Idk I’d suggest looking at the state of Gazas hospitals and childrens services (all done specifically by the IDF) before coming to such a bad conclusion. Shitting on the IDF is the best thing people can be doing, there has unfortunately been some genuinely anti semitic stuff mixed in with the pro Palestinian movement but this ain’t it chief.
It’s definitely not a black and white issue for sure, every adult must serve in the IDF or face criminal prosecution in Israel, so saying “death to the IDF” and “death to every of age Israeli citizen” are basically the same statement.
Prospects were good during PM Rabins term, the root of this problem is with corrupt people like Netanyahu. Killing every single perso on either side is not a solution.
Hell no. Rabin was was also a fascist and supported ethnic cleansing. Zionism has always been a fascist ideology centered on the forced removal of the native Palestinians.
Then-Israeli ambassador to the US Yitzhak Rabin confirmed the goal of the operation was the liquidation of Gaza’s Palestinian refugees via "a natural shifting of population to the East Bank. […] the problem of the refugees of the Gaza Strip should not be solved in Gaza or al-Arish [Sinai] but mainly in the East Bank,” by which he meant Jordan.
Under Israel’s then-defence minister Yitzhak Rabin’s orders, Israeli army commanders were instructed to break the bones of Palestinian protesters. Today, this policy has evolved to specifically target the knees and legs of Palestinian youth to disable them.
In his memoirs, which were censored by Israel but leaked to the New York Times in 1979, Rabin recalled a conversation he had with David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, regarding the fate of the Palestinians of Lydd and Ramla, writing: “We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. [Commander Yigal] Allon repeated his question, ‘What is to be done with the Palestinian population?’ Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said ‘Drive them out!’… I agreed that it was essential to drive the inhabitants out.”
As an officer in the army, he led “Operation Danny” to capture Ramla and Lydda. In what became known as the Lydda death march, tens of thousands of Palestinians were expelled from those Palestinian villages. The military order signed by Rabin, the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) reported, read: “The inhabitants of Lydda must be expelled quickly, without regard to age.”
The Oslo Accords were never about reaching a compromise, let alone a just peace. Israel entered into bilateral negotiations with the PLO in order to defuse and control Palestinian resistance, remake their public image to the world, and, most importantly, to codify and entrench the power imbalance on the ground.
The framework of the Oslo Accords set in motion decades of failed negotiations and continued subjugation. The Palestinians formally recognized “the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.” In return, Rabin’s government neither accepted the goal of a Palestinian state, nor offered guarantees that the settlement construction would stop. The “Declaration of Principles” did not mention the word “occupation.”
Instead of a Palestinian state, the Oslo Accords offered a limited autonomy, under the direction of a newly created Palestinian Authority. Israel maintained its control over borders, airspace, and waters. Behind the fig leaf of a “peace process,” Israel continued to expand illegal settlements, tightened curfews and closures, and debilitated the Palestinian economy.
As the IMEU explains: “Today Palestinians live in a series of isolated ghettos in the occupied territories, surrounded by Israeli walls, military checkpoints, and bases, and settlements, under a system of racial segregation, discrimination, and apartheid, all based on the Oslo Accords.”
The first point is pretty damning, yes, mass exodus cannot be a viable strategy.
The second point takes a lot of liberties with the word protestors, throwing rocks at militants and only getting kneecapped is a bargain compared to today’s brutallity.
Lastly, the region gained some autonomy. That was huge, and given the alternatives that current Israel under Netanyahu are pursuing, very generous.
I think that if Rabin weren’t assassinated to help Netanyahu gain control, the conflict would have claimed many less lives by today and that amicable relations would be a possibility.
I feel like wishing people to die at all is a pretty immoral stance, but you obviously have your own version of morality where killing people is justifiable, so you do you I guess.
In a hypothetical where there’s a murderer with a machine gun killing children that will not be prosecuted in court then wishing them to be dead is pretty reasonable if you want the killing to stop.
Not saying killing is moral or that people don’t have the right to live because they do but how else would you stop the murder if the government doesn’t?
The problem with this line of thinking is that both sides think that the other is the murderer with the machine gun. If the Palestinians think it’s justified to kill Israelis because they think that they have the analogical machine gun, what stops the Israelis from thinking it’s justified to kill Palestinians because they think that they have the machine gun? If killing is deemed a reasonable way to get killing to stop, then it’s just a matter of rhetoric that distinguishes legitimate from illegitimate killing, and that rhetoric can just as easily be turned against the very people who now support it.
That’s a lot of words to avoid acknowledging your own moral corruption for openly calling for people to be killed. Go troll someone else, you hateful, violent prick.
Your ability to admit you don’t understand it is a big step.
Now you just need to address your previous commenters in the same light, with the questions you’ve been asked and are too afraid to answer.
We believe in you, champ.
I don’t answer your questions because you’re disingenuous in asking them. Palestinians kill Israelis, giving them a justification for killing the Palestinians, which they do, giving the Palestinians a justification for killing Israelis. Either killing others because they are killing you is justified, or it’s not. But if you’re going to argue that it’s justified, then it’s justified for everyone. When you pick and choose which killers’ justifications you want to defend, you’re disguising a distinction that’s not really rooted in the act of killing, but in some other criterion (racism, maybe?).
If one side kills 100 for each one of their own killed there’s a big difference. Other factors to consider is when your land is blocked off from the outside world by land, sea and air and being routinely invaded. The Geneva convention says there is a right to resist occupation on top of that which Israel did sign.
I’m not even necessarily talking about the current situation here.
I’m asking you, where your line in the sand is.
If someone was in your home, threatening your life, or your loved one’s lives, and they absolutely were not empty threats, would violence to the point of killing be “justified”?
For example, should the Ukrainians not defend their sovereignty, on their own soil, because killing at all is immoral?
You came at this with a black and white statement, but there are nuances to the world that shape the decisions outside of a binary “they killed/didn’t kill”
I’m sure no one here wishes that anyone HAD to die. Most ethical systems throughout history have a moral justification for killing, if the death will prevent further killing of innocent people. If it’s immoral to kill someone actively murdering children and about to murder more, are you saying it would be preferable to let the children be killed?
Sounds like the same kind of justification that all killers use to convince themselves that their actions aren’t fundamentally morally corrupt. Maybe you have more in common with the Israelis than you’d like to admit
You aren’t clever, trying to say we shouldn’t kill Nazis in a war against Nazis.
This isn’t rhetorical, tell me. If someone is about to shoot a child, and the only way we could stop them is through military action, what would you do?
If a Palestinian is going to kill an Israeli child, and the only way to stop them is through military actions, would the Israelis be justified for killing them? You’re disingenuous to say that this isn’t rhetorical when you’re invoking the exact same rhetoric as justification for killing Israelis as the Israelis invoke as justification for killing Palestinians. If you have no sense that killing is absolutely wrong, then every act of killing is justifiable given a sympathetic perspective, which I simply don’t agree with. But if your morality lets you think that killing is justified, then that’s something you’ll just have to live with.
You avoided my question, I would like to know your answer, not some idealist moralizing. I am saying my question isn’t rhetorical because I want to know what you would suggest we do to stop a genocide that doesn’t entail any violence at all. I am genuinely curious! I am Buddhist, I agree killing is wrong and don’t even kill ants or flies.
Israel is commiting genocide against Palestine. They are shooting and bombing dozens of children and women every single day, while starving all of Gaza and letting them die of preventable illness. Tell me how many Israeli children have been killed in the war today? If a Palestinian is about to shoot a child whether in Israel or anywhere, someone would be justified in stopping them. But that is not the situation. Israel has pinned Gazans into a deathtrap with no food, water, and hardly any healthcare system remaining, now using ‘aid’ centers to further their indiscriminate murder.
If any killing at all is wrong, then you would suggest people sat by and watch the Nazis finish the holocaust, because it would have been wrong to fight back?
Again, I haven’t avoided your question. Your question was asked as part of a bad faith rhetorical strategy to reframe the issue. The plain fact of the matter is, you have two groups killing each other while claiming that their killing is justified as preventative. If that’s true, then any preventative killing is justifiable, because it just becomes a matter of perspective, and your entire argument against the Israelis could just be reversed to justify for them.
You almost have a point but to get there you have to ignore the entire actual context of the conflict. It’s not just killing because of killing, there’s an entire ongoing expansionist colonial project making one party clearly the aggressor.
What a hateful person.
Idk I’d suggest looking at the state of Gazas hospitals and childrens services (all done specifically by the IDF) before coming to such a bad conclusion. Shitting on the IDF is the best thing people can be doing, there has unfortunately been some genuinely anti semitic stuff mixed in with the pro Palestinian movement but this ain’t it chief.
Yes you are, you genocidal child killer.
My man loves terrorism and religious oppression
You have molested dozens of children
Yeah, fuck you.
Fuck you right back
I stand with you brother
Yeah fuck you too
Me when person loves terrorism and religious oppression
I feel like wishing people who are purposefully murdering children would die is not hateful and actually a pretty moral stance
It’s definitely not a black and white issue for sure, every adult must serve in the IDF or face criminal prosecution in Israel, so saying “death to the IDF” and “death to every of age Israeli citizen” are basically the same statement.
Seems pretty black and white. The genocide is massively popular at home, and I don’t see any armed uprisings.
Prospects were good during PM Rabins term, the root of this problem is with corrupt people like Netanyahu. Killing every single perso on either side is not a solution.
Hell no. Rabin was was also a fascist and supported ethnic cleansing. Zionism has always been a fascist ideology centered on the forced removal of the native Palestinians.
https://palestinenexus.com/articles/israels-ethnic-cleansing-of-the-palestinians-1968-1993
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/10/stories-from-the-first-intifada-they-broke-my-bones
https://jacobin.com/2020/09/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-yitzhak-rabin-israel-palestine
The first point is pretty damning, yes, mass exodus cannot be a viable strategy.
The second point takes a lot of liberties with the word protestors, throwing rocks at militants and only getting kneecapped is a bargain compared to today’s brutallity.
Lastly, the region gained some autonomy. That was huge, and given the alternatives that current Israel under Netanyahu are pursuing, very generous.
I think that if Rabin weren’t assassinated to help Netanyahu gain control, the conflict would have claimed many less lives by today and that amicable relations would be a possibility.
Apartheid isn’t ‘generous’
Counter Insurgency and living under the occupation of violent supremacists is not ‘autonomy’
Quit apologizing for fascism
When you have to choose between evils then one of them will be the more generous option, yeah.
I feel like wishing people to die at all is a pretty immoral stance, but you obviously have your own version of morality where killing people is justifiable, so you do you I guess.
In a hypothetical where there’s a murderer with a machine gun killing children that will not be prosecuted in court then wishing them to be dead is pretty reasonable if you want the killing to stop.
Not saying killing is moral or that people don’t have the right to live because they do but how else would you stop the murder if the government doesn’t?
The problem with this line of thinking is that both sides think that the other is the murderer with the machine gun. If the Palestinians think it’s justified to kill Israelis because they think that they have the analogical machine gun, what stops the Israelis from thinking it’s justified to kill Palestinians because they think that they have the machine gun? If killing is deemed a reasonable way to get killing to stop, then it’s just a matter of rhetoric that distinguishes legitimate from illegitimate killing, and that rhetoric can just as easily be turned against the very people who now support it.
So in your mindset, there’s zero point where killing is “justifiable”?
I’m legitimately asking here.
In a perfect world, people would respect boundaries, not start war, or genocides to further their own beliefs.
What do you propose people facing extinction do? Parlay?
That’s a lot of words to avoid acknowledging your own moral corruption for openly calling for people to be killed. Go troll someone else, you hateful, violent prick.
Jesus, those are some thoroughly piss-soaked chips you’ve got there, petal.
Wow, if that’s an attempt at a coherent thought, you’ve got a long way to go.
Your ability to admit you don’t understand it is a big step. Now you just need to address your previous commenters in the same light, with the questions you’ve been asked and are too afraid to answer. We believe in you, champ.
Nice attempt at trolling. Try not cheering for people to be killed before you get up on your high horse.
Troll? You haven’t answered either of my questions? Lmao. Not everything is black and white my guy.
Again, I am legitimately curious what your opinions about this are.
You can sling insults all you want. It doesn’t further your argument in any legitimate way.
I don’t answer your questions because you’re disingenuous in asking them. Palestinians kill Israelis, giving them a justification for killing the Palestinians, which they do, giving the Palestinians a justification for killing Israelis. Either killing others because they are killing you is justified, or it’s not. But if you’re going to argue that it’s justified, then it’s justified for everyone. When you pick and choose which killers’ justifications you want to defend, you’re disguising a distinction that’s not really rooted in the act of killing, but in some other criterion (racism, maybe?).
If one side kills 100 for each one of their own killed there’s a big difference. Other factors to consider is when your land is blocked off from the outside world by land, sea and air and being routinely invaded. The Geneva convention says there is a right to resist occupation on top of that which Israel did sign.
I am not disingenuous in asking them.
I’m not even necessarily talking about the current situation here.
I’m asking you, where your line in the sand is.
If someone was in your home, threatening your life, or your loved one’s lives, and they absolutely were not empty threats, would violence to the point of killing be “justified”?
For example, should the Ukrainians not defend their sovereignty, on their own soil, because killing at all is immoral?
You came at this with a black and white statement, but there are nuances to the world that shape the decisions outside of a binary “they killed/didn’t kill”
I’m sure no one here wishes that anyone HAD to die. Most ethical systems throughout history have a moral justification for killing, if the death will prevent further killing of innocent people. If it’s immoral to kill someone actively murdering children and about to murder more, are you saying it would be preferable to let the children be killed?
Sounds like the same kind of justification that all killers use to convince themselves that their actions aren’t fundamentally morally corrupt. Maybe you have more in common with the Israelis than you’d like to admit
You aren’t clever, trying to say we shouldn’t kill Nazis in a war against Nazis.
This isn’t rhetorical, tell me. If someone is about to shoot a child, and the only way we could stop them is through military action, what would you do?
If a Palestinian is going to kill an Israeli child, and the only way to stop them is through military actions, would the Israelis be justified for killing them? You’re disingenuous to say that this isn’t rhetorical when you’re invoking the exact same rhetoric as justification for killing Israelis as the Israelis invoke as justification for killing Palestinians. If you have no sense that killing is absolutely wrong, then every act of killing is justifiable given a sympathetic perspective, which I simply don’t agree with. But if your morality lets you think that killing is justified, then that’s something you’ll just have to live with.
You avoided my question, I would like to know your answer, not some idealist moralizing. I am saying my question isn’t rhetorical because I want to know what you would suggest we do to stop a genocide that doesn’t entail any violence at all. I am genuinely curious! I am Buddhist, I agree killing is wrong and don’t even kill ants or flies.
Israel is commiting genocide against Palestine. They are shooting and bombing dozens of children and women every single day, while starving all of Gaza and letting them die of preventable illness. Tell me how many Israeli children have been killed in the war today? If a Palestinian is about to shoot a child whether in Israel or anywhere, someone would be justified in stopping them. But that is not the situation. Israel has pinned Gazans into a deathtrap with no food, water, and hardly any healthcare system remaining, now using ‘aid’ centers to further their indiscriminate murder.
If any killing at all is wrong, then you would suggest people sat by and watch the Nazis finish the holocaust, because it would have been wrong to fight back?
Again, I haven’t avoided your question. Your question was asked as part of a bad faith rhetorical strategy to reframe the issue. The plain fact of the matter is, you have two groups killing each other while claiming that their killing is justified as preventative. If that’s true, then any preventative killing is justifiable, because it just becomes a matter of perspective, and your entire argument against the Israelis could just be reversed to justify for them.
You almost have a point but to get there you have to ignore the entire actual context of the conflict. It’s not just killing because of killing, there’s an entire ongoing expansionist colonial project making one party clearly the aggressor.
You’re referring to the 1300 year colonialist occupation, presumably?
No u
Lmao
God, you’re a melt.
And you’re afraid
A humorless, meaningless retort from a hateful, violent person
and you’re a big smelly smell-bag who smells :P
Exactly the level of cleverness I’ve come to expect from you