You’d be surprised. The conspiracies are already running rampant.
I suspect the scale of success of the attack was a surprise to Hamas. They probably expected a more immediate respone from Israel, and their fighters to be martyred sooner, so they didn’t have much of a plan more than to stir up some shit, maybe kill a few IDF personnel, take a few hostages. The breakout of Gaza was coordinated, but after that they didnt have much of a plan, ISTM, and just became roving bands of thugs with guns doing what roving bands of thugs with guns do. They found the fight came much later than expected so just tore thru the area for longer.
Yeah. I’m really dismayed by the number of folks I’m seeing who are focusing on Israel’s terrible treatment of folks in Gaza as a justification for Hamas’s actions. Calling it an “uprising.” It’s repellent.
That was my thought too. War is very rarely predicatble, so maybe Hamas was surprised by how little initial resistance they encountered.
They are plenty of people who are still quite happy to defend Hamas, alas.
Including on this board.
So…you’re saying we shouldn’t be too hasty to take the “kill a few hundred thousand people” option off the table? Am I actually parsing that right?
I just found out this morning our neighbor’s cousin was at the Nova festival and hasn’t been heard from since. God help him.
“a lot” isn’t a very rigorous value. For example, you might say that a lot of scientists deny that the earth is an oblate spheroid - i.e. more than a dozen - but as a percentage of all scientists it would be almost none and overlap highly with scientists suffering from clear mental illness that also demonstrates itself in other ways.
If women are more religious in general, across nations, then you need to factor that in as it’s probably not a local and nefarious difference (or, if they’re less religious, then you would need to factor that way). If, in married couples, women are younger than men, then you also need to factor that in as it would cause a larger percentage of women to be ineligible than men.
It may be that, with those corrections, there are still more women not attending than you’d expect but you would need to check that sort of data first.
I mean - treading delicately with words here - Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians in Gaza was a major factor in creating the conditions that led up to such an attack. It’s not like this attack happened out of the blue for no reason whatsoever.
If you keep 2 million people crammed into poverty in an area half the size of New York City and prevent them from leaving for a better life, with all sorts of historical and religious animosity towards your nation, blockaded in what some news sources termed ‘the world’s largest open-air prison,’ with no hope or a future, you can’t be surprised if things of this sort happened. It’s like putting a lid on a pot on the stove, then being surprised when it boils over.
That’s not a justification of Hamas, but…it’s kind of what one would expect to see happen.
Yes, violent resistance against the Occupation is certainly to be expected, and it’s even to be expected that civilians might be targeted. What’s unexpected is that they would not only kill civilians, but go out of their way to act like fucking Pennywise while doing it.
Do you see a difference between
- Striking military targets and engaging in combat with soldiers
- Killing/kidnapping non-military in their homes, mass killing of civilians at a music festival, torture/rape, killing children?
I certainly see the difference.
RickJay said: “It’s not a political option to do so”. I don’t see that simply and flatly stating that to be the case, as a factual assertion with a preemptive Just Don’t Get It for anyone who questions the claim, is productive.
Your question doesn’t appear to have anything to do with what Velocity posted, but obviously 1 is more morally acceptable than 2. Now where on that spectrum would you put
- Cutting off supplies of food, water, electricity, and medical supplies to 2.3 million people, almost half of whom are children?
I don’t want to extend this hijack excessively, but i was summarizing a long Wikipedia article, and if you want to know what i interpreted as “a lot” you can read the article.
Not sure, but it sounds like the answer is “yes, I think killing hundreds of thousands of people should be considered as a possible option.” I certainly can’t blame you for obfuscating rather than just answering the question.
Excluding people who may be hiding in the shadows, are there any Hamas currently holding Israeli territory?
That’s not what is being compared.
Let’s say that you chain a man to a hospital bed, with no sources of entertainment, no human communication, and unable to get out of the bed. He’s injected with food and given water every day. He will live his whole life like this.
A second man is given a good life and then, for one day, tortured horribly and murdered.
Which of these is the crueller treatment? You could argue that the former is even though the latter is more graphic and sensationalist.
The comparison isn’t between killing civilians and killing soldiers, it’s between locking up civilians for life and murdering civilians (including small children).
HOWEVER, I’m not saying that these are equivalent. I’m saying only and purely that your comparisons are not what others are comparing.
Saying that Gaza was an “open air prison” doesn’t make it so. Being chained to a bed, in solitary confinement, is not the same as living freely in a concrete structure, surrounded by a million other friends, family, and comrades. If Hamas was in control of Gaza and had its own government, they could have used the labor of Gaza to develop power plants, water treatment plants, etc. They’re effectively an independent nation of greater human capital than Latvia, Kosovo, Bahrain, Estonia, Cyprus, etc. And those countries wouldn’t become better nor worse if Israel banned travel into them.
If Israel was preventing Gaza from practicing initiatives to improve their own quality of life, assassinating Hamas leadership who argued for peace and local infrastructure, then that’s some form of argument. But if Hamas spent most of their resources towards building missiles and Israel was destroying those and the buildings that they built them on but otherwise letting the region operate as it saw fit to do, and the people were largely supportive of Hamas, then that’s not 100% on Israel.
I don’t claim to know the reality of the situation.
I took you to be asking whether you were parsing my post right, seeing as how you asked: “Am I actually parsing that right?”
At that point, RickJay had written that it’s not a political option, and I’d written about why such a statement didn’t seem to me to be productive. If — rather than ending with an “Am I actually parsing that right?” — you’d ended by simply asking me whether I think killing hundreds of thousands of people should be considered as a possible option, I’d have shrugged and answered that question instead.
I’ve seen folks — especially politicians, but not only politicians — obfuscate by answering (a) not the question they got asked, but (b) some other question entirely. I’m trying to do the opposite of that: sincerely answering the actual question asked.