestinian organizations.
Zionists argue all the way back to several hundreds years B.C. Not that you can always draw an exactly straight line here, but the point should be that no reaction is inevitable, but that we have organized governments here making these decisions every day.
Well, shit, then argue back before that. What of the Babylonians and the Assyrians that the Israelites genocided? What of their ancestors? Shouldn't they have their land returned to them?
Every time there's been a viable two-state solution presented, Hamas or whoever was the palestinian authroity at the time rejected the proposal because they want all of Israel. That isn't happening. Israel has agreed to a two state solution multiple times! The representatives of palestine never have. If they had, this situation would've stabilized decades ago.
Israel has agreed to a two state solution multiple times!
Certainly not in 1995, or in 2014. They've also went back on their own ceasefires with Hamas in 2008 and 2012.
Fact is, Hamas slaughering 1400 people wouldn't have happened if Israel hadn't oppress the Palestine people for more than 50 years. That is what UN chief is saying, because they've been calling out Israel bs for a long time. Israel have the power themselves to stop the cycle of hate, but they didn't, instead they intensified it.
While the hospital disaster wouldn't have happened if not for the attack, the attack also wouldn't have happened if not for the blockades, terrorization of Palestinians, demolition of houses, and non stop settler violence everywhere even in the West Bank.
More than 5,700 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli airstrikes since the war began, according to the Hamas-run Ministry of Health in Gaza, the New York Times reported.
I would take this number always with a grain of salt.
Understandable, it's a claim made by a partisan faction after all. That said, according to this random X/Twitter account the IDF itself claimed two days ago to have made "over 10,000 targeted strikes" on Gaza since the beginning of the current conflict, so the casualty number given by Hamas works out to about 0.57 fatalities per strike, which doesn't seem like that outlandish a claim to me given how densely populated Gaza is.
In the other thread you call for the destruction of Israel and for Jews to live under Hamas rule. This is going to get a lot worse while Hamas and people like you refuse a 2 state solution.
I used to be like you. Went to the rallies. Even met with the leaders, until they showed me they were racist and hated Jews. Didn't want Israel to exist. Then I realized that both sides were just going to be at each other's throats till the end of time. Because neither would back down or allow the other to back down.
In a game of Total destruction there will be no winners. The only way to win is not to play. Yet Hamas has plenty of support from some people to erase Israel. Hamas and Israel are going to fight. And more people die in conflicts in Africa every day. But it's more important to hate Jews then discuss what can be done to protect civilians in conflicts with higher casualty rates in Africa...
In the other thread you call for the destruction of Israel and for Jews to live under Hamas rule.
Dude, where do you pull this shit from? Your ass? Quote me.
You literally said Hamas should be given all of Israeli and Israeli citizens should give up their citizenship and live under a "democratic" Palestine. We both know Hamas will stop at nothing less than exterminating all Jews. That's their official stance that Hamas themselves advocate for.
"Jewish people can stay and live under Palestine"
Translation, remove the borders and let Hamas expand their operations
I'd be open to this type of thinking if the leaders of the rallies I went to didn't say they want all Jews dead and their homeland restored to them after the rally was over behind closed doors when they weren't in front of the media. All that one state solution is propaganda BS without a chance of happening.
Yea sure let's trust the hostage takers and child murders not to take any more hostages or murder more Jewish childen.
There are no innocents here and it's all propaganda.
“Jewish people can stay and live under Palestine”
Translation, remove the borders and let Hamas expand their operations
Your translation is really pathetic. I think you must be a troll.
Ok if you're not being disingenuous then how will you get Hamas to lay down their arms when they, Iran, and Hezbollah have all said they will not until all the Jews are dead?
How do you propose to end the conflict and unite the governments?
How should both sides unarm?
How can desegregation be implemented like it was after the troubles?
We both know you post so often you're the one in the PR brigade and have no interest in reunification, which I'm old enough to remember seeing in several countries. It's not Israel that's holding up a two or one state solution. It's those obsessed with killing all Israeli Jews.
A best one side is in a religiously modified war and the other fighting to survive. At worst both sides are in a religiously motivated war that will never end.
Hamas attack did not happen in a vacuum, just like Israel acting like this to what the UN chief said did not happen in a vacuum. Israel has been hating on the UN calling out their apartheid for decades now, and it is Israel itself who is principally responsible for removing any meaning from the term antisemitism itself. It is going to find itself very, very alone in the coming decades.
‘did not happen in a vacuum,’ calls for his resignation
Here's the "vacuum" he was talking about.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I mean what sort of madness is it to suggest that if you call apartheid apartheid it's not about the apartheid it must be antisemitism instead /s
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations is calling for the resignation of UN Secretary-General António Guterres after he said the Hamas attack on October 7 in which 1,400 people were killed “did not happen in a vacuum.”
After the statement, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations Gilad Erdan called Guterres’ speech “shocking” on X, formerly Twitter, saying “the Secretary-General is completely disconnected from the reality in our region.”
“There is no justification or point in talking to those who show compassion for the most terrible atrocities committed against the citizens of Israel and the Jewish people,” he added on the social media platform.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the Palestinian Authority’s foreign minister Riyad al-Maliki also spoke to those assembled Tuesday, both appealing for mitigating harm to civilians in Gaza.
More than 5,700 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli airstrikes since the war began, according to the Hamas-run Ministry of Health in Gaza, the New York Times reported.
Since the Israel-Hamas war began this October, Israel has enforced a “complete siege” on the territory, cutting off fuel, electricity and water to a population largely reliant on humanitarian aid.
The original article contains 413 words, the summary contains 190 words. Saved 54%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!