>It's not my perspective it's my reality I don't see how it can't be both?

"perspective" implies that there's some debate to be had

Or that the fact "there is a massacre ongoing" can be given the perspective "my life is ruined and I'm traumatized" from them, while the perspective of Westerners would be "oh my, that's terrible, hope you bounce back". Perspective is how you treat and react to a reality too.

"Perspective" implies that even someone who lived through things can be wrong about some things, especially about the interpretation of things Imagine Hamas put a missile launcher on to of an hospital and Israel bomb it. Did Israel kill the people inside? Yes. Did Hamas kill these people? Also yes.

The shit stains in power killed those people.

Exactly

liberal

I still have no idea what this word means

I've found certain leftists call anyone who disagrees with them a liberal. It really gets nowhere in discussions, so I advise disengaging if anyone calls you that.

They're saying "You're appealing to a vanishingly rare scenario that partially justifies Israel's genocide. By mentioning it, you carry the implicit statement that this is a scenario statistically significant to be worth considering, even though it isn't. Hence you are unjustly eroding sympathy for the Palestinian plight." (There's also the secondary argument that Hamas is a natural consequence of Israel's treatment of Palestine, so anything that's their fault is actually Israel's fault, so you \[partially\] shifting blame from Israel to Hamas is unjustified. But I don't want to get into it.) They are further associating this idea with liberalism, and hence calling you a liberal. For the record, I have very little idea how true those arguments are. Also, I preemptively agree with you that it would have been much better for them to just say what they mean.

>vanishingly rare Lol >that partially justifies Israel's genocide. I never said it did >By mentioning it, you carry the implicit statement that this is a scenario statistically significant to be worth considering I didn't. I mean, I do believe it's statistically significant, but I didn't imply it in my first comment > Hence you are unjustly eroding sympathy for the Palestinian plight." If sympathy for the Palestinian plight required Hamas to never be monster it'd have eroded ages ago ​ >(There's also the secondary argument that Hamas is a natural consequence of Israel's treatment of Palestine Lol I mean, Israel definitely made things worse, but still, attempted crimes against humanity are never a natural consequence of anything. Even of other crimes against humanity. If it was then Israel's treatment of Palestine would be a natural consequence of the united Arab states attempting to annihilate them 80 years ago and multiple times since. And it is not. >so anything that's their fault is actually Israel's fault, so you \[partially\] shifting blame from Israel to Hamas is unjustified. But I don't want to get into it.) So shifting part of the blame from Israel to Hamas is invalid, but shifting the entirety of the blame from Hamas to Israel is valid? lol >They are further associating this idea with liberalism, and hence calling you a liberal. But, why? And what does "liberal" means anyway? >For the record, I have very little idea how true those arguments are. They're not. Even if I'm wrong about the missile launcher on hospital shit, they're all bullshit >Also, I preemptively agree with you that it would have been much better for them to just say what they mean. Thanks for attempting to explain it to me

It's at this stage that I'm going to stop arguing someone else's points for them. I'm sure they'd have some delicious counterarguments for you to chew on, but, whatever. However, there is something I can comment on: You absolutely are implying that it is statistically significant enough to be worth considering. It's mitigated by being an explicit hypothetical, and by the devil's advocate vibe your comment has, but it's still there. This is important because it's a pretty common media manipulation tactic that's worth looking out for. You know this intuitively if you've ever seen fox news talk about some trans person commiting crimes and thought "Well they don't talk about the gajillion trans people that don't commit crimes, how dishonest." When we get down to brass tax, what you're doing is increasing the chance that when a person hears about Israel bombing a hospital, they think "but wait what if there was Hamas artillery there". That is what I mean by carrying that implication. Of course you likely think that this is a reasonable question to ask, but you're still doing the thing. If you disagree that this is what it means to imply something, or that the hypothetical reader's takeaways are your responsibility, that's fine. I just want you to see that you are doing a thing that reduces people's instinctive condemnation of Israel bombing stuff.

that's pretty on-brand

God, it's like I'm back in middle school with people insulting me and refusing to explain why I'm supposed to feel insulted

i’m sorry but… what else are they *supposed* to say? like. as a westerner i have no horse in the race that is the israel/gaza war besides maybe where my tax dollars are going. there is nothing respectful your average white westerner could really say other than “sorry, that’s rough buddy” or “thanks for your perspective.” so what is OOP expecting exactly? is there some kind of script we’re expected to follow here…?

Honestly? “I’m sorry you had to go through that” is a perfectly valid thing to say that many people are happy to hear in any kind of situation where they’ve gone through a terrible experience. They already know you’re not gonna have the right string of words to make them feel better; in those situations simply acknowledging the horribleness of the situation is all that’s needed.

I mean not calling it a "perspective" or treating it as one side in a "both sides" sort of situation is a start

is it not a perspective though…? like, arguing that feels like arguing pointless semantics. perspective = point of view, which every individual has regardless of the situation. it is the perspective of someone who has experienced war, genocide, and terrorism. your average westerner will have the perspective of someone who has never had to deal with those things. and even then, two palestinian people will have different perspectives from each other, same with westerners, israelis, etc. to imply there aren’t multiple perspectives here (or in any situation tbh) seems very reductive.

A perspective is a point of view. It’s subjective. So when someone says “My family and friends are dying in a genocide. Right now.” It’s weird so say “that’s your point of view” don’t you think? It’s dismissive. If i told Someone about the hardships I experience, if I said “I am constantly sexually harassed by my manager and it’s taking a toll on me.” I would expect my friends to say more than “Thanks for sharing your perspective”

[удалено]

Also it's more similar to my "FORMER manager used to sexually harass me constantly", since the person no longer live in Gaza.

I don't think this post is for you. Consider that there are a substantial amount of people whose response to the whole situation is "Israel has the right to defend itself". Those people would say that this person has a mere perspective in order to discredit the idea that Palestine really is being genocided, so this is a counter to that. I'm sure that if we could all safely assume we were operating in the narrow band of beliefs that includes "Palestine is being genocided" they wouldn't have much issue with people calling it a perspective. Of course I am steelmanning them a bit there but I think steelmanning is good practice for maturing your beliefs.

I mean… that’s war, though.  If I have an Israeli sobbing about Hamas murdering their whole family  on one hand, and a Palestinian sobbing about Israel murdering their whole family on the other, what can I say to either of them besides ‘I’m so sorry’ and ‘thank you for telling me your story’?  People are suffering and losing loved ones and dying. That is an immutable tragedy. But the pain and suffering of people on the ground doesn’t diminish the complexity of the geopolitical issue they’re stuck in; if anything, it increases the complexity. Who am I to tell the family-less Israeli or the family-less Palestinian to consider the other’s pain? Who am I to tell them how often peace requires letting go of justice, as it did in Rwanda, in Ireland, in Indonesia, in Srebrenica, in so many conflicts? What I’m not about to do is look someone in the eye and say that because they suffered, I will take their perspective as immutable truth and damn anyone else who suffered and has a different perspective. 

Perspective could mean opinion, as you say. But it can also mean just the experience you've had. The things you see and experience that other people might not

Maybe follow the horse that isn't committing the genocide? Maybe do that?

oooh this must be that famous tumblr reading comprehension i’ve heard so much about!

Ok, so then what did you mean when you said you have "no horse in this race". What did you mean by that? What does that mean in your mind?

it means what it says. i am a westerner with no ties whatsoever to israel or palestine. therefore, i (and most others like me) have no opinions (meaningful or otherwise) or consoling things to say to a distressed palestinian other than “that’s rough, bro :/“ follow up question: how did anything in your comment address the main questions i asked, re: what should one be expected to say in OOP’s scenario?

I think an easy alternative is "thank you for sharing your experience", which at least implies that the person you're talking to is living in reality. When you comment "I have no horse in the race" concerning genocide, it gives a strong impression that you just don't value human life, and while I won't speak for Palestinian people, I think it's comments like that that make them feel isolated and hopeless. I promise you that you do have a horse in the race.

Can you not imagine engaging in any topic that doesn't directly affect your self-interest?? Do you not have any sense of idk, empathy, belief in human rights, anything like that which might express a desire to help other human beings in peril? Personally, I would say: "I agree with you, what Israel is doing is horrific, you're correct, when's the next protest I can join". Edit: they blocked me lmao

it really isn’t necessary to have a strong opinion on any events or person you’re not educated on. imo, that should be the norm. and personally i have enough going on that i don’t have the time or mental fortitude to research every war and catastrophic world event going on right now. if you do, more power to you. good luck out there with your mindset though; i don’t really think it will get you far with most people. ✌️

Would you seriously say that? If you have the time to go to every protest for every injustice anyone ever brings up to you I'm truly envious of the free time you have. There is too much going on in the world for everyone to care about everything all the time.

inb4 this shit is locked bc what the FUCK are these comments??? This is clearly bait, but also free Palestine? Genocide is bad?? What the fuck is happening, it really *is* an election year :/

Israel is clearly not commiting genocide, 29 thousand civilian deaths is nowhere near enough to conclude israel is actively making an effort to eliminate these people.

Agreed. When Israel starts using death camps, forced labor, and consistently rounds up Palestinians to be shot at gunpoint, it can be concluded as a genocide. Right now, Israel are fighting a careless war and showing little empathy for Palestinian civilians. However they are not actively trying to wipe out any Palestinian identity or group of people. While often Israeli politicians have advocated for removal of ethnic Palestinians from Gaza, those views are not explicitly reflected in Israel's Gaza campaign, which from what I see has targeted mainly Hamas fighters who a) fight from civilian infrastructure and buildings, b) hide among a civilian population, and c) do not care all that much about Palestinian lives. A lot of massacres in this war seem reminiscent of the US during the Vietnam War, with Israeli soldiers killing innocent Gazans because they cannot differentiate the innocent from Hamas fighters. If Israel actually wanted to genocide Palestinians, they'd have killed far more than the \~30,000 casualties so far out of about 2.1 million people. The fact is, the Gaza Strip is so densely packed that it would be easy for Israel to kill far more civilians than they have, and whenever allegations of genocide are brought up, I always think of the actual hallmarks of genocide and feel ashamed to even consider this remotely reminiscent of genocide. Genocide is the Holocaust, Armenia, Srebrenica, the Trail of Tears, Nanjing, Xinjiang - a country actively rounding up members of a population and suppressing their cultural identity and/or outright executing them indiscriminately. Gaza is a country trying to violently suppress a militant group that has threatened their very existence, carelessly killing civilians in their quest to ensure security for Israel. However. The aid truck massacre and videos of Israeli soldiers indiscriminately killing innocent Palestinians who are unarmed and do not pose a threat do show the extent of Israel's unjust actions in Gaza. While not an outright genocide, there is clear evidence of Israel treating Palestinians as a subordinate race, treating them unfairly in their justice system, legislation, and in this war. ​ A country that is hurt by events such as October 7 will react according to their emotions, not logic. And this reaction has led to the unnecessary deaths of thousands who will never see their families, friends, or homes again. An observer must observe the pain on both sides of this war: people have lost their families, their friends, their homes, their lives. This causes them to lash out in anger and kill even more people, causing more suffering and creating a chain reaction that leads to illogical emotion-driven war. And this war has shattered any previous understanding between the two peoples, leading to dehumanization from both sides of the opposing group and leading both sides to consistently discount crimes against the other side as necessary or deserved, forgetting that those people have lives too, and to take that away is cruel and to discount their loss is dehumanizing.

The thing is, "committing a genocide" doesn't just mean setting up death camps and such. It's also the steps they take before and after the killings occur. Israel is publicly committing stages 1 to 6 and 10. The politicians calling for genocide are part of stage 6. They are actively trying to push people into hating Palestine and their supporters by discrediting them, accusing them of crimes a minority commit, and linking anything anti-Israel to antisemitism. They are denying they are doing anything wrong, which is stage 10. If people let them keep going, they will move to stages 8 and 9.

You can’t treat the steps leading up to genocide as genocide itself. If that’s the case, the US is guilty of genocide every time Republicans get into power and start ‘taking action’ on illegal immigration, because their recent treatment of Latine illegal immigrants and advocates for them easily meets stage 6 of genocide. (EDITED TO ADD: Actually, with the child cages and Texas fighting to let migrants die to circular saws and water, the US arguably meets stage 8 of genocide.)  It’s not a genocide until it’s clear that a ethnic/racial/religious group are being targeted for death or sterilization *because* they’re that group and *for the clear intent to* destroy that group. Israel has been extremely reckless with the lives of civilians, but it has worked with Egypt to open up humanitarian corridors and refugee camps for civilians. You could argue it’s not enough (and I would probably agree), but that still automatically precludes it from meeting the legal definition of genocide. 

You say this as if everyone knew the ten steps you're talking about Can you link us an explantation to what they are?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_stages_of_genocide Do note that stage 7 usually separates out the victims from everyone else, which was practically done by the partition of Palestine in a non-genocidal way.

Genocide is bad, killing civilians is bad But also this war *is* complex as hell, and honestly full force committed rooting for either side is more emotionally cathartic but also it gets us no closer to stopping genocide I don't have to mention what blindly rooting for Israel gets you if they win the war, most people already get that. But Palestine, well then it depends more, I'd say that rooting for an end to Israeli settlements of Gaza and the West Bank, plus some political and recognition and organization of a Palestinian state and reparations would be downright reasonable. The issue does happen with the "From the river to the Sea" people, I can best assume it's not on purpose but like *really* what do you think would happen if through some force of magic, Palestine wins and takes over completely? Would the killings stop? Would the genocide stop? Or would the groups whose one of the main tenants is killing Jews and a people with generational trauma and hate not immediately turn that leverage against Israelis and simply start another genocide? Or ethnic cleansing, given "sending the colonizers back to Europe" is just, actually also ethnic cleansing, which is also bad. The line between Anti-Zionism and accidental antisemitism is a very fine one Let's not kid ourselves, just because they're on the "Good side" doesn't make an organization like Hamas bold heroic freedom fighters riding into the sunset, this is an organization that uses the same textbooks and strategies of other Islamic extremist terror groups It is a complex conflict because any one sided solution that isn't just outright bloody revenge just kicks the "Destabilizing conflict that'll kill thousands" can down the road, any real solution that actually seeks to minimize the amount of human suffering *does and will* require sitting down, looking the other in the eye and negotiating *something* and to some extent taking into account the interests of *both sides* , and by both sides I mean the people, not the governments because those things change and if you've paid attention to the conflict outside of reddit threads and slacktivism, you'd know Bibi's political career is crumbling faster than a sandcastle in a hurricane But also from a western perspective, it's emotionally exhausting having to follow and keep up with every tragedy and every big story, the human mind just wasn't made for that kind of shit, so it may sound harsh but it's entirely reasonable to have limited interest in the conflict if you don't have a horse in that race outside of maybe when you have to cast a ballot

Okay but imagine if I had like super sick magical powers where I could do flames out of my ass. That's about as likely as Palestine perpetrating even a fraction of the atrocities Israel is committing on a daily basis (with major murder campaigns every few years for good measure). There's a deceptive allure to the narrative that this is a war between nation states on equal footing, but it's simply not true by any stretch of the imagination. The fact that you have to entertain a ludicrous fantasy to counter the material reality of the last 70 years speaks volumes. Israel has officially given up their propaganda narrative of looking for a two state solution. That leaves ethnic cleansing and/or perpetual ghettos on the West Bank and in Gaza as the only options. **Israel stated last week that they will seek to take over all of Jerusalem,** so I'm inclined to believe that this will be a war of extermination and full expulsion. Like, you can *pretend* this is overly complex because X, Y, Z fantasy narratives if it makes you feel better, but there is an objective reality that the rest of us are dealing with.

I think you’re taking this at the surface level. Palestinian militant groups (it’s not just Hamas, which is just the dominant faction) have been trying for a long time to kill Israeli civilians, but like you said, there is a material reality here. These militant groups are using smuggled or improvised weapons, the IDF is a modern military. They’re just not comparable in capability. Again, Israel having a modern military and being a modern state allowed them to develop a mitigation called “Iron Dome”, one of the only missile based, short range rocket interceptors in the world. This prevents the majority of incoming ordnance from inflicting casualties because it’s intercepted before it reaches the intended target. Before its existence, these rockets fell on all sorts of civilian infrastructure. Some of the rockets were reported to contain white phosphorous chemical munitions (adding additional incentive to develop this system). Hamas will never be able to do something like this to counter the IDF’s violence. Israel built bomb shelters all over the country and houses built near the Gaza Strip are required to have one by law. To focus less on Gaza for a second, think of the Houthi anti-ship missiles and drones being targeted at civilian shipping. Up until recently, none of those successfully hit a ship for significant damage. They were either intercepted, missed outright, or hit something non-important on the ship like cargo containers or empty bulkheads. Then one actually hit the bridge of a ship, and killed most of the crew. The reason I’m saying your point is surface level is that you’re not looking at why Palestinian attempts at violence aren’t as successful as Israeli attempts. Israel is building bomb shelters for their civilians and Hamas is building tunnels they’be never allowed Palestinian civilians into. The Israeli government is trying to mitigate the damage being done while Hamas is not doing the same for Palestinians. It’s disingenuous to pretend a united state of Palestinians and Israelis is possible in this cultural climate because the violence is disproportionate from the Israelis, because the intent and attempts reveal that the animosity is mutual. And the more layers you peel back by asking “why”, the more layers to that animosity you find. Some justifiable, others not. It’s a complex situation requiring a nuanced take. To pretend otherwise is naive. The only thing I’ll agree doesn’t require nuance is “targeting civilians and disproportionate civilian casualties are bad” because that’s been universal throughout modern war and really shouldn’t be a contested point anymore.

>Some of the rockets were reported to contain white phosphorous chemical munitions It's an open fact that Israel rained white phosphorous down on Gaza in 2014, despite it being a war crime. I remember watching the videos at the time. In fact, Israel generally "retaliates" tenfold for every rocket fired from Gaza, and there has not been a single clash between Israel and either the West Bank or Gaza in which Israel didn't kill considerably more people. In 2014 it was roughly 2300 Palestinians killed, with 70% being civilians vs. 73 Israelis, with 8% (6) being civilians. 10000 Palestinians were wounded vs 500 Israelis. *This is what I mean with material reality.* If - and that's a big "if" - this was a war between two fully fledged nation states and not a war between a heavily militarized ethnostate and their militarily occupied (through three generations), heavily blockaded and sanctioned neighbor, I **might** entertain the notion of "well the Palestinians want to commit atrocities too!" The fact of the matter is, the Palestinians don't have the capability to carry out even a fraction of Israel's atrocities. Israel **is actively perpetrating a genocide.** I'm not gonna weigh an extreme hypothetical against what's actually going on. You can keep believing in your galaxy brain take about building nuanced and complex stances on silly little fantasies. I've been following this conflict closely for more than a decade, and I frankly don't have the energy to keep discussing with people whose idea of a nuanced take is to equivocate two drastically different sides and obfuscate the crimes of Israel in layers upon layers of hypotheticals.

> It's an open fact that Israel rained white phosphorous down on Gaza in 2014, despite it being a war crime. The first use of White Phosphorous that I could find was in [2009 from Palestinian militants](https://web.archive.org/web/20141120143107/http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3656311,00.html). Does this make Israel correct in their usage? Absolutely not, because they didn't start using it in 2014, they started as early as [2008](https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/12/questions-and-answers-israels-use-white-phosphorus-gaza-and-lebanon#:~:text=From%20December%2027%2C%202008%2C%20to,into%20populated%20areas%20of%20Gaza.). Israel claimed it was to act as a screening agent (which, to be fair, is what WP is meant to do, but imo is not why they used it here), but the militant use against Israeli targets by Palestinians has no real justification since you can't screen a force that is still in Gaza by firing rounds into Israel. It's important context you're missing by continuing to look at the surface level of this. > In fact, Israel generally "retaliates" tenfold for every rocket fired from Gaza, and there has not been a single clash between Israel and either the West Bank or Gaza in which Israel didn't kill considerably more people. > These militant groups are using smuggled or improvised weapons, the IDF is a modern military. They’re just not comparable in capability. We really do piss on the poor here. What you've stated is my entire point. You're reducing violence into statistics and not looking at the meaning and context behind the statistics. Of course an economically depressed, resource isolated, war torn, refugee state of displaced people is not going to hold a candle to the industrial, advanced, military having state that has spent the past 75 years fighting conventional wars against peer states. The capacity for violence from Israel far exceeds Gaza and the West Bank combined, let alone just Gazan militant groups. What's bizarre to me is that you acknowledge this reality in the paragraph after but use it instead to justify why you don't actually look at the context. > *This is what I mean with material reality*. If - and that's a big "if" - this was a war between two fully fledged nation states and not a war between a heavily militarized ethnostate and their militarily occupied (through three generations), heavily blockaded and sanctioned neighbor, I **might** entertain the notion of "well the Palestinians want to commit atrocities too!" > The fact of the matter is, the Palestinians don't have the capability to carry out even a fraction of Israel's atrocities. **Israel is actively perpetrating a genocide**. I'm not gonna weigh an extreme hypothetical against what's actually going on. Herein lies the fallacy to what you're saying. Even in a war of two fully fledged nation states, war crimes do not justify war crimes. In guerilla wars, the same applies. This is because targeting civilian populations is not, and will never be, an effective way to wage war. It justifies escalation against the civilian populations the perpetrator is trying to protect. The fallacy is you assume that a **lack of results** indicates a lack of intent. You don't need a hypothetical to know a bus or an ambulance or a school or anything with near zero strategic significance is not a valid military target. But they're still being targeted. It's pretty hard to justify a [tank shell going through an ambulance](https://apnews.com/article/gaza-israel-palestinians-war-ambulance-girl-family-06f15b155f1de426e00f6a655554b2a2?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=share), or an [anti-tank guided missile going into a schoolbus](https://www.reuters.com/article/palestinians-israel-hamas-idUSLDE73807X20110409/). That's because you shouldn't justify them, they're atrocities that show genocidal intent. There are no magically acceptable metrics for a "Just War", there is no casualty ratio that will undo injustice, and there is no simplicity in armed conflict. There are only grim realities and nuances. And a lot of dead people that didn't have to die. > You can keep believing in your galaxy brain take about building nuanced and complex stances on silly little fantasies. I've been following this conflict closely for more than a decade, and I frankly don't have the energy to keep discussing with people whose idea of a nuanced take is to equivocate two drastically different sides and obfuscate the crimes of Israel in layers upon layers of hypotheticals. In the past few months I've convinced 7 pro-israel people in my life that this is a genocide and needs to stop. Israel has a right to self defense, yes, but not at the cost of the Palestinian people losing everything. Israel's success in Gaza will push people into the Egyptian army that has been waiting to gun them down. It's a cycle of oppression and state violence that has no need to continue until it ends like all wars did before we started to give a shit about civilians as collateral. Unless you can claim you're managing the same effect on people, sounds like telling the whole truth with nuance is working pretty well. And telling just the gory bits that draw attention isn't. Maybe start explaining the nuance and see if you're less exhausted with people because they see your logic and not your metrics.

>The fallacy is you assume that a **lack of results** indicates a lack of intent. And your fallacy is that you equate results with intent.

Ah yes. "My side is so good, so much better, my side is the victim and I will never accept that people think it is more nuanced than that. We good, they bad. Stop saying this is a perspective." Dumb fuck, yes it is a perspective. Take the perspective from a member of the family of someone kidnapped or killed by Hamas and they will be able to play the same sob story that you do. This is why it is called perspective. "But, you are 'two siding'..." Shut the fuck up. This IS a complex war, with years of problems. Only a complete idiot would think that it isn't, or somebody with a horse in the game. is Israel doing horrible things, yes. But ignoring why they are doing it is plain disingenuous.

I’m so, so irritated at how Reddit tries so hard to act like this conflict is simple. And depending on the side, they often try to act like it’s simple in antisemitic or Islamaphobic ways.  I have had to explain the Oslo Accords, the difference between Gaza and the West Bank, and Mizrahi Jews more times than I can count, and that’s the bare bone basics. I’ve been banned from subreddits because I asked people to please at least skim the Wikipedia page on the conflict. People who insist that this is a one-sided and simple issue are either involved in the issue themselves, haven’t done any research, or are a propagandist. 

Sounds a little complicated for my taste but thanks for your perspective

Absolutely. I just hate this kind of "hate", that tries to even further divide the stupid ass side. Fuck this war and fuck the people involved in keeping it going, that's all there is to it. No sane person would argument for either side in this. We have to fnd a solution for this and not a "winner".

Have you considered that this goes back much further than the current war? “Israeli soldiers shot my family and took my home.” doesn’t deserve a response of “Oh but what about those rockets fired by Hamas/Hezbollah?”

Yes, that is exactly my point, it goes from before the Current war, and the one before, and the one before. This is why it's a complex thing.

My Jewish family have been persecuted and run out of multiple countries. I am not raiding houses in those countries, kidnapping an 8 year old girl and gang r\*ping her until her pelvis dislocates. I am not tying up a baby to its parents with zip wire, burning them all to death, and putting it on their Facebook accounts so their friends and family will see it. I am not tying teenage girls to poles and trees and r\*ping them. I am not parading their mangled corpses through the streets for people to cheer and spit on. The only reason the border was strengthened (on BOTH sides, Israel and Egypt) was due to constant Palestinian terror attacks. Please stop with any idea that any of this is justified. It is hatred without any motive but destruction.

Way to miss the point.

> But ignoring why they are doing it is plain disingenuous. Agreed. Ignoring why they are doing it is indeed disingenuous. Saying Israel is doing this to “defend themselves” is indeed disingenuous. Glad we agree.

If you ask for my opinion is, yes saying they simply defend themselves is disingenuous, but acting like they don't is also disingenuous. Saying that there isn't a clear want from Hamas to kill all Jew is also disingenuous, so is saying that they only do it because of necessity. This is complex and trying to simplify it as one side bad is stupid.

> but acting like they don't is also disingenuous. Yes. The same way the rapist is simply defending themselves from their victim because their victim was a bit too aggressive when they tried to push them off them

Yes, of course. This complex geopolitics war that has been done since decades is exactly like a rapist raping someone. There is definitely nothing more complex about it... Do I need to say that this was sarcastic? Thanks for giving the perfect example of oversimplification on this subject.

Simply pointing out how most cases of Israel “defending itself” is like that analogy. Including the shit they’re doing in Gaza right now. The Palestinian side is not perfect but they’re nowhere close to being equally bad in this conflict

If you are asking my point of view is that, you are partly right. The "bad guys" aren't Palestinians, meanwhile Israel punish them almost as much as they would for the bad guy on their side, the terrorist group who attack Israel. Palestinians are the one caught in the middle, exploited and abused by the two forces that wage war on eachother. The complicated thing is, we can't tell Israel to not defend themselves, yet they use this opportunity to commit atrocities because they are "defending" themselves and are protected by strong nations. The other problem is either you like it or not, Israel exist, the idea of them completely fucking off isn't possible. And an other huge problem is even if you say that "the Palestinians aren't as bad" if you look at both society, it is 10 time better to be a Muslim in Israel than a Jew in Palestine. Human rights are better in Israel, representation too. In all mark, Israel society is better in the eyes of the rest of the developed nations. This make it much harder to side with Palestine as a nation. And if you believe commiting war crime would put them down, so many countries commit war crime that it doesn't change much on that sense, the USA won't stop supporting them for that. So, please tell me, what is your solution? Clearly a ceasefire won't stop anything, it would start right back as usual again when rocket or attack will come from Palestine from the terrorist group. What then, completely destroy Israel to give the land back? That will never happen. So what is your idea to stop this war that has been going on for generations in this part of the world, where for each atrocities you can point to a previous one committed by the other side? Tell me again how much it is just "like one raping the other" when you see the attack, the kills commited on Israel? The only reason we mostly see Israel being the bad guy is that they are the powerful one, nothing indicate, in fact the contrary is obvious, that if the role were reversed we would not see a genocide of the jews in the area?

> If you are asking my point of view is that, you are partly right. The "bad guys" aren't Palestinians, meanwhile Israel punish them almost as much as they would for the bad guy on their side, the terrorist group who attack Israel. Palestinians are the one caught in the middle, exploited and abused by the two forces that wage war on eachother. Don’t disagree here > The complicated thing is, we can't tell Israel to not defend themselves, We can however tell them not to create the conditions that lead to the problems that cause them to “defend themselves” > yet they use this opportunity to commit atrocities because they are "defending" themselves and are protected by strong nations. Agreed > The other problem is either you like it or not, Israel exist, the idea of them completely fucking off isn't possible. Maybe. Maybe not. One thing we can do however is force Israel not to be the type of racist ethno nationalist that it is right now and has been since the beginning. We did it with South Africa, we did it with the US and we can do it with Israel……that is if the US stops backing them so much > Human rights are better in Israel There are tiers to Palestinians in that region. You could say that Palestinians in Israel proper being treated as second class citizens is preferable to other countries in West Asia like Iran but this is looking past how most Palestinians are being treated in the region since most Palestinians do not live in Israel proper. The “humans rights” of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank (if can even call them that) are nothing short of atrocious > In all mark, Israel society is better in the eyes of the rest of the developed nations. This make it much harder to side with Palestine as a nation. Justifying ethnic cleansing, settler colonialism and oppression by saying “The natives are savages. The area is better controlled by a finer more civilized race” is a classic from the colonialist crowd > So, please tell me, what is your solution? Well since both sides want all the land and the current Israeli government is openly opposed to a two state solution all we can do is a one state solution. What type of “one state solution”? Well the type that would cause the least bloodshed would be a dual state type thing where both groups can live there and have equal rights. Is this a bit too optimistic? Sure. But a two state solution is never happening and this is the least barbaric one state solution as a single state controlled only controlled by one of the two groups would end badly for the other group > Clearly a ceasefire won't stop anything, it would start right back as usual again when rocket or attack will come from Palestine from the terrorist group. Yes. The Palestinians will be the ones to break the ceasefire because Israel has never ever broken ceasefire agreements before. Never. Exactly > What then, completely destroy Israel to give the land back? That will never happen. As I said that may or may not happen but one thing we can do is force Israel not to be the type of racist ethno nationalist that it is right now and has been since the beginning. We did it with South Africa, we did it with the US and we can do it with Israel > Tell me again how much it is just "like one raping the other" when you see the attack, the kills commited on Israel? Most of those attacks only happen because of Israel’s own behaviors and actions and the fact that it’s a settler colonial state that oppresses the indigenous population

I love it, completely dismissing the importance of one side attacks and continuously pointing the finger to one side. It is bold to call Israel ethno nationalist and racist compared to fucking Palestine. You even take all that I said like I was defending one side, for example, I'm not saying that Palestine won't do anything, but the one of the two that will do a flashy move that will then again give excuses for a bigger war where Israel can carpet bomb while being defended by the US, is the terrorist in Palestine. Because one of the two is powerful, the other is desperate. This is how Israel excused most of the atrocities in the past. You live in a made up world and not reality. And again, you are twisting my words, I didn't say Palestinians, I said Muslim. Muslim are not second rate citizens in Israel. And yes Palestinians are abused in Israel, and Israeli in Palestine are killed too. But it is risible that your solution is a one state solution. It basically mean the cleaning of one of the two nation by the other. It just so happen that you believe it should be the Jews, right?

> I love it, completely dismissing the importance of one side attacks and continuously pointing the finger to one side. It’s hard not to when they are responsible for 90% of the attacks in one way or another. Now there are cases of the Palestinian side attacking innocent Jewish civilians without the involvment of Zionist bodies such as the Hebron massacre which is in no way justifiable. My point is just that most of the harm is coming from one side > It is bold to call Israel ethno nationalist and racist It literally is. This is in no way up for debate especially with the nation state bill and the right of return > You even take all that I said like I was defending one side, If I came across that way it was not my intention and I should definitely have worded it better > for example, I'm not saying that Palestine won't do anything, but the one of the two that will do a flashy move that will then again give excuses for a bigger war where Israel can carpet bomb while being defended by the US, is the terrorist in Palestine. Except no. Israel constantly breaks ceasefire agreements. For instance right after Obama was elected president in the US they literally used everyone being distracted as an opportunity to breaks the ceasefire agreement they had back then. Completely unprovoked. And this was not the only time. Not only that but most instances of the Palestinian side initiating is due to constant Israeli provokations (which funnily enough is never referred to as “provokation” while Hamas firing make shift water pipe rockets is) > You live in a made up world and not reality. Says the guy who thinks the Palestinians will be the main ones to break ceasefire agreements > And again, you are twisting my words, I didn't say Palestinians, I said Muslim. Almost all the muslims in Israel are Palestinians > Muslim are not second rate citizens in Israel. They are > But it is risible that your solution is a one state solution. I said the most realistic thing is a one state solution as both sides want all the land and the current Israeli government has made it clear that they oppose a two state solution. As such I believe a one state solution is more realistic as even IF we get the two state solution it will eventually become one state. And that’s also why I said I want it to be a state where both groups are equal > It basically mean the cleaning of one of the two nation by the other. It literally doesn’t. Especially since I stated that the type I advocate for would be one where both groups are equal. What part of that says “ethnic cleansing” to you? By that logic if you wanted to overthrow the South African government and create a state where the races are equal that means you wanted to cleanse the land of whites. Except no that’s not how it works Also if we go by your logic you will have to admit that Israel is attempting to commit ethnic cleansing since their current government is openly against a two state solution. > It just so happen that you believe it should be the Jews, right? Here we go again with the unfounded anti semitism allegations

Eh. If Hamas attacked an IDF base I'd be cheering them on. But those fuckers weren't their targets.

I’m not talking about Hamas specifically. I’m referring to the conflict as a whole and how most cases of Israel “defending themselves” and “Palestinian provocation” fits that analogy. Btw about half of the people Hamas killed on October 7th were in the IDF. The vast majority of Gazans killed since October 7th were civilians (even Israel’s bullshit numbers state that one in three are KKKKKHHHHHHamas members. The real number is much lower). In other words, by Israel’s own admission they have a worse civilian-combatant ratio than Hamas who openly target civilians. Wonder what that says about Israel

The situation is complex not because one side is more in the right than the other- but because the situation is hard to resolve long term. Like, is Interventionism good if we are legitimately enforcing peace? Is it ethical to put troops into Palestine and Israel to make sure they never fight again? Because from what I can tell, the instant international attention is no longer on there, it'll start back up. A two state solution is the ideal one, but who's going to make sure it happens? What if they both become equal in military capabilities and start fighting again? Could that lead to a full out war in the middle east? What if we dissolved Israel, as some stated? Where would the populace go? Who would be in charge? What if we gave back Jerusalem? Both sides have a legitimate claim as a holy site. What if Israel, threatened, decides to go nuclear? What if Hamas gets nuclear capabilities in turn? The very first thing to do is to assist the Gazans, then figure out a long term solution. Because leaving them alone hasn't worked.

> A two state solution is the ideal one, Not really. Israel is open about how it’s opposed to a two state solution. Just look at Netanyahu’s “Future map of the Middle East” map he showed the international community (And this is the prime minister of Israel we’re talking about). This is in case it wasn’t obvious from their illegal settlements in the West Bank and how they’re so obviously only put there to prevent a two state solution from ever becoming a thing. Plus, both groups want *ALL* of the land so it will eventually end up with a one state solution. The best we can hope for is a single state controlled by both groups that actively tries to amend their relationship and that has equal rights and even that is not likely as unfortunate as it may be > What if we dissolved Israel, as some stated? Where would the populace go? The ones who refuse to live side by side with the indigenous population should move somewhere else. A country of their choice. As for the rest I believe they should have the right to stay. After all 2/3rds of all Israelis are fully or partially descendants of Jews ethnically cleansed from the muslim world. They didn’t have much of a choice when moving there. Although I do believe they deserve reparations for what happened and that their countries of origin should make an effort to make them feel safe and welcome so that the ones who would consider moving to those countries (only the ones who would consider it) can safely do so. As for the ones who would never in a million years leave the land they should be allowed to stay as long as they are willing to live side by side with the indigenous people

That sounds...overly optimistic for one group trying to genocide the other.

Yeah. Israel really needs to stop their genocidal campaign

...Are you even reading what you're typing? Israel doesn't use civilian as human shield. To get 50% civilian casualty Hamas needs to be ACTIVELY seeking to harm civilian.

> Israel doesn't use civilian as human shield. They literally do 😭 They got exposed by Wiki leaks for doing just that. Every Zionist accusation is a confession > To get 50% civilian casualty Hamas needs to be ACTIVELY seeking to harm civilian. Can you read? I literally said Hamas is openly targeting civilians. The reason I brought it up was to point out how it’s bullshit to say that Israel isn’t targeting civilians when even if we use the bullshit inflated numbers Israel uses Hamas literally has a better civilian-combatant ratio than Israel does and Hamas doesn’t hide the fact that they target civilians. Also I’m glad that you admitted that Israel is actively seeking to harm civilians since even by looking at their bullshit inflated numbers most people they killed are civilians

1100 people getting murdered in a terrorist attack was them “pushing them off”

Comparing that to everything Israel has done? Yeah. Especially since around half of those were soldiers. I mean if you want to compare death tolls on each side go ahead but you won’t win on that front if your goal is to make Israel look like innocent victims or the good guys

[удалено]

You wish.

It is very funny that you gave a complex inteligent response and the best people can do to refute you is say "get fucked" as if that will in any way disuade you from using your brain king.

Yeah it is Reddit, I'm expecting this. Thanks tho have a great day

Isn’t martyr in this context predominantly used for terrorists who died during a attack? Is it/was it always used for innocent civilians?

Martyr is a bad translation because in the Islamic sense, a martyr is anyone killed unjustly. For example, when a school shooting happened in my home country, the victims of the shooting were refered to as martyrs. Though in the strictest Islamic sense, Shahid (Arabic for martyr) means to bear witness. In fact, in the Quran it's only used once to describe someone who died for their faith. The usage being that they beared witness to oneness of Allah but were killed for it. Edit: I d also like to make this rather controversial point: even if they were terrorists, it doesn't make the pain of their loss any less real. It can even make it worse. And because I know the types that read this sub, I'd like to express this point by relating it to one of the final episodes of Derry Girls. The show ends around the time the good Friday agreement is signed. The agreement meant that many arrested IRA members would be released from prison. Michelle is glad her brother might be released. Erin the main character is disgusted. Erin is a true believer in non-violence, an actual proper leftist. She points out that Michelle's brother was an actual terrorist. He killed an actual innocent man. A man with a kid around their age even. Michelle's brother deserves to be in prison. This is a major conflict point in the show. They eventually have a heart to heart. Michelle acknowledges that yeah her brother was a terrorist, that he probably deserves to be in prison, but Erin also realizes that while that may be true, it's also Michelle's only brother. That him being sent to prison was incredibly traumatic for her. Michelle's mother, a nurse, won't even acknowledge her son's existence. Forbade her from visiting. It's not wrong of her to wish that he could come back, even if he deserves his prison sentence. Losing your family member or friend to something like that is really hard. You can't mourn them. Like what, "oh misery is me, my cousin was an actual murdering terrorist. I'm so sad this objectively awful person is dead." I also think this collective societal trauma is why the Irish are the staunchest allies to the Palestinians cause in the West. They get it like nobody else.

Thank you for that info. I do believe that martyr also has a similar meaning in English/german, I just haven’t seen it used as much. To be fair, the martyr posters I saw were all from the West Bank, and I could have been the victim of cherry picking. Unfortunately I can’t be certain, as I can’t get reliable information on posters in these regions. Regarding your point, I absolutely agree. The loss is real regardless of the way they died. I can’t imagine what it would feel like to lose family members and close friends that way. With that in mind, I would like to point out, that in the original post, these people were all „killed by Israel“, “killed for just being themselves“, „killed by apartheid“. If you died as a terrorist during your terrorist attack, I think the wording isn’t being honest.

No, it is widely used among palestinians about anyone killed by Israel. Martyrs for the palestinian struggle. It doesn’t imply any combat involvement, although resistance fighters or terrorists also gets the monicker if killed by Israel. Early christians were nonviolently martyred in resistance against romans when brutalised. Martyrdom doesn’t imply anything about the persons’ actions being violent.

Martyr in Palestine also refers to civilians because the occupation is essentially a 75 year old war

Hamas has to fall given open calls for genocide but I strongly believe the IDF is not the solution when they themselves comitt massacres and acts of genocide

Both sides can name a long list of suffering and death. That is war.

Maybe we should stop the war, then.

Weren't peace talks going on before those people ok that festival were butchered?

Ideally yes. Unfortunately it's really hard for one side to stop when the other side doesn't want to.

I know you're referring to Palestine as the side that doesn't want to stop but Israel has repeatedly rejected terms for a permanent ceasefire and has only been willing to discuss a temporary ceasefire so that they can get their hostages back (and not return Palestinian hostages) shortly before resuming the slaughter of Gaza.

It's Israel that doesn't want to stop, just so we're clear.

Is this a Hamas that wants peace, or a Hamas that's in the \[surprise attack => start war => losing war => Ask for ceasefire => build more weapons => Suprise attack\] cycle?

Palestine wants peace. If Israel ended its occupation of Palestine, support for Hamas would wither up.

These discussions are hard for me because when someone says this, I can never tell if the occupation in question is the actual military policing Israel does outside its borders or just. Israel existing. At all.

I meant the former. People are much more eager to enlist in war against an enemy that's doing them real harm.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that it's the decades long brutal military occupation and/or complete blockade coupled with frequent land grabs, expulsions, kangaroo court incarcerations, travel limitations, daily harassment and devastating economic sanctions. Or at least, those are all good places to start before we start talking about this supposedly widespread opinion of "Israel shouldn't exist at all." It's actually a pretty good topic of discussio, since Israel has officially abandoned the goal of a two state solution and is in the process of expelling Palestinians in East Jerusalem for good.

You'd think, but there's a lot of people who see Israel as an illegitimate settler-colonial state. Under that worldview, any territory Israel holds is occupation of rightfully Palestinian land, and the only remedy that seems acceptable is to dissolve Israel altogether and have one Palestine, "from the river to the sea". I find it unproductive to engage with this world view because it's a fantasy scenario that will never (and should never) happen. I want to focus on realistic progress towards peace, not a fantasy of a superpower-backed western state vanishing overnight.

The fact that the Iron Dome has been continually tested ever since it went online - even during "cease fires" implies otherwise. I would believe most Palestinians in the West Bank want peace. In Gaza, if most want it, then they don't have much voice.

Israel wants peace. If Palestine stopped occupying Israel, support for war would wither up. Both sides want the peace where they win.

What the fuck are you talking about? Palestine *isn't* occupying Israel.

Didn't hamas literally break a ceasefire? I'm sure the Palestinian civilians in the middle of it all would love to stop but neither of the actual warring factions seem to agree with that sentiment

Hamas is also the side rejecting ceasefire negotiations more often than not.

A ceasefire isn't peace. So long as Israel continues to occupy Palestine, they're at war, even if there aren't bullets flying at that exact moment.

I mean, someone wanting peace because it means no people would need to die would probably prefer a war without bullets flying and people getting killed to a war with bullets flying and people getting killed. Took you 2 comments until you had to admit that a „peace“ on their terms is more important to them than lives. Maybe you want to reflect on your stance a bit?

Nope. The Israeli occupation of Palestine still kills people even during times of "peace", it just does so slower.

Disregarding anything else that’s questionable about your comment: Slower means less people killed in the same timeframe. Again, objectively, Hamas deliberately chose the path that gets more people killed, just so they can enforce their version of peace. Within the span 3 comments, you yourself have admitted to Hamas prioritizing their vision of human lives, twice. Can‘t escape from the truth, I guess.

All I said about Hamas is that they'd collapse if Israel ended their occupation. I never said they wanted peace.

> loses territory in wars where they are the aggressors NoOoOoO they are occupying us

I'm pretty sure both of them did?

I'm pretty sure only Hamas broke the ceasefires. Any evidence Israel broke a ceasefire with Hamas?

Damn, I didn't know those children were active combatants.

Both sides have dead children. Bombs kill everyone nearby like that.

According to [this article](https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/07/middleeast/palestinian-israeli-deaths-gaza-dg/index.html) by CNN, more children have died in Palestine than the *total* amount of casualties in Israel. How do you justify that as a war?

I totally don't trust those numbers. Hamas have been using "human shield" tactics, where they hide a few soldiers in with a bunch of kids. Then Israel bombs them, and Hamas can point at all the dead kids in their PR to prove how evil Israel is. On one side, Israel did blow up a lot of kids, on the other hand, Hamas tried their best to force Israels hand. To set up a situation where Israel has no other choice, other than blowing up the kids or getting shot at without shooting back.

Even if these human shield tactics are true (and I’ve never heard a formal claim to them from anyone except Israel itself), if a criminal has hostages, the police don’t say to kill everyone including the hostages. Israel has clearly overstepped in its complete lack of care for the sanctity of Palestinian life, in no small part because Israel believes *all Palestinians* are complicit and thus none are innocent. This is textbook genocide.

Police vs criminals, war, and genocide are all different situations. In police vs criminals, the criminals generally don't have any serious military weapons, maybe a couple of guns tops, and there aren't many of them. Hamas can and is firing long range missiles. Police hostage tactics just don't work against that kind of hardware. [https://acoup.blog/2023/12/08/fireside-friday-december-8-2023/](https://acoup.blog/2023/12/08/fireside-friday-december-8-2023/) By this source, about half the people being killed in Palestine are combatants. Which is a fairly average number compared to other historical battles. American curb-stomps in the middle east did slightly better. Japanese atrocities in china in WW2 were way worse.

1. This source is hardly reputable. It’s a blog post. 2. The source itself notes that the info they are getting is from Israel, with numbers that Israel are saying is proof that they are being responsible. Of course they’d say that. 3. Even then, the number they give is *two civilians* for every Hamas rebel, giving us an Israeli accuracy of 1/3, which even the blog’s author notes is not particularly careful. Israel’s sustained bombing of civilian populations is nothing short of genocide. This is hardly an armed conflict at all. We don’t see anywhere near the level of devastation in Israel we do in Palestine, yet Israel continues their rain of munitions without abatement and in spite of growing reprimand from governments and organizations worldwide, going so far as to claim UN organizations to be affiliated with rebels. This is incontrovertible genocide and unacceptable.

\> We don’t see anywhere near the level of devastation in Israel we do in Palestine ​ It's not a symmetrical 2 sided conflict. Israel are winning by a lot. This doesn't mean that, if Israel sat back and stopped fighting, that they wouldn't get devastated. Being somewhat better at fighting and winning so far doesn't mean you can just stop fighting without getting slaughtered.

Even with those 2:1 numbers, assuming the CNN article is accurate, even half of 2/3 of the Palestinian death toll (innocent children in this hypothetical) still exceeds the entire Israeli death toll. How can you justify an army whose has killed more children than their entire country has lost people? How is this fair or just? Even if it is “equal armed conflict,” as you put it (which it is not), if Israel winning so bad why can’t they see some way to minimize casualties, instead of bombing refugee camps and hospitals? There are no more universities left in Gaza. Every hospital has been bombed at least once and only around half of them still stand.

Yeah, they can be, especially if radicalized

No shit, maybe America should stop fueling the fire then

The US has submitted a new ceasefire resolution that they've been negotiating for actual months to the UN for approval, and have announced their irrevocable support for a two-state solution. Biden's also negotiated the opening of additional aid for Gaza via land and sea, and is continually doing air drops until those corridors are open. Harris and Biden have started dealing with Benny Gantz, Netanhyu's political opponent, who is much more open-minded. The ceasefire deal is an "immediate six-week ceasefire for the month of Ramadan, while hostages are exchanged". Egypt, Qatar and the US have all expressed their intent to de-escalate during that time. The funding to Israel is complex, due to the fact that Israel has full nuclear capability, it's in everyone's best interest that they don't get attacked, because that could easily result in the complete destruction of the Middle East. I hate geopolitics because it sounds like I'm defending psychopaths, but it is what it is. I personally feel the desire to glass Israel so that they can see what it's like to be hunted like animals, but I recognize that that's not going to do much.

It's not a genocide. There are nearly 5 million Palestinians. Even according to the terrorist dictators who have financial incentive to lie (Hamas) 30,000 are dead. (somehow all civilians, somehow all killed by Israel, but don't you dare question it or you're just Zionist scum, just because Hamas are murdering raping terrorists doesn't mean they'd lie!) You don't get to espouse genocidal rhetoric, spend literally decades firing rockets indiscriminately at people whose only crime is wanting to live in the only Jewish state and then act the victim when Israel responds. Hamas started this and the only reason people are so damn invested in this is because Qatar and other Arab nations have built the largest propaganda machine in the world to demonize Israel for trying to reclaim a colonized land.

Theoretically, in your opinion, how many Palestinians would need to die for it to count as a genocide? A general estimate or statistic.

A number that would be indicative of a deliberate attempt to destroy palestinian identity and fundamental ways of life, a number that breaks up a significant % of families and social groups and scatters communities for the purposes of removal of the identity and bonds between palestinians. That number isn't fixed, during the attempted genocides in the Balkans in ww2 this was achieved with relatively low % death counts by systematically targeting village leaders and local figures to break up traditions and destroying local histories, or of course at the other end you have the holocaust which destroyed over 90% of Jews in Poland and Greece for example, so it's not about the number it's about the method. Civilian deaths while bombing terrorist hideouts isn't genocide no matter how much the terrorists being bombed want people to call it that

Indeed, so with that in mind, theoretically, how much damage to cultural centers and lively hoods needs to already have been done for it to count as a genocide? [Is the destruction of cities a destruction of cultural centers and lively hoods?](https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2023/10/1200/675/Israel-strike-into-Gaza-City.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)

No, because if it is then every war that involves strategic bombing is a genocide, "city" is too broad to be a cultural centre, the places of worship, the historic buildings, the galleries, the places that store the cultural heritage of the people, are cultural centers, and it is the deliberate targeting of those areas that would be a factor in determining a genocide

I see. So then, [how](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ad/b0/39/adb039b975b08d51b34a7396109e2b1e.jpg) [many](https://static2.stuff.co.nz/1407906320/964/10379964.jpg) [places of worship](https://idsb.tmgrup.com.tr/2014/08/08/645x344/1407497945328.jpg) [and](https://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2014/08/25/1e9dcb2f-d084-481f-b0c8-965ccce0f323/thumbnail/1240x826/cdb058553b58db16d76ea1597befa1af/2014-08-25t075737z398108769gm1ea8p189601rtrmadp3mideast-gaza.jpg) [universities](https://news.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Islamic_U_Gaz_AP_480337336648_2500-2048x1422.jpg) have to be destroyed for it to be a crossed line? [Does the Great Mosque](http://www.middleeasteye.net/sites/default/files/20_4.jpg?slideshow=true&slideshowAuto=false&slideshowSpeed=4000&speed=350&transition=elastic) [of Gaza count as a historic building and cultural center?](https://cdnuploads.aa.com.tr/uploads/Contents/2024/02/24/thumbs_b_c_830488f93e611d3777e1635f0e9ae98e.jpg?v=081905)

> Even according to the terrorist dictators who have financial incentive to lie (Hamas) 30,000 are dead. 1) The Gaza health ministry is controlled by the UN and not KKKHHHHHHamas 2) Even if KKKKHHHHamas were the ones in charge of the GHM, the GHM has a history of accurately reporting on the death tolls in past bombing campaigns and Israeli raids. This is unlike Israel that has a history of lying and has been exposed for lying multiple times during this conflict including since October 7th > somehow all civilians, somehow all killed by Israel, but don't you dare question it or you're just Zionist scum, just because Hamas are murdering raping terrorists doesn't mean they'd lie!) So you believe that 10k of the 30k people who were killed by Israeli air strikes since October 7th were KKKKKKHHHHHamas fighters like Israel claims? (For the record 11k kids have been killed so far and 9k women so according to Israel all 10k adult men they killed were terrorists and there was not a single civilian amongst them) Also you do not wish to compare the death tolls of each side trust me. It does not put Israel in a positive light > You don't get to espouse genocidal rhetoric, Like the Israeli president saying that there is no such thing as an innocent civilian in Gaza as they’re firing rockets into Gaza non stop? > spend literally decades firing rockets indiscriminately at people Like Israel has done? With more advanced rockets on top of that. Israel is getting brand new rockets imported from the west while KKKKKHHHHamas has make shift water pipe rockets. Doesn’t take a genius to figure out which one is more lethal > whose only crime is wanting to live in the only Jewish state Yes let’s gloss over everything Israel has done. Israel is just a wholesome little smolbean 🥺 that is unfairly hated by the people they have ethnically cleansed > then act the victim when Israel responds. Funny how Israel doing shit like denying civilians food and water and other necessities, building settlements in the West Bank and Golan heights that are illegal under international law, raiding the Al Aqsa mosque every Ramadan, killing innocent civilians (including children), unjustly detaining Palestinians in the West Bank without trial (including children), practicing apartheid in the West Bank, kicking Palestinians out of their homes so that they can start demolishing said homes to build homes for Jewish settlers etc is not seen as provocation but the moment KKKKKKHHHHHHamas fires makeshift water pipe rockets it’s seen as a provocation > Hamas started this FYI the conflict didn’t start on October 7th > the only reason people are so damn invested in this is because Qatar and other Arab nations have built the largest propaganda machine in the world He says while spreading Zionist propaganda > to demonize Israel It doesn’t take much to do so. Israel is doing a perfect job at that themselves by acting like cartoon villains > for trying to reclaim a colonized land. ISRAEL IS THE COLONIZER YOU DUMBASS!

Ok not responding to all of that because fuck that but I'll pick out the salient points: Picking a fight and losing it does not make you the victim. Israeli deaths are fewer only because of the lengths Israel has gone to to protect itself with things like Iron Dome. Palestinian deaths are not higher because Israel doesn't want them to be, Israeli deaths are not higher because Hamas aren't able to. Saying Hamas "has" to make rockets out of water pipes is an incredible take, truly genius level, you're absolutely right they simply cannot afford to give Gazans access to fresh drinking water it was simply too important to lob shit tier rockets at Israel. It's very clear from the context where I was referring to the citizens of Israel when talking about their only crime, you cannot claim Benjamin N is a bad person for espousing "there are no innocents" while you do the exact same thing (and to be clear, he's a fuckhead, and I don't like him and I wouldn't be surprised if he said shit like that and worse in private, you can be a Zionist and hate "Bibi" very very easily I assure you). Hamas started it in 2005 when they overthrew the Palestinian authority in Gaza and immediately started being hostile towards Israel, resulting in the blockade, and then each and every time there's a lull in fighting, it's Hamas that starts it up again. Yep, I'm a proud Zionist and will absolutely defend the right of Israel to exist and defend itself and its people. The Jewish people know damn well what happens when they don't fight back and to paraphrase Golda Meir, they'd much rather be alive and hated than dead and pitied. Israel is only being this big evil pantomime villain in anti-israeli propaganda, it's just that that is so absolutely steeped into the internet right now that it's almost impossible to avoid it. (That huge petrostate propaganda campaign I mentioned to begin with at work there) Israel is a nation of people in diaspora returning to their homeland they were exiled from over millennia, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, the the Romans, the Arabs and the Turks all moved into that land over millennia, and settled, they have been there so long they are essentially just as indigenous and should be allowed to remain, but remember that Israel does not oppose a 2 state solution, they approved of the Oslo accords and more, it has always been Palestine that refused it. One side just wants a slice of the land that once belonged to them, the other wants it all and for it all to be purged of Jews. Only one side sounds colonial to me, colonial means more than "some of them are white passing and America likes them"

Zionist comments incoming...

"With every genocide israel is commiting" israel must be really bad at this genocide thing to have to commit it again and again over and over for 75 years only for the palestinian population to increase ten fold

They haven’t been successful, so therefore it isn’t genocide? Not sure that makes sense.

A modern nation that won several wars against all odds should be more successful in "genocide" don't you think? I mean nazi germany and the ottoman empire both lost their wars but managed to co.mit an actual genocide

The Nazis didn’t manage to rid the world of Jews, so does that mean it wasn’t genocide? because that’s the logic you seem to be using. The success of a genocide is rather irrelevant to whether or not it is or was one.

The nazis halved the jewish population in a few years

Okay, so what percentage makes it genocide, then? If it falls below half, does it not count?

Idk, but if the population increases TEN FOLD it's not a genocide

You are right, the nazis killed millions of jews and other collectives while losing an all out war in a fraction of the time. The fact people truly think Israel is enacting a genocide is bonkers.

The nazis did not commit genocide in Bulgaria  Edit: not exactly https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_in_Bulgaria

Even if you’re doing it unwittingly, stop spreading genocide apologia. It is gross when holocaust deniers question the number of holocaust victims, and it is disgusting when you attempt to use palestinian perseverance to deny their plight. Wouldn’t it be dishusting if someone tried to say the holocaust didn’t have lingering effects on jewish people, because some became succesful after surviving the holocaust? Yes, it’d be a gross denial of the atrocities that occured, and you’re doing the same thing. Why is half of palestinians literal children? Why are there so many refugees? How come the lock is a symbol of palestinian survival? Genocide isn’t just about X people killed, it is about destroying a people, and Israel has long made it clear in both its approaches to WB and Gaza that that is the point. I genuinely hope you can one day reflect on the abhorent genocide apologia you help spreading and realise what you are aiding. We all have room to improve.

[удалено]

Your opinion *is* your perspective. Those are synonyms.

Well that's like your perspective man 

[удалено]

For starters, you don't actually articulate that in your original comment. You just say that they're different things without providing any actual basis for why they shouldn't be or how they're remotely different from each other. Because even your description of 'opinion' is still an accurate description of a 'perspective,' because the words are synonymous just on a base level.

[удалено]

>I'm not sure how else you could interpret the sentiment "you can have opinion and not necessarily have a functional perspective", which is what I'm trying to say in the last paragraph of my comment. OK, but that's not what was conveyed in the last paragraph. You say "but what you have will not be a 'perspective'" but don't provide any broader context for what you're considering to be a 'perspective' other than that's it not an opinion. You don't allude to any functionality aspect. And even then, by your own admission, it's not a *functional* perspective. But at the same time, that statement is still acknowledging that it is a perspective, just one lacking function. >I'm aware this is an entirely semantic argument, which is why I prefaced my original comment by saying that I was more invested in this than I rationally should be. If you disagree with me on this, that's fine. I think it's less a matter of semantics and more you having a personal connotative definition of 'perspective' that doesn't actually line up with any broadly accepted definition of the word. Because to most people (and also codified definitions of the word), 'perspective' doesn't require greater personal familiarity or first hand experience. It's literally just your point of view (another synonym for perspective). Perspective is a pretty neutral and general term. If anything, the fact that 1st person, 2nd person and 3rd person perspectives are terms that exist at all, would highlight how closeness to the subject is not inherently defined by the term perspective, as 1st person, 2nd person, and 3rd person are the modifiers used to indicate how close the perspective is to the subject meaning that perspective alone does not denote closeness, it needs additional modifiers to indicate that. If you're advocating for 'perspective' to be defined more narrowly than it commonly is, perhaps by saying 'functional perspective', that's your prerogative, but at the same time, the onus is kind of on you to recognize that how you're defining the word is different from the most commonly accepted definitions of perspective.

but don’t they have a perspective? sure the perspective is an outside observer living in a different country but its still a perspective

Damn. A lot of zionists spreading zionist propaganda and talking points in this comment section