465
466

[worldnews]/u/APairofDocks writes a lengthy, source-filled essay showing just how violent Israeli policy toward civilians in Gaza has been, both historically and presently. (np.reddit.com)

submitted by arjun10

sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]topdeck55 -6 ポイント-5 ポイント

I guess Reddit will upvote any old anti Semite these days

[–]Jmcduff5 8 ポイント9 ポイント

So being against Israel is anti Semite I knew it wouldn't be long before someone played this card

[–]Jrook -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

Not antisemitic, just supported by 100% of the antisemites

[–]peisistratid 4 ポイント5 ポイント

Looks to me like he makes several thought-out arguments against Israeli foreign policy. Right or wrong, it doesn't really look anti-semitic to me.

[–]Battletechnerd -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Yup. I think it is SO wrong that people expect more from a 1st world well armed democracy. What the fuck?! They are experiencing aggression from others. They totally have a right to kill hundreds to get it to stop!! My roommate used to do similar. We would get into a fight, then I would lock him in the basement and ration him food water and electricity. (he was down there for a while.) Then, GET THIS. That fucker would get SO MAD!! He would break my shit!! So I did the most rational thing i could and beat the ever living tar out of him. He even scratched me alot!! oh man!! This gets me steamed. My neighbors would get all mouthy and tell me to tone it down!! He has a temper too though so he deserved it. I know they were after my Jewish heritage though. Fucking Anti-semites.

[–]topdeck55 -1 ポイント0 ポイント

True or false: Hamas wants civilians to die. It doesn't matter to them who they are.

[–]Battletechnerd 0 ポイント1 ポイント

well, some do. that is the funny part, were things like the generation gap makes a difference. Simply put, some do, some don't. But even Hamas has courted the idea of accepting Israel as a state. Maybe not a Jewish only state, but a state. that is something.

[–]topdeck55 -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Yes or no.

[–]Battletechnerd 0 ポイント1 ポイント

well, unfortunately it's not exactly that simple. If the world worked on yes or no answers we would simply be binary code.

So, to answer your question in a fuller answer, in 2009 and again in 2012 Hamas leadership said it would accept Israel at 67 borders. but only if refugees could return to their homes (ending Israel as a Jewish only state, or creating a muttled two governance system.) Some others have denied these claims and others back them. The previous ceasefires and Anti-rocket squads that Hamas sends out to keep other groups from firing rockets shows a willingness to work with Israelis to increase there security. BUT! the firing of rockets at any Israeli town, even if ineffective, signals a disregard for Israeli civilian life. So, you get both pictures. Just like the question posed from an Israeli point of view. It is known that Hamas leadership is good at going underground and has so far been basically untouched. then besides rocket sights, why target anything with that level of ordinance? Hospitals and infrastructure that are dominated by civilian use should be handled otherwise. where is a live drawn? do we judge the groups by action, voiced intent, or both? Which takes precedence?

[–]topdeck55 0 ポイント1 ポイント

The tap dancing was inevitable. You are incapable of identifying evil.

[–]Battletechnerd 0 ポイント1 ポイント

No, I am incapable of not seeing potential good. Rocket firing is Evil. It is wrong. But, to kill with 80% collateral is Evil. To not weigh and advocate other options is evil. To ignore your potential to not kill and still do your job, is evil. You have to work with people from where they are. Hamas is in Gaza, but Palestinians don't just deserve to die. Israel has killed 260 people 80% civilians, including 45 children. Get a gun. Find a child. and blow his or her brains out. Is that evil? Do you think those children deserve to have their limbs ripped off of them by shrapnel? Should that happen or not?

Answer the questions like I answer yours. You might start to think

[–]topdeck55 0 ポイント1 ポイント

You are appealing to emotion.

Israel defends itself. It tries to minimize collateral damage as much as possible but the first priority is the safety of her own people. The only evil actor is Hamas. No Hamas, no death. Hamas is responsible for 100% of the deaths.

[–]Battletechnerd 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I get your argument but it seems like a a mute point considering that you are essentially asking which side one should wish away. Do I get a wish? are you a genie?

Both sides oppose each other, both fire ordinance, one obviously targets civilians and has only 1 kill. the other says it does not with some evidence saying yes, and some saying evidence no, but it has 260+kills. one is intent mostly, the other is action mostly. Israel has been a provocateur in the past. It has a history of "mistakes" regarding tunnels it targets and groups it targets. the rhetoric is much more peaceful but the numbers are still high. Their is evil on both sides. Evil does not pick a flag or an actor. What of the Israeli snipers who play target practice on civilian bodies? what about the trenches people must dig in the west bank so children can go to school without settlers shooting at them? What about the settlements? what about the mas graves from the early wars? what about the unequal laws against Palestinian Israelis? Isn't that Evil? I continue to agree that Hamas is a not a good actor. that they do a great disservice to Palestine and act aggressively towards Israel, but you refuse to look at numbers, actions, trends, and points.

[–]Battletechnerd 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Further more, your argument would hold that no allied country committed atrocities during WWII. That since Germany started it, then we can throw out the personal responsibility verdict for Allied soldiers during the Nuremberg Trials. That We firebombed Dresden because we had no other choice. That we ignored the concentration camps until the end because Germany did it. That Nagasaki and Hiroshima where simply correct and unquestionable because had the Japanese never attacked, we would never have had to nuke them. I get what you are trying to say, and maybe in a perfect world that would work, but there are no good institutions only good people. and al ot of people outside of an institution should not have their lives devalued because of their geographic proximity to them. Do you see what I am getting at?

[–]Kreative_Katusha -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Remember the 6 billion!