Unfortunate as it is not accepting some ( intentional ) civilian casualties while fighting an enemy like Hamas isn’t realistic. It’s like negotiating with terrorists , if you give in to their demands it increases the likelihood of more attacks. If you stop attacking hamas because a civilian death could occur Hamas will increase the amount of civilian shields they use which would increase the number of civilian deaths.

These are people who gunned down their own civilians that tried to flee instead of being used as human shields / pity propaganda.

I was about to answer to you: next post will fart a "Hamas" and will excuse all killings & genocidal crimes toward Palestinians with a "sorry"

maybe the flyweight should stop attacking the heavyweight then

maybe the heavyweight should give back the land they stole, and stop breaking ceasefire/peace agreements. they might wake up the other heavyweights in the area that completely surround them

This post was edited by gnarjay on Nov 3 2023 05:50pm

its kinda funny how the stance of current cesspool UN is so important, but you ignore the fact that the UN gave israel to the jews as a homeland

it was a patch of dirt, nothing was stolen

i will agree that israel should get out of west bank, but thats it

israel pulled out of gaza in like 2005 after decades of terror and what did hamas do? fire rockets at them immediately

you hamas supporters are honestly absurd

that being said, i will give you a fair enough on the last part

the power balance israel vs neighbors is surely not what it was 40 years ago, especially with egypt growing

but they dont look like they are going to war over fucking palestine, this whole "stand with our brothers" is a farce

Gaza has been under Israeli occupation for 16/17 years, the "israel pulled out in 05" shit is nothing more than a meme

how does bombing civilian infrastructure save hostages? how does killing innocent people further their goal?
Israel is only radicalizing more people and whats worse, it invites more chaos to their doorstep. unless the IDF plans on leveling Gaza entirely to the ground (which would be a catastrophic mistake), what are they aiming for? to kill as many Palestinians as possible ? how does that help their cause unless their goal is genocide?

Wild how Israeli apologists can't prove any of the claims they use to justify their support of ethnic cleansing yet they keep using them anyway.

The only people they've convinced seem to be those who hate Muslims because their own elected governments imported millions of them after destroying middle eastern countries. Westerners will persecute any group in existence before demanding change within their own dystopian "democratic" system.

solid dodge

the radicalisation narrative is just naive, everyone is already radicalised

children receive maps in school, where israel does not exist

you still dont get it, radicalisation is the mainstream, in fact you cant even call it radical anymore

israel can only weaken hamas as much as possible to have a bit of peace until the next round starts, thats it

https://twitter.com/RashidaTlaib/status/1720574880557539763

"from the river to the sea" is a whole lot more direct about being a call to genocide than say a phrase like "jews will not replace us"
I mean, its right there in the saying, their intent is to 'liberate' the entire geographical area between the river and the sea which is currently occupied by jews, thus inherently being a call to kill the jews. Whereas a phrase like "jews will not replace us" is more of a call to.... "coexist", as Rashida Tlaib would put it. A desire to maintain an existing demographic rather than change it by force
wonder what she thinks about "Its okay to be white"

That's disingenuous at best, the phrase has a long history and is used in different ways. This doesn't even take any digging, even the wiki lists the different interpretations and history of the phrase

Your interpretation is pretty insane to attribute to average college kids out at their latest flavor of the month parade. Gotta love the free speech types attributing implied violence to non violent speech in order to justify banning or punishing the people who use it, didn't you all just spend years whining about hate speech? What, now it's your turn?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea