• rdri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You said it. Actions of one side are more reprehensible than of the other. In fact, much more reprehensible from what I see.

    One side: “We understand you have terrorists, but it’s not our responsibility to help you with it because we value lives of our people. We are going to help you with basic supplies like water, electricity, internet etc., and protect ourselves with the iron dome. It all costs a lot but lives are really what matters.”

    Another side: “Our objective will not be completed until your country and citizens stop existing. We were elected having this objective by our people. We will teach our children that this is also their objective. We will build rockets. We will launch them at you even if some of them may not reach your territory. We will launch them from civillian buildings because we know you care about lives of civillians. You will think twice before launching anything back, and when you do, you will be blamed by the world for killing innocents. We will kill as many of your civilians as we can, by our hands. We will brake their limbs and hold them hostages, even if they are the citizens of other countries. And when you retaliate, the world will blame you for what you have done. The world must understand that by killing your people we fight for our future, and give us everything we need. This will be glorious, and you will die, and we will prosper, and the world will forget we are the killers, and remember you as killers. We will throw every resource we have for that to happen, be it the money we got as a humanitarian aid for our citizens or baby dolls that should be indistinguishable from dead children with some mosaic. Oops we forgot the mosaic. You didnt see it. You are the killers.”

    • Viper_NZ@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ignoring Jewish settlers in the West Bank, Gaza quite literally being a ghetto full of people forced off their land, the military checkpoints, the complete imbalance of deaths and suffering between the two sides.

      As reprehensible as the violence is on both sides, Israel/Palestine is an apartheid state and Palestinians suffer far more than just from the effects of violence.

      • rdri@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What exact violence? Israel provides Gaza with stuff they need. Including pipes for the water construction, that instead are used to build rockets.

        Palestinians are doing terrorism, whether they understand it or not. Israel reacts to terrorism. Do you not agree that a country should react to acts of terrorism?

        • Viper_NZ@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          They absolutely should respond to acts of violent terrorism, and I didn’t suggest they don’t. However it’s far from one sided.

          The Gaza strip is an open air prison for over 2 million people, who can’t even access, or travel for proper healthcare, where food and water are insecure or poorly available. Where you can’t leave by either land or sea. Where even if you were one of the >1 million young people living there who managed to leave you’d be poor and uneducated.

          But maybe you’re not in Gaza. Maybe you’re one of the Palestinians who live in the west bank can can barely travel without huge impediments, or may see your house demolished to make way for Israeli settlers, in what amounts to an apartheid system, widely condemned internationally by human rights organisations.

          Hamas are absolutely disgusting, and the terrorist attack on Israel should be rightly condemned. But if you think Israel are the good guys here, and this is a black and white, good and evil situation you’re not paying attention.

          • rdri@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            So they are responding, there is no problem with that.

            Though I find it amusing that so much effort goes into outlining the hurdles of Palestinians only.

            If you want to promote better lives for Palestinians, then maybe you should’ve started with themselves, to let them know they shouldn’t have elected terrorists their leaders. Maybe Palestinians would understand that doing terrorism will not give them any good future?

        • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do you not agree that a country should react to acts of terrorism?

          You’re implying a false dichotomy, as though in response to a terrorist attack you either lie down and accept further attacks, or grind gaza into the dust.

          • rdri@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, I’m not. Grinding Giza to the dust is not what’s being done. Hamas contribute more by firing uncontrollable missiles that also tend to fall in Gaza.

            But you are implying a reality where every single sane person should ignore the existence and terrorism of hamas and Palestinians. Probably.

            • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Grinding Giza to the dust is not what’s being done.

              Hyperbole on my part, but not excessive given the post we’re discussing this under.

              Hamas contribute more by firing uncontrollable missiles that also tend to fall in Gaza.

              Patently false. I’ll refer you again to the pictures in this article.

              But you are implying a reality where every single sane person should ignore the existence and terrorism of hamas and Palestinians.

              This is the false dichotomy I referred to in my last comment. Perhaps you should look it up. We can acknowledge the existence of terrorism and respond appropriately without causing a humanitarian crisis.

              This is classic American “fucked around and found out” diplomacy. Like a child with a hammer.

              • rdri@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                We can … respond appropriately without causing a humanitarian crisis.

                Yeah kindly explain how exactly maybe?

                If hamas wouldn’t use Palestinians as a shield there would be no crisis.

    • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hmm… it seems like the disparity of “badness” you describe would’ve been true a few months ago, but no longer is?

      Most of what you’ve said about Palestinians also describes israel now? Seems that way anyway.

      If we were looking for the path to peace with the least casualties, this doesn’t seem like it.

      • rdri@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Can you give any example of concrete case where Israel did anything comparable to what hamas did at October 7th?

        • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No. I didn’t say nor imply that I could. I’m not saying they’re both as bad as each other. I’m saying that a humanitarian crisis is unfolding, and western nations are standing in support.

          • rdri@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Support of what? Palestinians will get humanitarian aid either way. Problem is that they (well, hamas) will try to use it to build more rockets, not to improve their lives.

              • rdri@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                And what exactly Palestinians have caused by slaughtering hundreds of civillians on October 7th? Nothing? They are innocent and should be left alone?

                • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s like you’re intentionally ignoring what I’m saying. Of course they’re not innocent. Yes they should be held accountable.

                  If you think killing 5,000 civilians is an appropriate response then I don’t know what to say to you.

                  • rdri@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    And the thing is there is no one to hold them accountable because there is no proper government and institutions in Gaza. Israel is different because it is being watched, and will be held accountable for any wrongdoings.

                    Now about 5,000.

                    1. Where exactly did you get it from? We know hamas is lying about a lot of things including deaths count. There was no evidence of those alleged 800 deaths at the “hospital bombing”.

                    2. Why exactly do you think you need to throw big numbers here? Even one victim means Israel’s actions must be examined and judged, yes. That goes without saying because of how Israel is connected to the rest of the world. But when hamas fires missiles from some building that, for example, has 100,000 civillians in it, it is hamas who says “it is okay if all these people are killed”, not Israel. That much should be obvious even to Palestinians.

      • mwguy@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Most of what you’ve said about Palestinians also describes israel now? Seems that way anyway.

        The .de is showing.

          • mwguy@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Then you should be practical enough to realize that almost none of what was said about Palestinians in that statement describes Israel now.

            • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ok mate. Believe it or not, I’m not looking for an argument about who is most awful between Palestinians and Israelis.

              My question is, why the world feels the need to take sides in this conflict rather than simply condemning the violence perpetrated by both sides.

              The hatred violence, and wrongdoing does not need to be equal between all combatants in order for the hatred, violence, and wrongdoing to be condemned.

              • mwguy@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                My question is, why the world feels the need to take sides in this conflict rather than simply condemning the violence perpetrated by both sides.

                Well imagine that the native Australian population, the Aboriginals decoded they wanted their land back and started murdering all the white folk and they killed the equivalent of about 5,000 people (adjusted for Australia’s population); mostly eldely and children. They restarted started a bombing campaign that threatened every inch of Australia. And they did this after ~60 years of similar actions on a smaller scale.

                Would you and your countrymen submit to genocide for peace? Or would you fight back?

                For you and I (USA), nations built on European Colonialism; it should be clear why that Colonialism was wrong but why it can’t be undone. Trying to correct past atrocities with a modern genocide isn’t acceptable and the last 20 years of Hamas’s rule in Gaza has shown that Genocide is all it will accept.

                • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That’s just not analogous though.

                  I am loathe to defend hamas, but the UN stats just don’t portray them as the aggressors.

                  If Australian aboriginals started terrorising the rest of us, of course we would use reasonable force to bring that to a stop. We would also be negotiating, and compromising. If we decided that peaceful solutions had been exhausted, I can assure you other countries wouldn’t be sending us billions of dollars worth of hardware with which to exterminate them.

                  • flathead@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    For the first years of Australia’s colonization, there was militant Aboriginal resistance - of course, given their technological disadvantages, it was not successful and the indigenous population were slaughtered at every turn.

                    The most well-known and feared of the early insurrectionists - a Bidjigal man named Pemulwuy - is today celebrated by white Australian culture - one of Sydney’s suburbs is named for him. The British were somewhat less charitable in 1802, when he was finally captured, shot and beheaded after many years of fighting against their presence in early Sydney.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_frontier_wars

                    https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/pemulwuy

                  • mwguy@infosec.pub
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I am loathe to defend hamas, but the UN stats just don’t portray them as the aggressors.

                    Mr Dog muffins, if the Aboriginals in Australia started a campaign of war against the white Austrailians, what makes you think the casualty numbers would be less skewed there?

                    If Australian aboriginals started terrorising the rest of us, of course we would use reasonable force to bring that to a stop. If we decided that peaceful solutions had been exhausted,

                    Well congrats now you’re doing the same thing Israel is doing. Peaceful solutions with Hamas have been exhausted.

                    I can assure you other countries wouldn’t be sending us billions of dollars worth of hardware with which to exterminate them.

                    How would you feel if we sent billions of dollars of Aid to the people trying to genocide you instead? What if we continued to commit billions in aid in the form of materials we knew were being used to create weapons to indiscriminately kill Australians. And then we condemned you for trying to stop that miltilitary aid?

                    The good news is, for countries like ours; we don’t have to pretend to sit up on our high horse like the Europeans do. We have complicated, often evil histories with our colonized populations. But as much as we can and should call out that history as evil, as genocide; we should also know that you can’t answer a genocide with genocide.

              • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The West knows they messed up with the actual historical countries of the area. Too many milenia of trying to take over and cause havoc (like in 63 BC when the Romans left a few hundred people alive of the natives like the Samaritans, the Crusades, etc.). They saw what the Germans did to European Jews and saw an opportunity: “If we can’t make friends in the traditional sense, we’ll create one.”

                They shipped Jews from all over the world to Palestine. As their citizens of these Western countries are either Christian or come from Christian families, all this Israel nonsense sounds vaguely correct. These countries acted like dogs. It got to the point where France even pretended to allies to Arabic countries, only to reveal it was a lie/trap.

                Then the media comes in and sneakily replaces Palestinians with Hamas when it benefits Israel’s cause even though Hamas hasn’t went through elections in nearly two decades and the average age of someone from Gaza is somewhere between 14 and 18.

                Israel is just a western invention to give the West an ally in the region and it worked because it all sounds vaguely biblical correct to a world where Christianity just means “I hate gays and abortions and we don’t actually need to act like Jesus who was kind of Jewish anyways.”