I don’t approve of their being killed either.
I stopped believing that when people started yelling “CEASEFIRE NOW!” while there were still Hamas soldiers actively fighting on Israeli soil.
Yes, and a “ceasefire” means those guys would have to stop shooting too, and if they ignored that, there would be consequences. It’s not a surrender, and most people who advocate for it know that very well.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say with some confidence that every single person arguing with you here and in the other threads about this sincerely care about Israeli lives and the safety of Jews worldwide. Yes, including and maybe even especially BanquetBear. If you think otherwise, you are mistaken, and I actually do think you are capable of seeing that. I hope that day comes sooner rather than later.
I don’t hate Palestinians any more than my grandparents “hated Germans” when they were fighting WWII. I want Hamas to be defeated. Once that happens, the Gazans will no longer be enemies of Israel and there will be no reason for continued enmity towards them.
Could just be me but I was under the impression that if there weren’t soldiers actively fighting a ceasefire was pretty much the current state of a conflict.
Well, since we’re being deliberately obtuse, allow me to clarify that there were already people demanding a ceasefire on Israel’s part while there were still Hamas soldiers on the Israeli side of the Israel-Gaza border actively engaged in their pogrom against the locals.
Okay, sincere question: I don’t believe that a “ceasefire” is generally understood as a situation where one side gets to keep shooting while the other gets to do nothing. Why do you think this is the case here? Do you actually believe that even half of ceasefire advocates are actually antisemitic to the point of openly advancing a course of action that’s inherently genocidal towards Israelis?
-
The demands that Israel stop fighting started while Hamas was still on Israeli soil murdering Israeli civilians.
-
Everyone I hear calling for a ceasefire is demanding that Israel be the one to take action. Usually when a nation is attacked and it’s defending itself against an aggressor, you expect the people who started the fight to take action, but I don’t hear anyone saying Hamas should be the ones to stop shooting first.
-
Israel should not be expected to accept a ceasefire under any conditions less than the return of all hostages, living or dead, and an agreement by Hamas to disarm and renounce violence against Israel.
-
When there WAS a bilateral ceasefire, Hamas broke it in less than 24 hours.
-
The direct consequence of Israel accepting an open-ended ceasefire at this time will be that Hamas will have time to rearm and plan their next pogrom.
I think a good number of ceasefire advocates don’t believe the state of Israel should exist.
S’funny, you didn’t express any of this disapproval before your ‘enough is enough’ post, yet hundreds had already been murdered by then.
I don’t think you’re debating this honestly. I think you latched on to “Israel is in the right” view after the Oct 7th attacks (which is understandable in the moment), and the old Smapti has taken over such that you’re unable to shift your views, no matter the facts and evidence, and everything gets twisted and tied into knots to rationalize your original view.
At the beginning I was on Israel’s “side” as well. But the actions of the Israeli government and IDF have shifted my view. Now it’s the Gazans who are suffering, by far, the most. And their enemies are the IDF, Israeli government, and Hamas. Like before, Netanyahu is functionally doing Hamas’s bidding, helping to strengthen Hamas’s power over Gazans and Palestinians, and damaging Israel’s international relationships and chances for peace.
The old Smapti was totally incapable of seeing this kind of nuance, but I thought the new Smapti had learned to. Sad to see that I was wrong.
So, like, you hate them a whole lot, then. If Dresden is anything to go by…
How does that work, exactly? If they’re Hamas supporters (even the toddlers!), how will defeating Hamas magically make that go away?
And what was Israel’s excuse before 1987?
Cite, motherfucker.
Express disapproval? There was exactly one post of disapproval, the rest was active cheering for genocide.
The same way that defeating the Nazis in WWII eliminated the cause of Germans being the enemies of the Allies.
Defeating the Nazis didn’t do that.
Years of occupation, the Marshall Plan and active denazification did that.
So is that the plan for Palestine? 70 years of soft occupation and billions of Western money to be spent on modernizing it? Haven’t really heard a whisper about that…
And there are still Nazis (neo & other flavors) in Germany today.
I mean, it should be the plan. Hopefully once the voters kick Benjamin Palpatine out on his ass progress can be made on that front.
70 years of occupation? By who, exactly?
Bearing in mind that Israel simply cannot allow Hamas to continue to exist in any form under any circumstances, what would you have Israel do differently?
Actually go after Hamas, not destroy Gaza. Destroying Gaza helps Hamas. I’ve posted in detail my view on what Israel should have done differently in other threads.
Your view in those threads is naive bunk. Literally the only way to remove Hamas is to do what Israel is doing. The international community don’t care about Israel and would not have helped. Hamas are so deeply entrenched into the civilian population of Gaza there is not a cleaner way to go after them. And allowing Hamas to continue would be an existential threat to Israel.