By your standards I could provide a counter argument like: Has any Israeli launched an unprovoked attack on Palestinians and kidnapped 300 of them?
And then I sit on my biased moral throne and feel the meaningless superiority of my argument
Reality is not black and white. Both sides are bad
Hamas launched a horrible slaughter of civilians. they knew it would have consequences. The IDF would obviously retaliate but they are using too much force and causing extreme suffering
This war should stop as soon as possible. There is nothing to gain in prolonging this conflict
As another comment noted. If Hamas had more firepower they would use more firepower.
They are not morally Superior to Israel.
Hamas started a conflict with an obviously more powerful military. They knew there would be consequences but they still chose violence over diplomacy. Obviously diplomacy in the middle east is terrible but I would never think that attacking civilians is a viable alternative to diplomacy.
I agree Hamas are idiots. But they cannot be blamed for the constant human rights violations of Israel. I don’t think many people here (IF ANY) think it was acceptable for them to attack civilians. Usually attempts to shed light on the crimes of Hamas are meant to divert the attention from the ongoing holocaust that Paleatinians are forced to go through on the hands of the IDF.
Ps. Diplomacy was never a viable option with Israel. They never make concessions or reasonable demands. So you can just forget about that weak point.
I did not mean to justify Israel’s actions by pointing out Hamas’s attack.
I agree that Israel has the sole power to stop this conflict. Every day they refuse to do some sort of ceasefire deal is a slaughter caused by Israel alone.
Netanyahu is likely prolonging the war due to political pressure and IMO should be considered a terrorist as well
The history of Palestine is super messy. All sides have committed terrible acts to the other, coming back hundreds of years. Each side can always look at recent history and claim X has provoked Y or Y has caused a disaster on X.
You can claim this was a provoked attack. I for once can hardly justify an attack on civilians. You can argue, Israel has done worse in the past, and while each side is biased, perhaps you’d be right.
My point is. This is an endless discussion
Both sides are bad. IMO the best outcome at the moment is to stop the conflict as soon as possible
Huh? The conflict began about a hundred years ago.
You can claim this was a provoked attack. I for once can hardly justify an attack on civilians.
The attack had real military objectives. It wasn’t just “let’s kill some civilians in Israel”.
IMO the best outcome at the moment is to stop the conflict as soon as possible
Only one side has the power to do that. Putting the oppressed and the oppressor on the same level only serves to justify their oppression.
The idea that the best outcome is to stop the conflict as soon as possible is correct, but for that you need Israel to acknowledge Palestinains’ right to self-determination.
Man what a terrible choice of words.
By your standards I could provide a counter argument like: Has any Israeli launched an unprovoked attack on Palestinians and kidnapped 300 of them?
And then I sit on my biased moral throne and feel the meaningless superiority of my argument
Reality is not black and white. Both sides are bad
Hamas launched a horrible slaughter of civilians. they knew it would have consequences. The IDF would obviously retaliate but they are using too much force and causing extreme suffering
This war should stop as soon as possible. There is nothing to gain in prolonging this conflict
Both sides are bad yada yada yada but only one side is a colonial ethnostate that is committing genocide. Let us not forget.
As another comment noted. If Hamas had more firepower they would use more firepower.
They are not morally Superior to Israel.
Hamas started a conflict with an obviously more powerful military. They knew there would be consequences but they still chose violence over diplomacy. Obviously diplomacy in the middle east is terrible but I would never think that attacking civilians is a viable alternative to diplomacy.
I agree Hamas are idiots. But they cannot be blamed for the constant human rights violations of Israel. I don’t think many people here (IF ANY) think it was acceptable for them to attack civilians. Usually attempts to shed light on the crimes of Hamas are meant to divert the attention from the ongoing holocaust that Paleatinians are forced to go through on the hands of the IDF.
Ps. Diplomacy was never a viable option with Israel. They never make concessions or reasonable demands. So you can just forget about that weak point.
I did not mean to justify Israel’s actions by pointing out Hamas’s attack.
I agree that Israel has the sole power to stop this conflict. Every day they refuse to do some sort of ceasefire deal is a slaughter caused by Israel alone.
Netanyahu is likely prolonging the war due to political pressure and IMO should be considered a terrorist as well
Look at the PA and tell me that diplomacy with Israel works again.
And the only reason Hamas doesn’t do what IDF does is because they are incapable of doing it not because of any moral superiority
Really? Hamas are not committing ethnic cleansing for over 75 years because THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO?
Is this not some kind of rhetoric Israel uses to justify the killing of tens of thousands of innocent people?
Setting aside the naivety of calling October 7th unprovoked, uh… Yes?
The history of Palestine is super messy. All sides have committed terrible acts to the other, coming back hundreds of years. Each side can always look at recent history and claim X has provoked Y or Y has caused a disaster on X.
You can claim this was a provoked attack. I for once can hardly justify an attack on civilians. You can argue, Israel has done worse in the past, and while each side is biased, perhaps you’d be right.
My point is. This is an endless discussion
Both sides are bad. IMO the best outcome at the moment is to stop the conflict as soon as possible
Huh? The conflict began about a hundred years ago.
The attack had real military objectives. It wasn’t just “let’s kill some civilians in Israel”.
Only one side has the power to do that. Putting the oppressed and the oppressor on the same level only serves to justify their oppression.
The idea that the best outcome is to stop the conflict as soon as possible is correct, but for that you need Israel to acknowledge Palestinains’ right to self-determination.