I never once supported what Hamas did. You ascribed that to me, because you’re a piece of shit. I just pointed out that a lot of Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israel - over 21 times as many than have Israeli civilians been killed by Palestinians since 2008.
I described what Hamas did as “heinous acts of evil”, while you described the many thousands of Palestinian civilians killed as “collateral damage”.
Here’s a Newsweek piece discussing the editorial by Haaretz, the third-largest circulation newspaper in Israel. According to the Center for Research Libraries, among Israel’s daily newspapers, “Haaretz is considered the most influential and respected for both its news coverage and its commentary.”
I stand with moderates like these, those who are capable of the self-reflection and humanity that is needed to resolve a generations-long intercommunal conflict, and something that you are incapable of. You dumb schmuck. It’s a blinkered ultra-partisan mindset like yours that will lead to generations more conflict and thousands more deaths of innocent people, from both sides.
@Walken_After_Midnight
Would you please let me spin this off to its own Pit thread?
This is really out of place for this thread.
I’ll use my Mod powers to do the split, but this post is not an official moderator action, just a request from a regular in this thread.
You quoted an article that literally makes the exact same points that I did in the “will this help Netanyahu” thread and said “look at normal people, you vile extremist you”.
Most of the things you said about @Babale are either false or provided without necessary context (or are completely uncited). And you appear to be completely misreading his view, again and again, which virtually entirely aligns with the “moderates” you quote.
Well, the exact same can be said regarding what he said about what I wrote. He was misreading my view again and again, and he started misreading first.
Furthermore, his misreading portrayed me as someone who supported what Hamas did, which is disgusting.
I’m not going to wade through the back and forth you two have, but I am going to say, @Walken_After_Midnight is not a troll. He is a good poster that has been very informative in the Ukraine Invasion thread.
I hope you both find a way to resolve this. I suspect you’re talking past each other, but maybe I’m wrong.
I don’t think you guys actually disagree on nearly enough to justify calling each other names. It’s understandable that at times like these, people we like and respect are sometimes going to say incredibly stupid shit, or shit that could be interpreted as incredibly stupid. I think you should both calm down and hug it out.
He used the words “equivalence” and “equivocation”…
…from Latin aequus (“equal”) + vocō (“call”). He was thereby implying that I was saying that what Hamas did was equal to Israel’s actions and thereby justified under the principle of reciprocal justice.
Which you didn’t do, but I certainly can see how even bringing up the historical context, which everyone is already well aware of, in the immediate aftermath of these barbaric attacks could seem highly insensitive. It could easily be interpreted as an attempt at whataboutism.
I didn’t say you support Hamas. I think it’s pretty clear that you oppose their vile actions. What I said is that you were being an apologist for Hamas. Because you came into a Breaking News thread about the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust to post about how whell actshually the Jews are worse. That’s also why I was calling you a troll.
It’s totally possible to recognize that Israel (especially when led by a right wing government like Netanyahu’s) has often taken actions that radicalized Palestinians and led to them supporting Hamas without being a massive asshole in the Breaking News thread about the Hamas attack. I’d like to think that this is what I have been doing, which is why I find it so odd that you accuse me of being an extremist.
Since you brought this up a few times now, I’ll address it directly.
Saying that a death was due to collateral damage does not make that death less tragic, the life that ended less meaningful, or the person doing the killing less culpable of the death. It addresses one question and one question only, and this is the question of intent. Was the person being killed intentionally targeted, or not? In the post you keep referring to, that was the very specific distinction I was drawing.
Now, if Johnny Palestinian’s dad is killed by an Israeli airstrike because Hamas was operating out of the building, that kid is still orphaned by Israel’s actions. First of all, his death sucks, just like the death of any civilian. Second of all, that kid is now going to be very easy for Hamas to recruit. These are objectively bad things to have happen in the world, and so in many cases it very well might be that Israel should not have engaged in some of its actions. As the prosperous, democratic nation with a history of valuing human rights, Israel clearly has far more agency when it comes to breaking the cycle of violence.
But none of that makes it OK to compare Israel’s actions to Hamas’. Because that intentionality is present when you go across the border and slaughter a thousand civilians.
Okay, @Walken_After_Midnight - I think that @Thing.Fish is largely correct, in that both you and @Babale are probably closer to common ground than you think, but if I had to come down on one side, I do think you’re in the wrong. Not (!) that I think you’re a troll, but you’re making some really poor arguments. So, I’m going to focus on that, not any name calling, Pit or No.
I’m quoting the above so we focus on the one issue that seems to be increasing your blood pressure, and on the face of it, this (YOUR OWN QUOTE AND COMMENT) supports @Babale’s accusations.
This -IS- blatant both siderisms, and not even an honest one. Let’s look at if from the perspective of desires and needs of the parties causing the civilian deaths. Israel makes an effort (note, I do not say EVERY effort, or even sufficient effort, but an effort) to avoid them, because they realize it plays into the desires of Hamas and their supporters (as distinct from Palestinians in general).
Hamas, on the other hand, deliberately targets civilians, because they’re soft(er) targets, and to create the maximal outrage to then encourage a counter strike, which they immediately follow up with posting all the civilian death tolls that were the response. The leaders, who are NOT at risk, then use this to further increase their power and funding.
As a part of this, they actively and deliberately embed their people, equipment, and facilities within the civilian population - this an active and effective tool to feed the Hamas power cycle.
So yes, numerically the Palestinian deaths have been more numerous, because that’s the way HAMAS wants things, not how Israel wants things.
Lastly, to be clear, there are plenty of Israeli citizens and politicians who probably feel that at this point, Hamas and the Palestinians as a whole aren’t worthy of being treated with respect, that even the tacit support is sufficient for a horrific final solution (words chosen for emphasis), but @Babale certainly isn’t one of them.
Would you level the same accusation at the Haaretz editorial, which directly criticized the actions of the Israeli regime far more than I did, and which was posted the very next day after the Hamas attack?
I would like it be noted that I wrote in the other thread:
Dude, please chill out. I’m not “leveling accusations”, I’m trying to help you understand how your post might have been misinterpreted.
It seems to me that article is pretty narrowly focused on attacking the policies recently enacted by the current government of Israel. Which is a lot more nuanced than your blanket statement that, since 2008, “a lot of Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israel”.
Besides which, yes, obviously I would be much less suspicious of a possible antisemitic agenda behind comments made in a Ha’aretz editorial than I would of identical comments made by a random person on the internet.
Just want to say that the count of bodies on each side of a conflict is a terrible way to assess who has the moral high ground. If you want to go down that road, the U.S. only lost a small fraction of the soldiers Germany and Japan did in WWII, and killed orders of magnitude more civilians before the war was over. Does that mean Nazi Germany or imperial Japan was morally superior? Not a chance.
The nature of asymmetric warfare almost always means the casualties will be lopsided. The morality of the war boils down to who started it, and for what justification, and how it was carried out. Nothing else.