Then she chanted, “When people are occupied, resistance is justified” which in context is clearly in defense of October 7th, despite her denial.
Let’s remember that the purpose of this protest was to stop Israel from defending themselves against their explicitly genocidal attackers via political pressure. Stopping Israel before they depose Hamas keeps Hamas in power.
Although she absolutely has the right to take controversial positions and peacefully protest, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. There is no right to anonymity when publicly protesting.
I really hate how many people on this site really push to equate what amounts to ethnic cleansing as dEFeNdIng ThEmSeLvEs. Like the thousands upon thousands of women and children they murdered were all fucking Hamas.
People often bring this up without noting that such a ratio would not be unusual in urban warfare against a well-prepared enemy even when the attacking army is doing what it reasonably can to reduce civilian casualties. Compare it to Mariupol, an example of what happens of the attacking army is unconcerned about civilian casualties: 25/26 of Ukrainians killed were civilians according to Ukrainian estimates. (8/9 were civilians if we use the Ukrainian numbers for how many of their soldiers were killed but the more conservative Human Rights Watch numbers for civilian deaths.)
If you trust the casualty numbers that the UN Is using, then they imply approximately 3.7 civilians killed for every combatant (with the assumptions that children make up half the population and that children are never combatants). I don’t trust those numbers but I admit that if I did, I would think they didn’t look good for Israel. I suppose we’ll have a better idea of what the truth is years from now when historians reach a consensus, but until then I’m going to reluctantly trust Biden’s judgement because the US government probably has secret information unavailable to the public. (Biden is biased by his need to be re-elected, but I don’t get reports from the CIA so that’s the best I can do.)
As for justification: Israel should make reasonable efforts to minimize civilian casualties while accomplishing its legitimate military objectives, but Israel should not sacrifice its ability to accomplish those objectives in order to protect civilians. In other words, Hamas doesn’t get to hold Palestinian civilians as hostages against Israel. If they try, then they are to blame for the resulting civilian casualties. The alternative is simply unworkable in practice, because the ability of Hamas to put Palestinian civilians at risk is almost total.
What is the maximum number of children that it acceptable for Israel to kill in order to accomplish its objectives? Is there no ceiling? Any number of children is acceptable as long as Hamas is wiped out?
If you present me with a trolley problem in which the only way to destroy Hamas also kills a million children, I won’t know what the right answer is. I suppose it would depend on what would happen to Israel if Hamas wasn’t destroyed.
However, the moral calculus for nations is not the same as it is for individuals. The standard established the last time the Western world fought a war it took seriously does seem to be “as many as it takes” and I suspect that this would still be the standard if such a war happened again. (All those nuclear missiles we have ready aren’t precise weapons…) In that context, demanding that Israel should show restraint that other countries haven’t and wouldn’t seems like hypocrisy.
It’s easy to act self-righteous when that has no consequences, but in practice most people on this planet live in countries (including democratic countries) that probably would actually kill the children in an analogous scenario.
Israel has murdered at least 33,000 Palestinians, over 2/3 being civilians by their own count.
Collateral damage is not murder, nor are successful attacks against Hamas militants.
It’s interesting you cite that figure as evidence of Israel’s recklessness when it’s actually an astonishing accomplishment that they got the civilian casualty ratio so low, especially considering Hamas hides among civilians in densely populated areas. The commonly cited average in modern war is ~90% civilian casualties. This seems to be evidence that the great lengths they go to to reduce civilian casualties are paying off, not evidence they are being reckless when it comes to civilians. You’d never know it from the protesters, or comments like yours though.
Hamas has not surrendered nor have they been deposed. That’s when attacks would stop being self-defense.
Are you honestly ignoring the statistical evidence I provided that clearly shows it is? Were this war being waged by any other nation in the world you could expect the civilian casualties to be much higher.
Then they are lying. I encourage you to watch the Oct 7 attack footage, (Content warning: violence, cruelty, death,) if you have the stomach for it, which clearly disproves any such claims. This is not collateral damage. They target civilians. Full stop.
Please do explain how murdering thousands of children is self-defense against Hamas. Were they strapping suicide vests to the babies and letting them crawl over to IDF troops?
Given my own experience and information, I find it a lot more appropriate to fight back against Hamas, the oppressive regime that instigated this war, hides among civilians to maximize casualties, and has refused to surrender to end the war, which they could do at any time. I believe they are the primary cause of all of this death and destruction and suffering, not Israel defending itself.
Would I feel the same way were I in their shoes? Hard to say.
You dodged the question. When the IDF is attacking and murdering Palestinians, do those Palestinians have a right to take up arms and fight back? It’s a simple yes or no question.
Some questions cannot be fairly answered with a simple yes or no, like, “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
There’s a lot of bias packed into your question. If the IDF is in fact MURDERING, as in, illegally killing people, yes they do. However, if the IDF is acting within the law they absolutely do not. Either way, I’d say it’s probably a bad move to do so and likely to get one shot.
I’m talking about right now. For example, for the people in Rafah. Do the Palestinians in Rafah have the right to fight back against the IDF that is shelling them and attacking their homes with tanks?
Can only be described as psychopathic response disguised as intellectual arguments. There aren’t enough dead babies, women and children that will move this person so long as they’re Palestinian.
Let’s remember that the purpose of this protest was to stop Israel from defending themselves against their explicitly genocidal attackers via political pressure.
Israel is well past the stage where it defends itself against the attack. They could very well stop their operations right this moment and no further harm would come to them for the foreseeable future. What they are doing now is a deliberate attack to cleanse Gaza of everything and everyone they consider anti-Israeli.
Stopping Israel before they depose Hamas keeps Hamas in power.
How long ago has the West pulled out of Afghanistan? Apparently it’s long enough that people have forgotten what an utter failure the whole thing was and why. One doesn’t create a lasting peace by steamrolling a place and shoot a bunch of people. Instead Israel is breeding the next generation of Hamas terrorist right now.
Israel is well past the stage where it defends itself against the attack. They could very well stop their operations right this moment and no further harm would come to them for the foreseeable future. What they are doing now is a deliberate attack to cleanse Gaza of everything and everyone they consider anti-Israeli.
On what basis do you make this claim? I read credible citations.
Hamas has stated that they intend to do Oct 7 attacks over and over again. Stopping now while they are still in power and still have significant military assets just gives them a chance to rebuild, regroup, and carry out their stated genocidal intentions. Perhaps not tomorrow, but eventually.
Israel has cleared most of the surface of Gaza, once they clear Rafah, the last place that has not been purged of Hamas, I suspect that will be the end of this campaign. Stopping them before they completely excise this tumor ensures metastasis.
How long ago has the West pulled out of Afghanistan? Apparently it’s long enough that people have forgotten what an utter failure the whole thing was and why. One doesn’t create a lasting peace by steamrolling a place and shoot a bunch of people. Instead Israel is breeding the next generation of Hamas terrorist right now.
Afghanistan isn’t really comparable nor are other western military adventurism defeats. Israel can’t leave and go somewhere else, this is a battle for safety in their home country. It is existential. As such, I highly doubt Israel will completely withdraw like they did in 2005, which arguably directly led to Oct 7. Gaza will probably be occupied until it stops choosing violence.
I’m sure animosity will remain, but letting Hamas take over again and indoctrinate children to make another generation of intifada supporters will breed the next generation of Hamas fighters far more surely than Israel successfully defending itself will. For them, this is about safety, and safety is non-negotiable.
Sadly, there are no magical munitions that don’t cause collateral damage, nor is Israel infallible. They still have a right to self-defense and to eliminate the threat against them.
Do Palestinians have a right to self defense or just Israelis? Because there’s a whole lot of settler attacks in the West Bank and mass graves full of kids in Gaza.
I’m not defending Hamas, who are just as shitty as the settler parties but you might logically expect violent resistance if you put a people under your boot for decades.
How exactly are they defending themselves by bombing areas full of children?
If your answer is “Hamas is there,” well they were somehow able to raid a hospital without killing everyone inside it and still get a whole bunch of Hamas people, so maybe they should do that instead of dropping bombs on children.
If your answer is “Hamas is there,” well they were somehow able to raid a hospital without killing everyone inside it and still get a whole bunch of Hamas people, so maybe they should do that instead of dropping bombs on children.
As you acknowledge, they are targeting Hamas, who often attacks them while hiding in areas full of children. Going in without air support into a well prepared guerilla fighter’s den is likely to cause a lot of casualties. Even though that is acceptable every now and then like in the hospital that does not imply that’s a viable strategy for all of Gaza.
Hamas counts on this “think of the children!” and the bad PR it causes, that’s why they do this. They also want Israel’s hands to be bound so they can do Oct 7 over and over again.
The right move is to minimize civilian casualties but not stop until the job is done, and that’s exactly what I believe Israel is doing.
According to a New York Times report, “Hamas has long been accused of using civilians as human shields and positioning underground bunkers, weapon depots and rocket launchers under or near schools, mosques and hospitals.”[63]
DW military analyst Frank Ledwidge has said that “it’s been described… as ‘common knowledge’ that many of the headquarters [of Hamas] are located under hospitals… [with] entries and exits in places like mosques or schools… [or even] UN facilities… that’s why we’ve seen… so many non-combatant casualties so far”.[64]
John Spencer has said that "[Hamas has] built many of their tunnel entrances and exits and passageway underneath protected sites like hospitals, schools, mosques, because it restricts the use of force that the IDF can take without going through the… laws of war calculation.[65]
According to Daphne Richemond-Barak, associate professor of counter-terrorism at Reichman University and author of the 2017 book Underground Warfare, Hamas militants operate under Al-Shifa Hospital gain “the highest level of protection available under the laws of war”, as well as a “unique opportunity to operate far from surveillance drones, GPS, and other intelligence-gathering technology”. She added that “in Gaza, tunnels are dug in civilian homes, pass under entire neighbourhoods, and lead into populated areas inside Israel… [which] enables Hamas to conceal entry and exit points, and facilitates undetected movement and activity.”[66]
Avi Issacharoff has said that Hamas militants are “under the houses and neighborhoods of Gaza City, hoping that Israel won’t attack them because they’re hiding underneath human shields, and that if Israel will attack those neighborhoods, it’ll kill many civilians, and the whole world is going to accuse Israel for war crimes”. “The sad thing about all this”, Issacharoff said, “is [that] Hamas doesn’t care about their own people” and aims “not only to kill Israelis but for as many Palestinian civilians [casualties as well]”.[67]
It’s almost like starting a war when most of your population is children, then hiding among civilians and under schools endangers them. But I guess that’s Israel’s fault. Why can’t they just send in soldiers without air support? They make easier targets that way.
If you’re going to claim that Israel is killing children because Hamas is hiding in schools and there aren’t schools, that’s a really silly claim.
And if there were schools, you’re claiming that Israel needs to bomb schools filled with children in self-defense. I don’t know that you’re going to find too many people sympathetic to that argument.
I sincerely hope you aren’t a parent if you feel children are so disposable.
Also, if you have to kill children in the name of self-defense, maybe you don’t have anything worth defending.
I’m saying using such despicable tactics is not a free genocide without reprisal card, nor should it confer a tactical advantage as that just means more of this in the future.
“In international law, the right to resist is closely related to the principle of self-determination. It is widely recognized that a right to self-determination arises in situations of colonial domination, foreign occupation, and racist regimes that deny a segment of the population political participation.”
Then she chanted, “When people are occupied, resistance is justified” which in context is clearly in defense of October 7th, despite her denial.
Let’s remember that the purpose of this protest was to stop Israel from defending themselves against their explicitly genocidal attackers via political pressure. Stopping Israel before they depose Hamas keeps Hamas in power.
Although she absolutely has the right to take controversial positions and peacefully protest, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. There is no right to anonymity when publicly protesting.
Resistance take a lot more forms than what happened Oct. 7th which almost nobody is trying to justify.
Israel has murdered at least 33,000 Palestinians, over 2/3 being civilians by their own count.
Israel has passed ‘defending themselves’ a long time ago.
This protest is to stop killing innocent civilians.
I really hate how many people on this site really push to equate what amounts to ethnic cleansing as dEFeNdIng ThEmSeLvEs. Like the thousands upon thousands of women and children they murdered were all fucking Hamas.
But racists always support racists…
No, don’t you get it? The genocide is proportional. /s
People often bring this up without noting that such a ratio would not be unusual in urban warfare against a well-prepared enemy even when the attacking army is doing what it reasonably can to reduce civilian casualties. Compare it to Mariupol, an example of what happens of the attacking army is unconcerned about civilian casualties: 25/26 of Ukrainians killed were civilians according to Ukrainian estimates. (8/9 were civilians if we use the Ukrainian numbers for how many of their soldiers were killed but the more conservative Human Rights Watch numbers for civilian deaths.)
Even if that is true, which is certainly isn’t when it comes to children, why does that make it justified?
If you trust the casualty numbers that the UN Is using, then they imply approximately 3.7 civilians killed for every combatant (with the assumptions that children make up half the population and that children are never combatants). I don’t trust those numbers but I admit that if I did, I would think they didn’t look good for Israel. I suppose we’ll have a better idea of what the truth is years from now when historians reach a consensus, but until then I’m going to reluctantly trust Biden’s judgement because the US government probably has secret information unavailable to the public. (Biden is biased by his need to be re-elected, but I don’t get reports from the CIA so that’s the best I can do.)
As for justification: Israel should make reasonable efforts to minimize civilian casualties while accomplishing its legitimate military objectives, but Israel should not sacrifice its ability to accomplish those objectives in order to protect civilians. In other words, Hamas doesn’t get to hold Palestinian civilians as hostages against Israel. If they try, then they are to blame for the resulting civilian casualties. The alternative is simply unworkable in practice, because the ability of Hamas to put Palestinian civilians at risk is almost total.
What is the maximum number of children that it acceptable for Israel to kill in order to accomplish its objectives? Is there no ceiling? Any number of children is acceptable as long as Hamas is wiped out?
If you present me with a trolley problem in which the only way to destroy Hamas also kills a million children, I won’t know what the right answer is. I suppose it would depend on what would happen to Israel if Hamas wasn’t destroyed.
However, the moral calculus for nations is not the same as it is for individuals. The standard established the last time the Western world fought a war it took seriously does seem to be “as many as it takes” and I suspect that this would still be the standard if such a war happened again. (All those nuclear missiles we have ready aren’t precise weapons…) In that context, demanding that Israel should show restraint that other countries haven’t and wouldn’t seems like hypocrisy.
Seriously? You don’t know?
Because I would say most people on this planet would say don’t kill the million children.
It’s easy to act self-righteous when that has no consequences, but in practice most people on this planet live in countries (including democratic countries) that probably would actually kill the children in an analogous scenario.
Are you honestly defending the murder of over 22,000 Palestinian civilians since Oct 7, 2023 as being an Israeli achievement?
They just justified bombing schools full of children above as necessary for Israel’s self-defense, so I think that’s your answer.
I read through that and was surprised they didn’t call you an antisemite.
I would have pointed out that I’m a mod in c/Jewish, so that would have been fun.
Are you honestly ignoring the statistical evidence I provided that clearly shows it is? Were this war being waged by any other nation in the world you could expect the civilian casualties to be much higher.
If the murder of over 100 innocent civilians a day makes you cheer then I am done with this conversation.
You seem to have confused understanding with enthusiasm.
No, I have not.
Should I just start imagining your motivations and what makes you cheer and holding it against you? Is that how we roll here?
This is exactly how Hamas justifies October 7th…
Then they are lying. I encourage you to watch the Oct 7 attack footage, (Content warning: violence, cruelty, death,) if you have the stomach for it, which clearly disproves any such claims. This is not collateral damage. They target civilians. Full stop.
They’re the same concept to Hamas, and it seems that they’re the same concept to the IDF as well.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Oct 7 attack footage,
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Please do explain how murdering thousands of children is self-defense against Hamas. Were they strapping suicide vests to the babies and letting them crawl over to IDF troops?
Collateral damage still isn’t murder no matter how many times you repeat it, nor does hiding among children make Hamas immune from reprisal. Regarding women and children, their casualty figures were faked by Hamas and recently quietly revised by the UN.
Your outrage over child casualties is being manufactured and manipulated by Hamas.
Your “evidence” is a Reddit post.
Be better.
Citations and sources in the comments.
If you were honest, you would have linked to one of those sources, not a Reddit post.
If I’d done that, it would have been worthless. You need the additional context provided in that post.
Question: Is it appropriate for those civilians to get weapons and fight back against the IDF that is killing them?
That’s a matter of opinion. I can understand why many Palestinians do find it appropriate, especially given the intense indoctrination that Palestinian children experience, and the lack of available unbiased credible information there.
Given my own experience and information, I find it a lot more appropriate to fight back against Hamas, the oppressive regime that instigated this war, hides among civilians to maximize casualties, and has refused to surrender to end the war, which they could do at any time. I believe they are the primary cause of all of this death and destruction and suffering, not Israel defending itself.
Would I feel the same way were I in their shoes? Hard to say.
You dodged the question. When the IDF is attacking and murdering Palestinians, do those Palestinians have a right to take up arms and fight back? It’s a simple yes or no question.
Some questions cannot be fairly answered with a simple yes or no, like, “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
There’s a lot of bias packed into your question. If the IDF is in fact MURDERING, as in, illegally killing people, yes they do. However, if the IDF is acting within the law they absolutely do not. Either way, I’d say it’s probably a bad move to do so and likely to get one shot.
I’m talking about right now. For example, for the people in Rafah. Do the Palestinians in Rafah have the right to fight back against the IDF that is shelling them and attacking their homes with tanks?
The real question is “are they people to you” and he’ll reply it’s not so simple
No, that’s a legal attack on Hamas. If they take up arms they are defending Hamas as a militant.
Genocide apologist
Can only be described as psychopathic response disguised as intellectual arguments. There aren’t enough dead babies, women and children that will move this person so long as they’re Palestinian.
Israel is well past the stage where it defends itself against the attack. They could very well stop their operations right this moment and no further harm would come to them for the foreseeable future. What they are doing now is a deliberate attack to cleanse Gaza of everything and everyone they consider anti-Israeli.
How long ago has the West pulled out of Afghanistan? Apparently it’s long enough that people have forgotten what an utter failure the whole thing was and why. One doesn’t create a lasting peace by steamrolling a place and shoot a bunch of people. Instead Israel is breeding the next generation of Hamas terrorist right now.
On what basis do you make this claim? I read credible citations.
Hamas has stated that they intend to do Oct 7 attacks over and over again. Stopping now while they are still in power and still have significant military assets just gives them a chance to rebuild, regroup, and carry out their stated genocidal intentions. Perhaps not tomorrow, but eventually.
Israel has cleared most of the surface of Gaza, once they clear Rafah, the last place that has not been purged of Hamas, I suspect that will be the end of this campaign. Stopping them before they completely excise this tumor ensures metastasis.
Afghanistan isn’t really comparable nor are other western military adventurism defeats. Israel can’t leave and go somewhere else, this is a battle for safety in their home country. It is existential. As such, I highly doubt Israel will completely withdraw like they did in 2005, which arguably directly led to Oct 7. Gaza will probably be occupied until it stops choosing violence.
I’m sure animosity will remain, but letting Hamas take over again and indoctrinate children to make another generation of intifada supporters will breed the next generation of Hamas fighters far more surely than Israel successfully defending itself will. For them, this is about safety, and safety is non-negotiable.
Yeah, all those babies and toddlers they killed were genocidal maniacs.
Sadly, there are no magical munitions that don’t cause collateral damage, nor is Israel infallible. They still have a right to self-defense and to eliminate the threat against them.
Do Palestinians have a right to self defense or just Israelis? Because there’s a whole lot of settler attacks in the West Bank and mass graves full of kids in Gaza.
I’m not defending Hamas, who are just as shitty as the settler parties but you might logically expect violent resistance if you put a people under your boot for decades.
Removed by mod
How exactly are they defending themselves by bombing areas full of children?
If your answer is “Hamas is there,” well they were somehow able to raid a hospital without killing everyone inside it and still get a whole bunch of Hamas people, so maybe they should do that instead of dropping bombs on children.
You are justifying child murder.
As you acknowledge, they are targeting Hamas, who often attacks them while hiding in areas full of children. Going in without air support into a well prepared guerilla fighter’s den is likely to cause a lot of casualties. Even though that is acceptable every now and then like in the hospital that does not imply that’s a viable strategy for all of Gaza.
Hamas counts on this “think of the children!” and the bad PR it causes, that’s why they do this. They also want Israel’s hands to be bound so they can do Oct 7 over and over again.
The right move is to minimize civilian casualties but not stop until the job is done, and that’s exactly what I believe Israel is doing.
Please present evidence of this. Or is this just a guess on your part?
They don’t go in, they just bombs.
They are not killing the children.
More children were killed in Gaza by March than children in conflicts in the rest of the world over the past four years.
And you would have us believe that Israel’s hands are free of their blood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_human_shields_by_Hamas
It’s almost like starting a war when most of your population is children, then hiding among civilians and under schools endangers them. But I guess that’s Israel’s fault. Why can’t they just send in soldiers without air support? They make easier targets that way.
That information is way out of date. There are almost no schools left because Israel destroyed 90% of them.
https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/education-under-attack-gaza-nearly-90-school-buildings-damaged-or-destroyed-and-no-university-left-standing
If you’re going to claim that Israel is killing children because Hamas is hiding in schools and there aren’t schools, that’s a really silly claim.
And if there were schools, you’re claiming that Israel needs to bomb schools filled with children in self-defense. I don’t know that you’re going to find too many people sympathetic to that argument.
I sincerely hope you aren’t a parent if you feel children are so disposable.
Also, if you have to kill children in the name of self-defense, maybe you don’t have anything worth defending.
I’m saying this is a strategy Hamas uses, and they haven’t stopped. They have been launching rockets from Rafah, hospitals and other civilian areas, they told civilians not to evacuate from war zones, and since half of Gaza is children that means yes, Hamas is attacking Israel from among children.
I’m saying using such despicable tactics is not a free genocide without reprisal card, nor should it confer a tactical advantage as that just means more of this in the future.
“In international law, the right to resist is closely related to the principle of self-determination. It is widely recognized that a right to self-determination arises in situations of colonial domination, foreign occupation, and racist regimes that deny a segment of the population political participation.”