Probably Chevy Chase’s Christmas Vacation since it has been tradition every holiday season.
As a kid, Rescuer’s Down Under or The Paper Brigade was re-watched a lot.
Apart from that, it’s a close tie for:
Just good replay value.
(Comment 2 of 2)
Empathy can be useful even to put yourself in the shoes of the wicked. I’ll be honest: If I put myself in the shoes of a desperate Gazan whose children and wife were blown up by an Israeli air strike, I wouldn’t just think, “Hamas did this!” I would say, “I thought Israel were the good guys and yet look how little they value the lives of us body shields?” At which point in my grief and blind revenge I would join the movement to seek revenge — especially if I’m of limited economic opportunity (what job is there now that Gaza is in ruins?) and of low education. The Taliban fought a war from caves against a force far exceeding Israel and ultimately won. Just as the Vietcong ultimately did. For Israel, this is their Vietnam; this is their Vietcong. Now, strategically, if you were tasked with being the David against the Goliath that is the IDF and you were severely out-gunned, it simply would not be wise strategy to sit in the open against someone who has precision-targeted air force. Knowing your enemy and knowing that Israel holds itself to a moral standard of not harming civilians, I too would probably hide among the civilians. What I would NOT expect is that my opponent who holds the moral high-ground would suddenly decide that killing as many civilians as it takes is 100% okay. Perhaps there was a miscalculation, but then I’d also just go and huddle in my tunnels as the civilians incur the majority of damage above. Does it really impact anything for terrorists who can simply recruit a new army from the surviving orphans, get new weapons from Iran and Lebanon, and have the next leader take its place no different than what happens with the Taliban, ISIS, Al Qaeda? 20 years of failed US interventionism as a stronger fighting force no less suggests a resounding No.
Let me give you a hypothetical. Just suppose you’re wrong and Bibi is doing this solely to remain in power. Suppose he knows that this won’t eliminate terrorism but only exacerbate it but doesn’t care. Suppose he and his cronies want to annex new beachfront property and as Naomi Klein spells out in The Shock Doctrine and to paraphrase Milton Friedman that a crisis is a great opportunity for profit — consider that at least my methodology permits outsiders to immediately protect innocent civilians no matter where they are or whether they’re victims of offense or victims of a defensive maneuver. Surely you’re aware that perception is reality and that many in Russia wrongly believe just as Hamas that they are doing the right thing. That in fact they are the oppressed by NATO, by Nazis, by creeping Jewish annexation shoving them into tighter and tighter slums. After all, so goes the saying that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. So naturally, heinous crimes against civilians are justified everywhere under false pretenses that it is actually THEY who are on the defense and retaliating for an arbitrary act of the opposition from their perspective of reality. At least with my approach, we can cut through the bullshit of “he started, they started it; I’m justified/they’re justified” and just go straight to the quantifiable reality: “Who is actively inflicting more pain and suffering at this present moment on innocent people?” And that is, at this moment, 100% Israel. Keep in mind that when October 7th happened while I was no fan of Netanyahu’s actions and stoking the flames of day-in-day-out suffering of Palestinians, I was still in Israel’s corner and felt sorry for the civilian lives lost. Do you see how my allegiance isn’t to nationalism but rather humanism? And in maintaining such optics, you’re able to in the moment identify the key threat to innocent loss of life independent of alleged justification that is often in the eye of the beholder.
So could the crisis for innocent civilians end if Hamas surrenders? Possibly, yes. But that necessitates expecting the terrorists to do what Israel themselves as the “good guys” have been unable to do—practice reasonable restraint. You and I both don’t expect Hamas to do the “right” thing; but we do expect the “good guys” who supposedly hold themselves to a higher moral standard than that of a terrorist organization to do the right thing in valuing innocent human life. Yet actions speak louder than words and we care not what excuse a murderer has when they kill an innocent child; only that they did.
Ultimately I don’t believe you can excuse the civilian death toll incurred by Israel by exclaiming, “The murdering of innocent civilians will stop when the murdering terrorists suddenly value innocent human lives like we supposedly do!” That doesn’t make sense, again, is a race to the bottom where only the civilians will suffer.
You mention that you’d have no problem with an independent group investigating Israel for their actions, and that is exactly what is happening at the ICC. Bibi shares crimes against humanity charges alongside Sinwar and Putin. (Keep in mind that Jack Smith who worked at the ICC to prosecute war lords is now the lead prosecutor against Trump right now).
(Comment 1 of 2)
A couple logistical things: I think we’ve generally exhausted our points and are increasingly going in circles; so given the diminished bystander audience by this point I’m going to make this my last comment and oblige you with the final response if you so wish. Upvoted and thank you for the discussion.
Moreover if you don’t mind I’m changing my response style slightly to (slightly) tamp down on the increasing length of these while also trying to remain on-point without too much meander.
A criminal cannot justify their crimes by saying, I could’ve killed more if I wanted to or even tortured them in greater numbers. Yes, Hitler could’ve used scalding hot water instead of Zyklon B and conducted MORE torture. Hitler could’ve killed double the amount of people he killed but he didn’t. Such restraint! Naturally we wouldn’t praise Hitler for committing less war crimes and instead merely focus on the fact that war crimes and murder was committed at all.
Israel has a right to defend itself, but that does not give carte blanche to kill as many civilians as they unilaterally deem appropriate in their calculus.
Thus executing 4 civilians for every 1 Hamas target is exactly the same as releasing a bomb knowing those same number of civilians will die for the target you seek.
Yes, the main difference IS where it is happening. Ukraine isn’t actively targeting civilian centers inside Russia; they’re playing defense on their own territory. Location matters because the Hamas soldier inside his own building isn’t an imminent threat to the civilians of Israel relative to the threat Israel poses to the innocent civilians of Gaza. Again, their bullets cannot reach Israel and ultimately neither can their rockets in any meaningfully significant quantity that wasn’t par for the course preceding October 7th for that matter. The world would not stand for Israel doing to Gaza if this was simply the same par for the course rocket attacks that have happened for decades. This proves the rockets aren’t the primary motivating factor for killing this many innocent civilians.
If Ukraine began to kill more civilians in Russia than Russia killed in Ukraine by an order of magnitude no less, then the waters would then be muddied and my support for them would, too, wane. Does Putin share responsibility for the murder of those civilians? Absolutely. Would Ukraine as well? Definitely. In the end, they should all be prosecuted for war crimes, just as the ICC is actively doing. If you think it’s worth it, then you better be willing to pay the piper at the end and be held accountable for the “justified murders.” After all, something tells me that Bibi wouldn’t be such a proud martyr then if he was actually held accountable for the demonstrated war crimes he has committed. Something tells me if it was he who had to be on the front line in Gaza that he wouldn’t have ordered this invasion.
The Gaza Health Ministry of elected officials actually answers primarily to the PA and Fatah first. There is no indication past or present that the distinction between civilians and Hamas targets is erroneous. Even if we take US Intelligence of Hamas strength versus the number of Hamas killed by said US intelligence, the numbers line up quite closely. In fact, most independent watchdogs suggest the civilian death toll is far higher when factoring in the number of bodies remaining under rubble, those still missing, and the disease and famine situation.
Please don’t add words to my mouth. I said that it’s okay if there was an imminent threat, but when there is an alternative strategy that ensures civilians are protected and you can wait for, say, the “snipers” to come in to pick these targets off, then change the entire paradigm. Like I said, the scenario laid out before us is factually much closer to that of a hostage standoff and siege in a children’s school. Nobody would abide by having the police set the building on fire.
There is no lying down and taking it; there are viable more reasonable paths out of this that everyone on the sidelines is telling Israel: Double-down on defensive, border, intelligence. Get a new leader in. Stop blocking Palestinian statehood, start wining Hearts & minds, and giving them self agency. Start working with the PA and Fatah with better faith, and stop creating more terrorists than you’re eliminating when you tear apart families with wanton collateral damage. Stop assassinating your own Prime Ministers who in good faith sought out a 2 state solution. Ultimately the rate of innocent civilian lives being murdered is higher now than ever before. I don’t take that as a win in any capacity. I also don’t think it would be acceptable anywhere else to continuously annex chunks of Palestine for Israel. After all, we don’t accept that when Russia did that in Crimea and the Donbas… Why is it acceptable for Israel to do that with Palestine? Have you ever seen a map of Israel vs. Palestine over the decades? At this point I’m almost beginning to wonder if Hamas is a convenient excuse propped up to justify territorial conquest. I wouldn’t put it past Netanyahu. Several times your excuse to justify Israeli actions is, “I mean they could’ve killed more; they could’ve annexed more more rapidly!” Of course, but it’s all a matter of how much they can get away with no different than a toddler probing the limits of their parents.
To me the following remain immutable facts:
Quantitatively, Israel has invoked, by many factors, more suffering upon Innocent Civilians than Hamas has since both before or after October 7th. The response is thus more heinous than the attack which prompted it. This is frankly undeniable. Even if you disagree with the official numbers, surely you agree that the civilian death toll is well beyond the ~1200 of October 7th. The debt in blood has been repaid many times in all actuality.
There is only one way you can justify these mass, willful murders (which, it is murder): That they will prevent an even greater number of civilian casualties from happening in the future both in Gaza and Israel… And ultimately, the evidence for that is extremely shaky and to me does not meet the standard for justifying murder. Like I said: There are several viable strategies Israel can protect itself that would make it all but impossible for Hamas to commit another October 7th attack let alone the dozens of the equivalent Israel has now committed in Gaza.
Reaction to an alleged first-strike does not give Carte Blanche to commit as many war crimes as one desires.
Restraint of a murderer for not killing 10 innocent people does not excuse their killing of 5.
Restraint of stealing only half of the land instead of all the land is no excuse.
Israel both had and continues to have better options that ensures the protection of Israeli civilians while not requiring to kill 30,000 civilians and counting. The USA, speaking from experience, agrees.
The instability wrought by Israel in destroying civilian infrastructure from schools to mosques to residential housing, food & water, all the while killing women and children is exactly what one does to plant the seeds of radicalization for decades to come – NOT eliminate it. Especially when the likes of Lebanon and Iran tend to be the sources of all their needs. After all, moles will simply begin digging tunnels anew.
The greater you try to play whack-a-mole with Tunnels “50 meters” down, the less it makes sense to target the civilians who largely reside above. After all, Israel isn’t simply using bunker busters to reach these tunnels; and these manholes and entrances are everywhere that it’s quite literally impossible to target them all without actually dropping a nuke on Gaza. Moreover, if it was that easy for Hamas to do (a) they would’ve done it for their October 7th attack, and (b) if it’s that easy to do, then it’s equally that easy for the much wealthier and capable nation of Israel to dig equally-deep tunnels to stand guard and listen. A small price to pay for the safety of Israeli civilians, after all.
I just want to note that under the ghetto conditions Israel has boxed Palestine in, that too, is no way to live. This creeping territorial annexation as the innocent civilians get pummeled by the “good guys” in far greater numbers than what Hamas is capable of doing to Israel speaks to the dire conditions they too live in. Make no mistake that, “Let the Palestinians die” applies just as much if we let things be par for the course… Hence why radicalization is so prominent in the first place. After all, as I said: Radicalization and terrorism simply does not manifest out of thin air. Wealthy countries with good education and solid civilian infrastructure and room to breathe and self agency do not have radicalization problems. Including Muslim nations.
Your justification for the deaths that have occurred could just as easily be used as justification to drop a nuke. So for whatever reason, there is a red line for you here — and perhaps it’s because it evokes an imagery that is incompatible with your conscience. But perhaps like journalists were shown footage of October 7th that you should start viewing footage of the aftermath of IDF strikes and lifeless bodies in Gaza. I’ve also seen enough testimony from countless independent humanitarian aid workers and especially physicians engaged in the Hippocratic Oath who speak to the horrors they’ve seen. I wonder, have you? Would you be able to pull the trigger?
(Comment 2 of 2)
Just as to whether the scale of the Israeli response was unjustified — No.
Yes. There is a shared responsibility between the hostage taker and the person willing to shoot the hostage(s) alongside the hostage-taker. To me it speaks more of the “good guy,” who is so willing to level the hostages than it even does the terrorist for whom we already know lacks moral values. To me it (a) makes zero logical sense in stifling radicalization in the long-term, and (b) it undermines a fundamental western philosophy that actually underscores our entire judicial philosophy: That “it is better that 10 guilty persons go free than 1 innocent person be imprisoned.” It’s the same reason the US negotiated with Russia to free innocent people in exchange for giving them back scum. The value of our innocent people is greater than their scum. Naturally, I would respect Israel more if they actually cared about civilians of all types a little bit more as opposed to justifying what is, on paper, far worse than the original attack.
I’m not sure a ratio, but I’ll say up to but not exceeding 1,200 total or whatever the official toll of October 7th was. As Robert McNamara once said, “Proportionality should be a guideline to war.”
Ideally, none.
There is no real government of Gaza; and there is no national identity. There is a gang and that gang like a pimp offers protection to the Goliath next door who is equally no friend but rather a right-wing nationalist state with an obvious interest in creeping territorial annexation that can be tracked going back decades. Both sides of shown an unwillingness to compromise ultimately, which again dates back to the assassination of Israel’s former prime minister. My direct answer: Studying how radicalization occurs; why some humans radicalize and others do not. The answer isn’t all that difficult in my view.
I’m not sure I buy the premise; there were countless times where IDF has murdered and yes, even raped in between truces; established blockades and invoked clear provocations in their own right.
To make this analogy work, you need to move these people across the border and into the streets of Israel. For that to happen, they need to get through a heavily-defended border, and yes, if that’s going to happen, then sure. But I’ll tell you what’s really happening: You’re leaving your home and deciding to wander into an adjacent city of people holed up in their own homes with babies on them and deciding, “Okay we’ll just blow you up where you are even though you are not clear and present danger to the civilians of OUR city — nor ever would be if we actually took adequate measures to secure the bridge to our city properly.And in fact, we don’t even fully know for sure IF there is a target in this area but we’re just going to level it on a lead anyway.” Quite a bit different, no? I’m going to also take a wild guess and say that Hamas isn’t going so far as to do that and is simply hiding wherever they possibly can because Gaza isn’t even that big, and that if they were strapping babies to themselves then they probably would face quite a bit of backlash even from those whom they try to oppress.
Russia basically is doing this with their mobilization and obvious attempts to purge ethnic minorities and other undesireables inside Russia. Unfortunately Ukraine has no choice given the the threat. But again, notice the difference in that Ukraine is legitimately playing defense.
I’ll conclude with a reiteration of my original point: that in being Pro-Civilian, I cannot in good conscience believe that Israel is making a concerted effort to reduce civilian casualties; nor can I see how this will ever prevent further radicalization in the future without invoking genocide itself. The amount of civilian murders by Israel in their calculations to kill Hamas is on a scale that Hamas could not achieve for 50 or even 100 years. And within that time frame, I’m certain we could’ve figured out a better solution.
(Comment 1 of 2)
It’s critical we work through this because I see no discernible difference between:
Accepting that executing 3-4 civilians for every 1 Hamas target is okay (which is the ongoing trend).
And leveling a building knowing civilians are inside to eliminate an alleged Hamas target. (again at a 3-4:1 ratio).
Fundamentally zero difference. If you’re justifying the latter but not the former, then I highly encourage you to truly reflect on this for a little longer, for this is the heart of what I see is your cognitive dissonance. (a) In both instances, there is a willingness to execute civilians — whether that’s pulling the trigger behind their heads, or releasing the payload of a large bomb from above them. Either way, the calculus was made that their lives are worth trading. The only thing that changes is how visceral and close the action is. The calculation was always there (and further below I’ll respond to your other point with a source to provide evidence of this).
When Israel begins targeting civilians simply for the sake of killing civilians. Like Hamas does.
So to be clear: You’re okay with plausible deniability behind them claiming they’re NOT going out of their way to kill civilians, but are rather being so reckless that they are killing civilians in great droves either way? That is, if the number of civilian deaths incurred remained the same, but instead of them going, “oops we dropped a JDAM sorry we tried!” they went, “yeah we’re going to kill as many as we feel like” — the former is perfectly A-Okay to you, but the latter is not… Even though the amount of actual innocent human suffering remains identical? It’s merely whether the murderer tried is how you distinguish good from evil?
This is a false dilemma. You can’t put a precise number on how many civilians should be allowed to die vs. how many Hamas fighters need to die, when it isn’t even clear how many of them are civilians and how many are Hamas fighters.
Per AP and Reuters in corroboration with the UN and WHO — historically, the Gaza Health Ministry’s numbers have been quite reliable. But why can’t you put a precise number?
Another confounding factor is the fact that Hamas is actively using its civilian population as a human shield. If they’re allowed to continue doing this, then they’ll just be able to kill every Jew with impunity by strapping babies to themselves, walking through Jerusalem, and shooting anyone they see. Quite
Will they? We’ll cross that bridge when we get there. Pretty sure you’re putting the cart before the horse, considering, you know that would necessitate them to find a way over the border and iron dome that I originally provided as the easy solution to this problem. At this rate, it seems far more likely that Israel is going to commit genocide on Palestinians than the other way around, don’t you think? All the while claiming to be the good guys.
Obviously Every measure should be taken to minimize civilian casualties, which Israel has been doing by warning people before the bombs fall and giving them a chance to evacuate.
Is every measure being taken? Because it doesn’t seem that way. After all as I’ve pointed out they’ve killed Humanitarian aid convoys, bombed refugee camps, killed their own hostages no less. In fact, it’s the worst conflict in history for humanitarian aid workers and that’s largely due to Israel. Forget the contradictory information for where the civilians are supposed to go, the miscommunication breakdown and the unfeasible logistics of moving people who are on the brink of famine and under disease to move from one side to another — all the while humanitarian aid is restricted in the first place.
I mean much of the world is beginning to turn against Israel. At its core, Bibi is a far right wing nationalist little different than the neoconservative far-right nationalist Bush administration who invaded Iraq and little different than the far-right nationalist government of Putin. Ultimately, this is an exploitable crisis for (what went ignored in your post) Bibi to escape active criminal charges as he maintains immunity in his position of power. You seem intelligent but I’m astonished that you cannot see this.
At this point, a nuke is uncalled for.
I mean why not? Since you seem to believe that ends justify the means and that you’re unwilling to commit to a ratio of civilians to Hamas target deaths, why not just be done with it? Evidently there IS some point in your mind that you seem to begin to question the morality and I wonder why bombing mosques and apartment buildings and so forth with an alleged (albeit rarely proven) Hamas target inside, all the while people like the father who loses his wife and 3-day-old newborn twins as he’s registering their births must suffer — is okay. But after all, like you said using your logic, isn’t nuking Gaza simply an extension of the same logic you’re already using for their blatantly indiscriminate use of large bombs in densely-populated areas with obvious civilian casualties worse than any recent conflict, including what Putin is doing in Ukraine? After all, can’t your conscience be assuaged by your own logic in saying, “Hey, the nuke was necessary; after all, Israel wasn’t going out of their way to target civilians; rather Gaza was simply a collective human shield for Hamas that we simply could not ignore!” Herein lies another instance of what I view as cognitive dissonance in your defense of Israel’s alleged war crimes (as per the ICC who also has charges against Sinwar and Putin for the record).
As far as I know, the Israeli military is not just going “Hey, let’s kill a bunch of civilians today, it’ll be great.”
But if the Israeli government allows Hamas to kill Israeli civilians with no retaliation whatsoever, then they’re going to do just that, until there are no more Jews left to complain about the genocidal government next door.
When have Jews or Israel been under any sort of threat like that that isn’t profoundly exacerbated by the actions of Netanyahu as of recent? What I mean is that now you’ve only fueled the fire of Lebanon and Iran and created the next generation of pawns to do their bidding. You’ve only sowed the seeds of resentment; and congratulations, you destroyed civilian infrastructure… That does nothing in terms of permitting Hamas to regroup. It just ensures that civilians are radicalized in greater numbers. Remember, we Americans tried this in Afghanistan and Iraq only to let Taliban take over and ISIS to come out of Al Qaeda. You should learn from the mistakes of Americans that this is utterly failed strategy, not to mention your extremely low value for the alleged human shields that Hamas is using (though in fairness, Bibi has shown he doesn’t even care about the Israeli hostages all that much either).
But if Hamas holds the children in one hand and spraying bullets from a rifle in the other, then it is ultimately Hamas’s fault if the children get hit with return fire.
That’s quite not happening when they’re bombing these densely-populated buildings, though. Hamas bullets cannot reach Israel from Gaza; their rockets can be shot down as they routinely are. This is falsely analogous.
Nobody said anything about, “Let jews die.” I simply said, "1) Listen to your intelligence reports 2) Secure your 25-mile border, and 3) Double your Iron Dome defense system. 4) Ditch the far-right war criminal leader and put someone competent who knows how to actually negotiate in good fait. Doing this, another October 7th is quite likely impossible.
Hamas didn’t attack by tunnels. There are also incredibly easy methods of detecting underground tunnel networks via sonar systems that are already employed around the world. I’m giving you real, functional solutions to problems that don’t even exist yet. Israel is resourceful; they could certainly do this.
That was a bad snap decision made out in the field, not by Bibi.
Who put those soldiers on the front-line in a situation where that was a risk of that occurring? Who sent those IDF soldiers to attempt a high risk operation where it was obviously a risk that Hamas would execute hostages? Who chose to do that instead of agree to the ceasefire brokered by other middle east nations and the US? The buck stops with Bibi as leader, and I frankly find it wild that you’re trying to deflect responsibility.
No ceasefire with Hamas has ever been permanent.
This one could’ve been. We’ll never know.
Places with no radicalization are places who have agency, prosperity, and space to breath and prosper in the manner of their choosing. Gaza under routine territorial annexation, sieges has never had this. Israel hasn’t even been able to support a 2 state solution, after all.
How can one not see that the latter is merely a euphemism for the former? Let’s bear in mind that Gaza is not “a country” and is not even recognized as a state by Israel, themselves. What Hamas is is a terrorist organization who is holding a captive audience of innocent Palestinians no different than the terrorists in the film Die Hard – which would have quite a different outcome if the police just decided to demolish the entire building.
In other words, yes: If Israel knows that civilians will be killed when they attack a Hamas target, then they are indeed, executing those civilians in kind. There is zero difference been sitting the 5 of them down and shooting them in the back of the head, or dropping a 1,000lb JDAM on them with full knowledge of civilian presence — agreed?
I need to be very clear because I’m coming from the perspective of someone who is above all Pro-Civilian; So let me explain that when I assess this scenario, I look for who is actively harming the most civilians. Independent of who fired the first shot, if the the response becomes objectively worse for those innocent lives — all the while having no clear end-goal objective that doesn’t exacerbate the risk to rising radicalism — then that’s going to be the center of my concern.
We know how radicalism occurs. People don’t get radicalize out of thin air, after all. It takes decades of oppression, diminished opportunities, living in slums, low education, low socioeconomic opportunity, and so on. Therein lies solutions as to how you improve conditions to the point that people don’t feel so desperate and vengeful. The solution isn’t to make orphans and leave parents without their children by bombing one of the most densely populated regions on the planet.
Let me be very clear that I am (a) NOT saying Israel cannot DEFEND itself, (b) NOR am I saying that Israel does not have a right to exist. What I am saying is that there are better methods at protecting Israeli civilians (remember, it wasn’t just Jews who were targeted that day, but Palestinian Muslims died, too) AND reducing terrorism that does not necessitate committing the equivalent of DOZENS of October 7ths in kind.
It was October 7th that triggered it, bar-none. If October 7th didn’t happen, then Israel would not have leveled Gaza as they did. This really isn’t up for dispute; this is what Israeli leadership themselves have repeatedly said.
What frustrates me is you dodged so many of the questions I have. If I’m being honest, I suspect your incapacity to confront these questions head-on speaks to the discomfort as we approach the threshold of cognitive dissonance. So please permit me to reiterate the dodged questions:
Where, exactly, does the line finally begin to be blurred for you, I wonder…?
How many civilians are you willing to execute per alleged Hamas target?
And tell me further, would you also defend Israel if they were to drop a nuke on Gaza?
So tell me, how far does this logic extend?
How does killing this many civilians and destabilizing the region by leveling all civilian infrastructure including undermining the capacity for hospitals to operate truly lead to less and not more radicalization in the years to come?
What do you think is going to happen to all those orphans and parents of dead children in the decades to come? I can tell you exactly what I would do if I was in their shoes, after all…
How many children is Israel morally permitted to kill in their end goal?
You ask me what they could do differently and I provided several that went entirely ignored, but I’ll reiterate a key one: Change of Leadership. Over 70% of Israel disapproves of Bibi. It’s not working. His actions have only exacerbated radicalization and will only continue to do so. He has botched several hostage rescue attempts, moved the goalpost on permanent ceasefire deals that could’ve seen these hostages freed, and failed to secure his borders and adhere to blatantly obvious intelligence. But it’s not going not happen because Netanyahu would be in prison if not for the immunity of being in office. Please, stop trying to justify the actions of this war criminal.
And no, border security and the iron dome really is it. It really is the most effective way. It’s not difficult to stop motorcycles and para-gliders. The planning of this simplistic attack took countless resources and months if not longer of planning and could’ve easily been stopped by a competent leadership and military. Right here I have both protected Israelis, and prevented the mass slaughter of innocent Gaza civilians. I once again reiterate that Israel has committed a scale of destruction against innocent civilians that Hamas could not possibly have achieved in 50 or 100 years with the resources they had. So in that respect, and in regards to thinking about the innocent civilians, it’s no wonder why I believe it is in fact Israel who is the larger terrorist threat.
Remember: Under bibi they’ve ignored intelligence, killed their own hostages who were unarmed and had a white flag, botched a rescue when they could’ve been saved by a permanent ceasefire, and bombed humanitarian aid convoys despite coordination with IDF command as instructed. This demonstrates profound incompetence that also explains the gross civilian casualty count.
Ultimately here are the conditions for you to convince me that what Israel is doing is morally justified:
No matter how you slice it, you are justifying carte blanche for Israel to do exactly as they will with Gaza however they see fit.
So tell me, how far does this logic extend?
Currently the ratio is about 3-4 civilians — half of whom being women & children — for each Hamas killed. So right now, you’re saying Israel is completely justified and morally right to sit 4 of these civilians down and execute them so long as for every 4th or 5th or so lined up is a Hamas terrorist? After all, this is precisely what they’re doing; for if they know a high value Hamas target is there, then they’re certainly aware of the civilian presence when they drop their ordnance.
And tell me further, would you also defend Israel if they were to drop a nuke on Gaza?
Where, exactly, does the line finally begin to be blurred for you, I wonder…?
When does the response become worse than the initial attack that prompted this? After all, it’s not the errant rockets that triggered this attack; it was October 7th and October 7th alone. So one cannot justify the rocket attacks for which were ostensibly par for the course and probably less of a threat than simply automotive car accidents.
I don’t believe I have to provide a better solution — for my point to be made I only have to prove that the chosen response is orders of magnitude worse than letting Hamas remain as-is. Which is true. There is no way Hamas could incur that many civilian deaths in 50 or 100 years. If the response is more heinous than the initial attack, then that is a problem.
Once again I reiterate the aforementioned point that was deflected, which is to say this methodology that Israel is utilizing historically only exacerbates radicalization for decades to come. So if that’s truly your concern, perhaps one should go back to the drawing board. Investing in border security and the Iron Dome seems a much more viable way at protecting your people.
But here’s one for you: increasing regional stability instead of destroying it? How about better promoting Fatah or PA instead of undermining them? How about utilizing precision-targeted attacks to get leadership of Hamas, much how Obama used Seal Team 6 to deal with Bin Laden instead of the nation-invasion strategy of his predecessor? How about a change of leadership in Israel to something more competent to begin with…? There are many alternative options.
We saw how much they clamped down on party dissent against Biden ahead of the 2024 primaries while also trying to undermine the calls for Biden to step down.
Unfortunately we won’t see a completely new phase of the Democratic party until the DWSs and Third Way Clinton crowd are gone from the party.
No I’m not victim-blaming, which implies they deserved it. What I’m saying is that the solution to the problem of protecting Israeli citizens isn’t the rape and murder of their civilians at a scale greater by many factors. The solution is to double-down on defense, because Israel could EASILY prevent future October 7ths simply by properly manning their border. This way, no more civilians have to die on either side.
For you realize that by the rate of Hamas casualties inflicted upon Israel, it would probably take well over 100 years to commit the amount of murder against innocent civilians that Israel has done in less than a year, right? Of course leaving aside the fact that killing that many civilians has only ever increased radicalization as opposed to reducing it. In fact if I was asked, “how do you maximize an environment ripe for radicalization?” It wouldn’t be that far off from what Israel is doing.
So let’s further ask the question of why there is so much trust in Bibi to solve this problem when he has clearly demonstrated blatant incompetence in the past?
And in your school shooter example, no, that would not be justified. But if there were dozens of school shooters in there who were gunning down any authorities who approached and shooting off missiles that were killing innocent people miles away, with the support of paramilitaries that also kept the authorities from getting within fighting distance of the school, then what would you propose be done about them?
And yet, if demolishing that building led to a number of children dying in far greater numbers than a hundred school shooting attacks and that the devastation would lead to broken families surrounding said school to commit more terrorist crimes because they’ve now harbored mass resentment against the “police” because their children, parents, spouses are dead… Well, then the police aren’t exactly improving the situation now, are they?
Same. Sanders rally was my first experience and it was wonderful. Diverse, smart, compassionate, joyful people. Had a lot of fun talking to other people!
I tried to go to Harris/Walz rally but it was over capacity!
If I may add, what you present here is a false choice, and understanding why it is gets to the heart of answering the question: “Why do people radicalize in the first place?”
Believe it or not, there are other methods of approaching this; methods the previous Prime Minister in the '90s was addressing before one of Bibi’s (in stochastic language) followers assassinated him.
If you get caught in this game of Whack-A-Mole with terrorists, you’re going to have about as much luck in dealing with Hamas as The United States did with addressing the Taliban in Afghanistan; for each one you kill considering the collateral damage as occupier, you will create 5 more down the road.
Lebanon and Iran are key source of the problem; that Israel is unwilling to actually confront the source of the problem — creeping annexation, blockades and general enforcement of ghettos along the strips — speaks to their disinterest in actually resolving those stoking the fire and providing the aid. Let’s not forget that it was Israel who undermined the Palestinian Authority and Fatah and actually promoted Hamas.
And look, we already know Israel’s Iron Dome is effective and improving by the year. Literally all they had to do to prevent October 7th was listen to their own intelligence reports and commit even a fraction of the troops they’ve already offensively committed to Gaza to actually defend their border so that (checks notes) Paragliders and dirt bikes couldn’t just meander in. Reminder that this isn’t the Great Wall of China… It’s like a 25 mile border. That’s nothing. So win-win: Israelis remain safe while Gazan civilian hostages aren’t murdered by 1,000lb bombs in densely-populated areas. Reminder that Israel has now committed somewhere around 25 x October 7ths upon the innocent civilians of Gaza.
Blame Hamas for putting them in that position against their will.
Should it be protocol for police to demolish schools with everyone in it to eliminate a school shooter?
First thanks for the response. I’m Neither Pro-Israel; nor Pro-Hamas. I always frame my position as being Pro-Civilian above all. That is:
To me these are the key questions that frame a lot of my positions on this subject.
To the first question, Israel both Pre and Post-October 7th has killed more civilians overall. The general response to this is, “Well sure but that’s only because Israel can defend itself.” But because you have good defenses – defenses that arguably should’ve been able to easily prevent October 7th from happening in the first place, does that really justify the number of civilian deaths, especially when you espouse the moral high-ground in being above a terrorist organization? Israel has the means to target civilians, but should they?
The second question is clear. Israel has committed easily dozens of October 7ths against innocent Palestinian civilians. It would take probably a century for Hamas to be able to commit the amount of atrocities that IDF has done in less than a year. So while not to be callous, by pure logic, the rate of suffering Israel has incurred upon innocent people is overwhelmingly greater than that which Hamas is capable of.
Finally, is this ends-justify-the-means? No, I don’t believe so. Never in the history of ever does destabilizing a region by destroying civilian infrastructure and killing vast swaths of families, leaving orphans and parents whose children are dead ever deradicalized a populaton. At least not when the source of that is less an identity with a nation-state and more a festering ideology driving radicalization. Ultimately, Israel seems to be doing all the wrong things in playing whack-a-mole with Hamas; except it’s Whack-a-Hydra, and the resulting collateral damage will radicalize further individuals. So what will happen when all these orphans grow up? We all know what. Moreover does this even address the root sources fueling this extremism? No sense of national identity, and Lebanon and Iran? No, Israel won’t tackle the source of the problem.
As others pointed out, we would all be utterly shocked if in Die Hard they just decided to level the entire building with everyone inside. We would all be shocked if police just set demolition charges on the latest school shooter with all kids still inside, justifying it as, “Well we had to eliminate the threat!” Israel is justifying widespread, unprecedented collateral damage with this exact mentality… And for what?
At the end of the day we need to step back and look at the big picture. Bibi is deeply unpopular in Israel. He is facing widespread criminal charges in their courts. And now, he is facing crimes against humanity charges by the ICC. He must remain a war time president to avoid criminal prosecution. This is about status & legacy above all else for him. Like all right-wing nationalists, he does not care about innocent civilians; they’re merely useful pawns.
Apologies as my response had to be a bit rushed today.
haha in fairness, I think this speaks to the average age of Lemmy users compared to, say, Reddit.
Yo some deleted their comments presumably because you’re millennial, GenX, whatever — I still find your comments interesting!
Roaches vs. Ants?
It’s probably always ants to be honest…
I see the bait, and I’m trying so hard to resist my prime directive.
As I transition to being an old man I’m increasingly falling asleep on the couch while my wife and I watch through the Alone show again. It’s quite relaxing.
Last night I fell asleep listening to PBS WashingtonWeek but that’s the first time I’ve fallen asleep with an earbud in in a long time. Usually I just have a fan on.
My wife said her dry socket was up there with birth of our large son.
Like the Avatar Life Cycle was severed in that moment. Truly the most unique type of pain to experience.
Possibly Ron Paul.