Do you defend starvation as a weapon in Gaza?

Now we know where all the Jim and Tammy director/camera people went to work at.

 

So you have no problems sending weapons to Terroristland? What next? Sending diesel fuel and bags of fertilizer?

 

I don't get your point here.

We enable the genocide in Gaza as well as the humanitarian atrocities in West Bank.

Blinken has now entered some sort of resolution at the UN Security Council calling for ceasefire so that aid can be brought in at quantities that will make a difference.

I don't know the specifics yet.

 

Killing 100 people here and there is not genocide.

 

That is NOT what is happening.

 

What is happening and why do you call it genocide?

 

I have not read much of this thread.

1. Using starvation as a weapon is wrong.
2. What the Palestinians are experiencing is not genocide.
3. What the Israelis are experiencing is not genocide.
4. The Palestians need to make a meaningful peace deal and then focus on creating a country that helps people to prosper and does not cause war
5, the Israelis need to pull out of West Bank

The end.

 

OVER 25,000 Palestinian woman and children have been murdered by the military base we named "Israel" and their American fascist whores.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DDDqNN1ttgY

Here is a concert attended by 25,000 paying fans.
​

 

25,000 people is 1% of a population of over 2 million. A big stretch to call that genocide.

 

How about calling it state sanctioned mass murder?

 

Does the label really matter? It's horrible regardless. And though Hamas is to blame, Israel is too.

 

Wow it’s like they haven’t killed a single man according to you, let alone a terrorist.

So 30,000-25,000= 5,000 men killed of which, what, a tiny fraction are terrorist, right?

yep, that settles it. Israel is avoiding killing Hamas and only only killing women and children and accidentally killing men and super accidentally killing a few Hamas.

Or your numbers are just made up BS. Gee which could it be?

 

I think the answer to this question would need to be answered by the folks in Hamas. It was they who initiated a war of aggression against their neighbors. They likely should have considered how they would feed their population after they kicked off this agression. It seems entirely disingenuous that folks would blame Israel for the actions of Hamas.

 

Well that would be a lie too so why would we do that?

 

Labels matter a lot as they influence opinion, which influences politics which influence geopolitics which influences very real events.

it is thus important that we choose our words carefully because lies can have big impacts

 

Well years from now with Muslims not being able to write history books this will be just a battle. Civil War battles had upward 30,000 killed on both sides in just a week. Those are just told as being battles.

 

W#hen you bomb your neighbor, you started a war. You pay the consequences. It is up to the PEOPLE to control the terrorists. Not Israel. Since the people did not reign in terrorism, they must pay the price of war.

 

The Palestinians are courageous as the ancient Greeks, and faithful as the ancient mystics. They are Islamic, and spiritually the truer Christians of our era.

 

This is a photo from Belfast of IRA women making molokov cocktail bombs. The IRA killed over 3000. Massive bombs were detonated on mainland England . Did the UK bomb them? No. What did they do? They talked. There is now relative peace.

 

Are you suggesting that Israel never talked to the Palestinians before this?

 

Israel response to any attacks has been to use bigger bombs

 

Star Trek had an episode on a different planet where their society was sick of war and decided that they would just agree on how many people would be killed because of (fill in the blank transgression) and people would be picked at random and taken away to be eliminated, and then as a retaliation, a similar amount of people from the other side would be marched off depending on a council's agreement as to what number would be appropriate.

Your premise is that if a nation heinously kills, tortures, and rapes 2,000 innocents then the other side should do no more than that, and "maybe" 3,000 would be sufficient but surely not 4,000 or more. Why? Well, who knows? Because your leaders say so? When we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that was surely lots more than were killed at Pearl Harbor. Based on your line of reasoning, even though that ended the war, we shouldn't have done it. We should have just killed the same number and hoped that would be enough. If it wasn't, we should be braced for a further attack by Japan and respond only in kind.

 

I speak for myself. I support the IDF's attempt to demobilize Hamas.

I do think Gaza civilians are suffering and proper nutrition is one of many issues particularly with children.

The sooner Hamas is taken out the better. In the interim I support any effort to get food and help in to Gaza citizens. It is unfortunate they die because Hamas will not let them go and surrender and return the hostages.

Since most of the sources claiming Israel is starving Gaza come from Hamas script here is the other side of the claim:

https://www.aipac.org/resources/israel-humanitarian-aid-gaza

The fact that I defend Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and what it is doing with Hamas does not mean I am not critical that it must do more to protect the people of Gaza and again. I offer below criticism by the UK which does not simply blame everything on the IDF to be a fair attempt at critical analysis of the situation and I defer to it.

I do this so pro Hamas apologists on this thread do not label all we supporters of Israel in its war against Hamas as denying the food and aid issues.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5804/cmselect/cmintdev/110/report.html

If a child in Gaza suffers, no one in Israel is rejoicing or wanting this.

Myself I hate any adult or child having to suffer.

 

I am a Zionist and pro Israeli. I detest Hamas. I detest the war. I agree with you. Most people I think do but call me naive,

 

Your point is valid in that it is possible dead enemies come to peaceful co-existence and if the Irish could why not Israel and Palestinians.

However what you clearly do NOT understand is the IRA put its arms down. It gave up its weapons and said no to terrorism so that the peace talks could then start.

Finish your analogy. Israel can not talk peace when Palestinians have only terrorists demanding they be given all of Israel to turn into a Muslim state, which is the current status quo.

I have personal friends who had to leave Gaza and the West Bank precisely because they wanted peace. Hamas and Fatah put a price on their heads. Can you please understand that. The generation of Palestinians we need to reach out to their peaceful moderate Israeli allies will be killed if they return to Gaza or the West Bank. Please understand that.

I worked with Palestinians in peace networks on the West Bank. Neither of us hated each other, carried weapons or believed either had superior rights.

You do not understand them or me or peaceful Israelis or Muslims, Jews or Christians who are waiting to make peace.