Israel-Palestine escalation live: Gaza under bombardment after Hamas attack

[crimson]

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/live...-live-news-barrage-of-rockets-fired-from-gaza

This is terrible.

No warning, just war against humanity.

I wholeheartedly support with Israel in however they decide to move forward with war.

 

[StevenC]

Genocide. That's how Israel intends to proceed. They're angry Palestinians don't like apartheid so they're going to do genocide instead.

 

[broj15]

Fr israel is an ethno state and the reason the west supports them is because it's our only real foothold we have in the Middle East. Gotta get that sweet sweet crude oil & opioids somehow.

 

[AwakenTheSkies]

I don't know much about politics but damn. What an ugly world we live in sometimes. We in developed countries live such sheltered lives, it's crazy to see to the contrast when you see how it is in some of these countries at war.
War really shows the worst of humanity, so many monsters there...

 

[Randy]

I don't know much about politics but damn. What an ugly world we live in sometimes. We in developed countries live such sheltered lives, it's crazy to see to the contrast when you see how it is in some of these countries at war.
War really shows the worst of humanity, so many monsters there...

Complex situation, because the region is historically a tinder box and Israel kind of a "developed" cosmopolitan oasis in a mostly poor area (politics at play here, of course).

So its always been kind of a crisis waiting to happen. Establishing an ethnoreligious state in the area most hostile toward its inhabitants feels like putting your people at risk unnecessarily.

 

[crimson]

Genocide. That's how Israel intends to proceed. They're angry Palestinians don't like apartheid so they're going to do genocide instead.

Good.

I'm pretty sure the Israelis didn't like their civilians being kidnapped in the middle of the night and being shot at without any warning.

If they want to exact their retaliation that sends a message through genocide, good. But I don't think that they're doing that, provided they gave warning to civilians of the Hamas to evacuate the area before they turn the place inside out.

A luxury the Palestinians didn't afford them.

Don't make any mistake that even if this crisis was waiting to happen, the Palestinians and the Iranians for sure did their part in instigating this war. The declaration of war was a direct response of the massacre of the Israeli that happened.

I saw this on quora, and it is just an opinion, but I agree with it.

I’m not naming names. You can fill in the blanks for yourself.

The side in the right is the one which recognizes the humanity of the other, does not try to demonize, de-legitimize, or apply double standards to the other.

The side in the right is the one which makes a conscious effort to adhere to accepted standards of morality and law, which follows due process of law, and which prosecutes rather than lionizes its own citizens when they break those rules and kill a random innocent person of the other ethnic group, who was just going about their business, and which does not encourage its people to rally and shout “kill the ________!” and does not pass out candies and dance in the streets when someone on their side actually does.

The side in the right is the one which seeks genuine peace with their neighbors, which is willing to live side-by-side with people of a different ethnicity, and does not insist on a “_______-free state.”

The side in the right is the one which, when it comes into custody of new territory through one of the many wars this land has suffered, builds schools and universities and hospitals and electric grids and piped-in water for the residents of that occupied territory, which they have never had before in history, and not the side which, when it comes into custody of new territory through one of the many wars this land has suffered, kicks out or kills all the people of the “other” ethnic group, destroys their homes and places of worship, denies them any access to their holy places in the occupied territory whatsoever, and desecrates their cemeteries.

The side in the right is the one which recognizes that “peace” means working out a compromise for sharing a small piece of land between two peoples, and does not insist that “from the river to the sea, _____________ shall be free!” which, not to put too fine a point on it, means the utter destruction of the other ethnicity’s nation-state and, most likely, genocide of people of that ethnicity.

The side in the right is the one which wants statehood so badly that it will accept any compromise, even one which gives them a state the size of a postage stamp, and eagerly makes the best of it, building infrastructure and institutions to foster growth and development, cooperating economically with their neighbors, and making lemonade out of the lemons fate handed them, not the side which burns down and trashes infrastructure which is left behind for them to productively use when the other side withdraws entirely from their territory, and not the side which spends almost every penny of international aid it receives on weaponry to attack random civilians on the other side.

Now, my fervent hope is that, one day, everyone reading this will be scratching their heads in puzzlement, because the above descriptions of the “right side” will apply to both sides in this conflict.

And if and when that happens, they will both be right.

There are other conflicts going on in the world today, as well. Many of them seem to be of the ethnic-group-versus-ethnic-group or sect-versus-sect variety, and there are plenty of people happy to portray them that way. Most of those people (and leaders) who want to portray conflicts as inevitably “us-versus-them,” tribal-unity zero-sum games where any gain to one side means a loss to the other side, tend to be reactionary, authoritarian, intolerant ultra-nationalists. On both “sides” of any given ethnic or religious divide.

On the other hand, there are those who are willing to tolerate the “other,” willing to compromise, willing to share, and willing to live side-by-side — on both sides of any given ethnic or religious divide.

The real conflict in the world today is between those who see the world as identity-group versus identity-group — and those who believe in tolerance, co-existence, and mutually beneficial development and respect. There are people on both sides of the “Israel-Palestine conflict” who want that.

The thing is, not everybody who claims to be “pro-peace” is really pro-peace.

Look at what the net effect of the policies they propose will actually be; look at who benefits; and look at whether they fairly consider the needs of the other “side.”

Look at whether the economic sanctions or economic benefits they seek to create would help, or hurt, the people they claim to want to help on both sides.

And most importantly, look at whether the “solution” they propose is reasonably likely to lead to long-term peace and prosperity for everybody, or continued, endless conflict from which only those steeped in “the resistance” and “anti-normalization” would benefit.

Thanks for asking.

And.

Fuck religion, it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

 

[crimson]

Redacted

 

[Randy]

Good.

I'm pretty sure the Israelis didn't like their civilians being kidnapped in the middle of the night and being shot at without any warning.

If they want to exact their retaliation that sends a message through genocide, good. But I don't think that they're doing that, provided they gave warning to civilians of the Hamas to evacuate the area before they turn the place inside out.

A luxury the Palestinians didn't afford them.

Don't make any mistake that even if this crisis was waiting to happen, the Palestinians and the Iranians for sure did their part in instigating this war. The declaration of war was a direct response of the massacre of the Israeli that happened.

I saw this on quora, and it is just an opinion, but I agree with it.




And.

Fuck religion, it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

I mean, I get wanting to respond with anger but keep in mind the *reason* you're mad as because of indiscriminate killing of innocent people, and genocide is exactly the same thing.

It's not an "eye for an eye". In an "eye for an eye", you poke out the eye of the person who poked out yours. Killing people who did nothing to you isn't the "eye for an eye" response to someone killing people that did nothing to them either.

So I mean, I get the anger but I'd say chill.

Hamas is a terrorist organization that's been allowed to operate out in the open for too long, so I'd say the root cause and action here should be an obvious one, no?

 

[crimson]

I mean, I get wanting to respond with anger but keep in mind the *reason* you're mad as because of indiscriminate killing of innocent people, and genocide is exactly the same thing.

It's not an "eye for an eye". In an "eye for an eye", you poke out the eye of the person who poked out yours. Killing people who did nothing to you isn't the "eye for an eye" response to someone killing people that did nothing to them either.

So I mean, I get the anger but I'd say chill.

Hamas is a terrorist organization that's been allowed to operate out in the open for too long, so I'd say the root cause and action here should be an obvious one, no?

The fact that you understand where the anger is coming from is good, because I'm not Israeli nor do I really even have close friends who are Israeli, and yet I am angry for them. There is and there are reasons for this anger that I'm sure the Israelis are more visceral and a lot angrier than I am.

The "eye for an eye" is consistent with what the Hamas did and now, I'm fairly certain the Israeli army will do the favor of returning so whether you call it genocide, indiscriminate massacre, or war, I fully expect and understand the anger.

(By the way I am curious if you think there is some moral distinction between the killing of innocent people or discriminate killing of innocent people and how that is being defined.) In war, what makes someone innocent and what makes someone not innocent? Who plays the judge here? The rest of the world?

I will be consistent and just say that killing people, innocent or not, is morally wrong. But because of my acceptance of this, I can also accept that wrongdoings are necessary, so I'm saying in this case, killing is necessary and I will not play moral highground on who is being selected to be on the chopping block. I will only choose a side on who I want to win the war.

Root cause and action being obvious doesn't really justify it. As the next few months will probably unfold, those actions will most likely be met with consequences.

As a U.S. citizen, I'm sure we will be hurting on this one in terms of our economy, but I am with Israel here.

In regards to religion, I condemn it as an objective evil and it has been used as a scapegoat for many evils in the world. That truly is the root cause. All religion should be absolutely abolished, specifically traditional monotheistic religions.

 

[StevenC]

Good.

I'm pretty sure the Israelis didn't like their civilians being kidnapped in the middle of the night and being shot at without any warning.

If they want to exact their retaliation that sends a message through genocide, good. But I don't think that they're doing that, provided they gave warning to civilians of the Hamas to evacuate the area before they turn the place inside out.

A luxury the Palestinians didn't afford them.

Don't make any mistake that even if this crisis was waiting to happen, the Palestinians and the Iranians for sure did their part in instigating this war. The declaration of war was a direct response of the massacre of the Israeli that happened.

I saw this on quora, and it is just an opinion, but I agree with it.




And.

Fuck religion, it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

It's time for the graph isn't it?



A pro Israel stance is the violent one. Since their inception they have been displacing, confining and oppressing Palestinians. That is a fact. Whenever boundaries have been drawn, it's Israel who encroaches on them.

Israel has been doing humanitarian crimes to innocent people for decades. It is illegal for a person in Gaza to leave the strip. At that point, what reaction do you expect from people who are being slaughtered?

 

[MetalDestroyer]

What Hamas is doing is atrocious, what Israel is doing is atrocious. These things are not mutually exclusive and neither justifies the actions of the other

I can understand military action against a state committing genocide of your people (not excuse, but understand), but this seems like wanton violence in the name of revenge and all it's going to cause is more brazen and brutal genocide than the brazen and brutal genocide that is already occurring.

I don't think Israel will stop until all of Palestine is dead or displaced, and I don't think Hamas will stop terrorizing until all of Israel is dead or displaced. The middle east is a powder keg that there are no solutions for except to hope some measure of peace comes for whatever small amount of time it lasts.

The fact that you understand where the anger is coming from is good, because I'm not Israeli nor do I really even have close friends who are Israeli, and yet I am angry for them. There is and there are reasons for this anger that I'm sure the Israelis are more visceral and a lot angrier than I am.

The "eye for an eye" is consistent with what the Hamas did and now, I'm fairly certain the Israeli army will do the favor of returning so whether you call it genocide, indiscriminate massacre, or war, I fully expect and understand the anger.

(By the way I am curious if you think there is some moral distinction between the killing of innocent people or discriminate killing of innocent people and how that is being defined.)

Root cause and action being obvious doesn't really justify it. As the next few months will probably unfold, those actions will most likely be met with consequences.

As a U.S. citizen, I'm sure we will be hurting on this one in terms of our economy, but I am with Israel here.

In regards to religion, I condemn it as an objective evil and it has been used as a scapegoat for many evils in the world. That truly is the root cause. All religion should be absolutely abolished, specifically traditional monotheistic religions.

You have a very hardline stance here. Are you aware that Israel is, and has been for many years, committing similar atrocities to Palestine?

Are you really anti-religion, or are you anti-Muslim? Israel is a Jewish state which is also a religion.

 

[Randy]

The fact that you understand where the anger is coming from is good, because I'm not Israeli nor do I really even have close friends who are Israeli, and yet I am angry for them. There is and there are reasons for this anger that I'm sure the Israelis are more visceral and a lot angrier than I am.

The "eye for an eye" is consistent with what the Hamas did and now, I'm fairly certain the Israeli army will do the favor of returning so whether you call it genocide, indiscriminate massacre, or war, I fully expect and understand the anger.

(By the way I am curious if you think there is some moral distinction between the killing of innocent people or discriminate killing of innocent people and how that is being defined.) In war, what makes someone innocent and what makes someone not innocent? Who plays the judge here? The rest of the world?

Root cause and action being obvious doesn't really justify it. As the next few months will probably unfold, those actions will most likely be met with consequences.

As a U.S. citizen, I'm sure we will be hurting on this one in terms of our economy, but I am with Israel here.

In regards to religion, I condemn it as an objective evil and it has been used as a scapegoat for many evils in the world. That truly is the root cause. All religion should be absolutely abolished, specifically traditional monotheistic religions.

Well war is supposed to be soldier vs soldier. Soldier vs civilian is *supposed* to be a war crime. So the line of thinking of "how do you define..." is a little off since that's a pretty basic distinction.

 

[Randy]

The "eye for an eye" is consistent with what the Hamas did and now, I'm fairly certain the Israeli army will do the favor of returning so whether you call it genocide, indiscriminate massacre, or war, I fully expect and understand the anger.

OR... why not confine your retaliation to the people that did the killing? I'm not sure how you can be so anti-religion, yet be so pro-irrationality?

 

[crimson]

What Hamas is doing is atrocious, what Israel is doing is atrocious. These things are not mutually exclusive and neither justifies the actions of the other

I can understand military action against a state committing genocide of your people (not excuse, but understand), but this seems like wanton violence in the name of revenge and all it's going to cause is more brazen and brutal genocide than the brazen and brutal genocide that is already occurring.

I don't think Israel will stop until all of Palestine is dead or displaced, and I don't think Hamas will stop terrorizing until all of Israel is dead or displaced. The middle east is a powder keg that there are no solutions for except to hope some measure of peace comes for whatever small amount of time it lasts.


You have a very hardline stance here. Are you aware that Israel is, and has been for many years, committing similar atrocities to Palestine?

Are you really anti-religion, or are you anti-Muslim? Israel is a Jewish state which is also a religion.

I am anti-religion, but I am more anti-Muslim than I am anti-Jewish, specifically after 9/11. Experiences shape my reality, that was my reality at that point in time. If the Israeli's did 9/11 (extremist group operating under said religion or not), I would be anti-Jewish more than I am anti-Muslim. There are an assortment of other practices that I'm also not fond of in both religions. But it is relative.

I think you're right, though. I don't think either party will stop until they are completely extinct.

Well war is supposed to be soldier vs soldier. Soldier vs civilian is *supposed* to be a war crime. So the line of thinking of "how do you define..." is a little off since that's a pretty basic distinction.

The nukes and drone attacks we launch would beg to differ.

 

[crimson]

OR... why not confine your retaliation to the people that did the killing? I'm not sure how you can be so anti-religion, yet be so pro-irrationality?

How is understanding human psychology and predicting and empathizing with how people will react irrational?

 

[Randy]

How is understanding human psychology and predicting and empathizing with how people will react irrational?

Had me until that part.

 

[Randy]

The nukes and drone attacks we launch would beg to differ.

Or maybe we're war criminals?

 

[Hollowway]

I used to be super pro-Israel, because of what I heard and read living in the US. I’ve since come to see that much of what we see here is filtered through what the US wants us to see. Go to other countries - or talk with those who live there - and it’s not black and white. Israel is culpable for way more than we are lead to believe.

 

[crimson]

Or maybe we're war criminals?

That's what I'm saying though. Maybe we are, but according to ourselves we are not. We go vastly unpunished for the things that happen in war, which shapes my perspective of what's "supposed" to happen in war. Basically, I don't believe in "supposed to" in war. It's war. People die.

 

[Hollowway]

It's time for the graph isn't it?

View attachment 131524

A pro Israel stance is the violent one. Since their inception they have been displacing, confining and oppressing Palestinians. That is a fact. Whenever boundaries have been drawn, it's Israel who encroaches on them.

Israel has been doing humanitarian crimes to innocent people for decades. It is illegal for a person in Gaza to leave the strip. At that point, what reaction do you expect from people who are being slaughtered?

Holy crap, that’s disturbing. Check out 2018…..