So you are basically saying Israels constant agression is the fault for 10/7 and the killings there were justified ? I certainly wouldn'z go that far.
The only one stealing land is the Israeli side and in a quite belligerent way. According to your logic it should be them as second class citicens. But again, i don't agree with punishing populations like that.
Israel actually is stealing Palestinian land, which Israel has no right to call their own, and treats Palestinians as second class citizens when it isn't murdering them.
Yes, and Israel is obviously the belligerent.
To the extent that Israel has been playing it nice with a belligerent you might say, which is why I mentioned the phrase, "to be kind to the cruel". Israel does have to take some blame for letting the belligerent murder their athletes and such for so long without ending this.
You have your actors reversed. ITMT, I do read Muslims in Israel state they think they are freer there than they would be in other Muslim majority nations. I don't know the truth of that or not, but they're testifying to this.
Even before 10/7 Israel has killed many times more Palestinians than the other way around. Over 300 in 2022 alone. It had basically become just background noise for the international community.
SO how were the Christians belligerent?
www.bbc.com
This sort of speaks to the "proportionality" problem of which I wrote earlier. Whatever Israel was doing, it wasn't enough to stop 10/7 and similar. They are failing their people to do what is necessary to protect them from those trying to wipe them out.
At least this reads of arrests being made. The local authority finds what was done to be criminal. To the Hamastinian government, gang raping and torture murdering little civilian girls was protocol.SO how were the Christians belligerent?
Jerusalem Christians say attacks on the rise
Many Christians feel that growing hostility towards them is aimed at pushing them out of the city.
And that justifies any and all war crimes targeted towards civilians, does it? Collective punishment is explicitly against the Geneva convention.
Repeating ad nauseum that it was a "great offer" doesn't make it so. No other group on the planet would accept the terms of that deal.
In one breath you say this, and then in another you justify actions against civilians who haven't taken any part in the decision, and aren't involved militarily. It's clear you hold the entire people in disdain. It's the equivalent of referring to all Germans as Nazis-- similar racist dogshit.
If 10/7 had stopped Israeli attacks upon Palestine, had stopped the annexation of Palestinian land and the murder of Palestinian citizens, would you say it was thus justified?
Hmm
www.theguardian.com
www.history.com
www.amnesty.org
You may have seen the movie "Schindler's List". If, when the allies dropped bombs on one of his war supporting factories, had he been killed, that would have been a sad thing. That doesn't end the obligation of the allies to destroy a war machine that is trying to destroy them.
Sometimes, bad people do bad things and get away with it, which is bad. But we can recognize what is bad vs. a culture that celebrates it. Lot to argue about though in those individual cases, particularly the Corrie case which could be its own thread.Hmm
Not guilty. The Israeli captain who emptied his rifle into a Palestinian schoolgirl
· Officer ignored warnings that teenager was terrified· Defence says 'confirming the kill' standard practice.
23‑year‑old peace activist Rachel Corrie is crushed to death by Israeli bulldozer | March 16, 2003 | HISTORY
An Israeli‑owned bulldozer kills 23‑year‑old American woman Rachel Corrie on March 16, 2003, as she protests a demolition campaign that destroyed over a thousand homes in the Gaza Strip. Following the death of their daughter, Corrie’s parents filed a civil lawsuit against the state of Israel...
No. A good question to think some upon.
No, I think I'd like you to defend the IDF celebrating killing somebody with a bulldozer here. Your culture, you yourself, is celebrating an ethnic cleansing right now. Justifying thousands of dead children. Branding millions of people as irredeemably bad people who should be *happy* to be forced out of their homes for your "safety", somehow
I will write, above @Thaluikhain asks, "If 10/7 had stopped Israeli attacks upon Palestine, had stopped the annexation of Palestinian land and the murder of Palestinian citizens, would you say it was thus justified?" and that does give me pause. I have to think on it some.
Osama bin Laden used "logic" similar to this to justify 9/11.
You're equating collateral damage in the targeting of a valid military target with targeted ethnic cleansing of civilians. There's no comparison, and international law makes that abundantly clear.
I'm OK with ethnic cleansing if, on balance, it is justified and the best and most humane thing for a given situation. The Muslims in this case have 40+ nations to which to go where they will live among the majority population and I do believe they will be happier there. That this is the best, most humane and just thing to happen under the circumstances. Things cannot go on as they are, with Israel trying to do the "proportional" thing, followed by cease fire which their enemies define as, "reload" only to be followed by other outrageous crimes against humanity.
en.wikipedia.org
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org
Here you are saying that Israel's killing of Palestinian's are proportional, and don't include deliberately targeted civilians. But previously:
Here, you seem to have accepted that Israel is killing Palestinian civilians, and in disproportionate numbers to their own dead. Which is obviously true, and something you are condoning.
They will be a small, poor, unwelcome minority in each of those countries.
What is this nonsense ? By that logic the statement "Hamas did not enough to stop Israel with 10/7, it should have killed 10s or 100s of thousands Israelis instead" would be true.
