Yes, but when a person can’t defend himself because he was killed, it’s not the killer who gets the benefit of the doubt. Israel knows he was hamas? How about they show us the evidence that was enough to kill him and everyone around him.
What kind of evidence would actually be convincing? I’ve seen photos, call transcripts and surveillance footage released in the past as justifications for various things. All are dismissed as fake or exaggerated. Or, in other cases apparently just ignored.
That’s the problem in a conflict like this as far away as it is. The truth died long ago. Whether one wants to see Hamas as the real psychopaths or Israel as the real psychopaths, any and all evidence presented so far by both sides can be twisted to suit whichever worldview the reader wants to have.
I boil it down to this, Israel has more than enough reasons to be lying and exaggerating: there are extremist factions in Israel who ideologically want to possess the land and they’ll commit genocide to achieve it. Israel had military hegemony in the area, and especially with American backing, and so can count on being able to kill and squeeze Palestinian civilians in plain view until their goals are achieved. I get it.
But also, Hamas had more than enough reasons to also be lying. They are religious extremists who want to kill all Jews at any cost routinely hide among civilians and fire weapons from civilian areas. The West lost its collective mind over terror attacks by several dozen Islamic extremists. Israel has ~30,000 members of Hamas’s genocidal terror brigades sitting on their doorstep. It’s a different scale of threat than what the West has ever dealt with.
No they are not. This is gaslight at best and out right zionest propaganda at worse. Nothing they said has any real world meaning and is used to muddy the line between “acceptable collateral damage” and outright genicide. Dude is an outright zionest and will be seen as such in every historical depiction of current times as a pro genicide individual.
There are genocidal religious fanatics on both sides. Israel just has the capacity to carry it out.
I really don’t get this whole “Israel is evil so we can’t say anything bad about Hamas” schtick that’s going around.
Israel are killing civilians on a gross scale and must stop. But if anyone thinks Hamas aren’t ideologically committed to killing as many Jews as possible no matter where they find them, then they have they head in the sand.
Why do people not seem to be able to cope with the fact that just because Israel are doing evil it doesn’t make Hamas the good guys??
No one is saying Hamas are the good guys, but one said it’s definitely using their existence as an excuse to kill millions. Kinda like the Nazie’s did to Jewish freedom fighters in Poland. What’s the difference? Were Jewish partisan Fighters fighting in Germany and Poland terrorists? Were Native Americans who raided settlements on their ancestral lands terrorists? How about Nat Turner? Queen Boudica? Violence is abhorrent no matter what form it takes but the one’s capable of doing the most violence and do so should always be seen as the evil. You can’t expect millions of people to simply die without a portion of them also choosing violence. It’s all disgusting. But you are missing the forest from the trees. There’s no reason for Isreal to be killing other than their own personal gains. The first thing they need to do to end the cycle is to stop themselves or to be stopped. The elimination of Hamas won’t stop the genicide. Just as Running Bull, Nat Turner, and yes even Hamas failed to do.
I would consider industrialised total war to be using terrorism as a weapon, yes. Whether that’s the British firebombing civilian areas of Germany or the Germans indiscriminately dropping rockets on London. Both actions are designed to terrorise the populace. So, ‘terrorism’. I would judge the rest of your examples by that criteria.
Whether or not I think various causes in history were just or not is a separate consideration. So in some cases I would support ‘terrorism’, yes. Though I would struggle to find an actual clear cut example where I think that’s the moral thing to do.
The cycle of violence between Jews and Palestinian Arabs has existed before the state of Israel even existed. Since each side has been continually justifying their actions based on what the other did it is very difficult to point to any moment in living memory where either exist “in a vacuum”. They have progressively created each other.
I realise you don’t agree with this. But I’m not saying it to be “pro Israel”. Quite the contrary.
Israel has the upper hand and should stop its terrorism against gaza civilians. But I think you, and others here should realise that even if Israel were to give Hamas all their demands it’s not like Islamic terrorism against Jews would stop. The ideology pre-dates Israel and even Zionism in general…
The guy was delivering food to a starving population. The occupation could have captured him since they have a military presence and control in the area.
They were not delivering food, but it was a WCK car. There were people unrelated to WCK with them at the time. Ultimately this comes down to whether or not one believes Israel. What Israel and WCK say is not contradictory, WCK just says they didn’t know if the person participated in the Oct 7 terror attacks or not. Israel says they did. If you maraude around another country stabbing women and children any car you get in in the future is liable to get a rocket through the roof. It’s not on Israel to risk its soldiers apprehending someone like that. Cowardly of that particular person to seek to hide amongst civilians. That’s if Israel is to be believed.
Isn’t that the point of a trial? To review evidence rather than have come to a judgment already?
Israel showed the UN the evidence it had that UNWRA members had taken part in the Oct 7 terror attacks and as a result the UN agreed and fired those membersUN press release
All I’m saying is since we know some hid amongst UNWRA members then I would not be surprised if some hid amongst WCK as well…
Can you admit all these things may be true at the same time: Israel committing war crimes AND exaggerating claims AND Hamas are hiding amongst WCF and other civilian groups?
I agree, but in a war you do not have the luxury of apprehending every soldier for trial. Compare: the tactics of pretty much every single country.
OIOS was not able to independently authenticate…
OIOS are being churlish since it’s obviously excruciatingly embarrassing for a UN agency to have been used as cover by Hamas. Note they don’t say “we saw evidence and disagree with it”. They’re saying “yeah, Israel showed us actual evidence that these guys are part of the attacks, we just couldn’t get a second version of that evidence from anywhere else. But we’ll still act on it”.
But that’s to be expected if what they’ve been shown are mobile cell tower records or images from military security cameras or even private messages these guys sent themselves.
Note UNWRA are refusing to take any action against the ten or so other accused where they felt there was no good evidence. But these nine they’re saying “ok, fair enough, we’ll fire them”.
Doesn’t that show you there’s at least varying qualities of evidence in the background? And if it were easy to dismiss it as manufactured by Israel they would have done so. But for these nine they agree to take action, but just grumble about the fact that this evidence, although apparently good quality enough, was handed over via Israeli channels.
Isreal: One of the foreign aid workers was Hamas!
Rational people: that sounds far fetched. Do you have any proof?
Isreal: Asking that question is antisemitic!
Also rational people: Israel could well be lying. But also Hamas could well have chosen to hide amongst aids workers.
The ability to tell which of these is true from the distance we’re sat went out the window long ago.
Also, is one terrorist worth killing 3 other innocent people?
Yeah, if your end goal is to depopulate the whole region so you can steal the rest of the land you haven’t stolen yet.
Yes, but when a person can’t defend himself because he was killed, it’s not the killer who gets the benefit of the doubt. Israel knows he was hamas? How about they show us the evidence that was enough to kill him and everyone around him.
What kind of evidence would actually be convincing? I’ve seen photos, call transcripts and surveillance footage released in the past as justifications for various things. All are dismissed as fake or exaggerated. Or, in other cases apparently just ignored.
for example: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/12/07/world/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news#israel-claims-about-al-mawasi-add-to-concerns-that-nowhere-in-gaza-is-safe-for-civilians
That’s the problem in a conflict like this as far away as it is. The truth died long ago. Whether one wants to see Hamas as the real psychopaths or Israel as the real psychopaths, any and all evidence presented so far by both sides can be twisted to suit whichever worldview the reader wants to have.
I boil it down to this, Israel has more than enough reasons to be lying and exaggerating: there are extremist factions in Israel who ideologically want to possess the land and they’ll commit genocide to achieve it. Israel had military hegemony in the area, and especially with American backing, and so can count on being able to kill and squeeze Palestinian civilians in plain view until their goals are achieved. I get it.
But also, Hamas had more than enough reasons to also be lying. They are religious extremists who want to kill all Jews at any cost routinely hide among civilians and fire weapons from civilian areas. The West lost its collective mind over terror attacks by several dozen Islamic extremists. Israel has ~30,000 members of Hamas’s genocidal terror brigades sitting on their doorstep. It’s a different scale of threat than what the West has ever dealt with.
You’re totally missing who the genocidal religious fanatics actually are.
No they are not. This is gaslight at best and out right zionest propaganda at worse. Nothing they said has any real world meaning and is used to muddy the line between “acceptable collateral damage” and outright genicide. Dude is an outright zionest and will be seen as such in every historical depiction of current times as a pro genicide individual.
There are genocidal religious fanatics on both sides. Israel just has the capacity to carry it out.
I really don’t get this whole “Israel is evil so we can’t say anything bad about Hamas” schtick that’s going around.
Israel are killing civilians on a gross scale and must stop. But if anyone thinks Hamas aren’t ideologically committed to killing as many Jews as possible no matter where they find them, then they have they head in the sand.
Why do people not seem to be able to cope with the fact that just because Israel are doing evil it doesn’t make Hamas the good guys??
No one is saying Hamas are the good guys, but one said it’s definitely using their existence as an excuse to kill millions. Kinda like the Nazie’s did to Jewish freedom fighters in Poland. What’s the difference? Were Jewish partisan Fighters fighting in Germany and Poland terrorists? Were Native Americans who raided settlements on their ancestral lands terrorists? How about Nat Turner? Queen Boudica? Violence is abhorrent no matter what form it takes but the one’s capable of doing the most violence and do so should always be seen as the evil. You can’t expect millions of people to simply die without a portion of them also choosing violence. It’s all disgusting. But you are missing the forest from the trees. There’s no reason for Isreal to be killing other than their own personal gains. The first thing they need to do to end the cycle is to stop themselves or to be stopped. The elimination of Hamas won’t stop the genicide. Just as Running Bull, Nat Turner, and yes even Hamas failed to do.
Hamas wasn’t created in a vacuum. Grow up dude.
I would consider industrialised total war to be using terrorism as a weapon, yes. Whether that’s the British firebombing civilian areas of Germany or the Germans indiscriminately dropping rockets on London. Both actions are designed to terrorise the populace. So, ‘terrorism’. I would judge the rest of your examples by that criteria.
Whether or not I think various causes in history were just or not is a separate consideration. So in some cases I would support ‘terrorism’, yes. Though I would struggle to find an actual clear cut example where I think that’s the moral thing to do.
The cycle of violence between Jews and Palestinian Arabs has existed before the state of Israel even existed. Since each side has been continually justifying their actions based on what the other did it is very difficult to point to any moment in living memory where either exist “in a vacuum”. They have progressively created each other.
I realise you don’t agree with this. But I’m not saying it to be “pro Israel”. Quite the contrary.
Israel has the upper hand and should stop its terrorism against gaza civilians. But I think you, and others here should realise that even if Israel were to give Hamas all their demands it’s not like Islamic terrorism against Jews would stop. The ideology pre-dates Israel and even Zionism in general…
Oh you’re just a zionest and pro genicide.
That is as unreasonable as me saying you’re pro-Hamas.
The guy was delivering food to a starving population. The occupation could have captured him since they have a military presence and control in the area.
They were not delivering food, but it was a WCK car. There were people unrelated to WCK with them at the time. Ultimately this comes down to whether or not one believes Israel. What Israel and WCK say is not contradictory, WCK just says they didn’t know if the person participated in the Oct 7 terror attacks or not. Israel says they did. If you maraude around another country stabbing women and children any car you get in in the future is liable to get a rocket through the roof. It’s not on Israel to risk its soldiers apprehending someone like that. Cowardly of that particular person to seek to hide amongst civilians. That’s if Israel is to be believed.
Ah yes, beleive a state that is on trial in both the courts in The Hague (war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide).
Isn’t that the point of a trial? To review evidence rather than have come to a judgment already?
Israel showed the UN the evidence it had that UNWRA members had taken part in the Oct 7 terror attacks and as a result the UN agreed and fired those membersUN press release
All I’m saying is since we know some hid amongst UNWRA members then I would not be surprised if some hid amongst WCK as well…
Can you admit all these things may be true at the same time: Israel committing war crimes AND exaggerating claims AND Hamas are hiding amongst WCF and other civilian groups?
A trail does review evidence whereas here we just had a summary execution.
Your link to them UN press release says this:
“OIOS was not able to independently authenticate information used by Israel to support the allegations.”
I agree, but in a war you do not have the luxury of apprehending every soldier for trial. Compare: the tactics of pretty much every single country.
OIOS are being churlish since it’s obviously excruciatingly embarrassing for a UN agency to have been used as cover by Hamas. Note they don’t say “we saw evidence and disagree with it”. They’re saying “yeah, Israel showed us actual evidence that these guys are part of the attacks, we just couldn’t get a second version of that evidence from anywhere else. But we’ll still act on it”.
But that’s to be expected if what they’ve been shown are mobile cell tower records or images from military security cameras or even private messages these guys sent themselves.
Note UNWRA are refusing to take any action against the ten or so other accused where they felt there was no good evidence. But these nine they’re saying “ok, fair enough, we’ll fire them”.
Doesn’t that show you there’s at least varying qualities of evidence in the background? And if it were easy to dismiss it as manufactured by Israel they would have done so. But for these nine they agree to take action, but just grumble about the fact that this evidence, although apparently good quality enough, was handed over via Israeli channels.
Your premise that anyone suspected of being associated with Hamas should be killed is against the Geneva conventions. You are supporting war crimes.