Has any Palestinian strapped any Israelis to jeeps?
“The conduct of the forces in the video of the incident does not conform to the values of the IDF. The incident will be investigated and dealt with accordingly.”
Has any Palestinian strapped any Israelis to jeeps?
I don’t think any Palestinians HAVE jeeps. If we want to find out, we can check with the country in control of all electricity, water, and food into the area: they’d have written ‘jeep’ down somewhere.
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.
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.
bUh BoTh SiDeS
Has any Palestinian strapped any Israelis to jeeps?
aka IDF will do nothing
I don’t think any Palestinians HAVE jeeps. If we want to find out, we can check with the country in control of all electricity, water, and food into the area: they’d have written ‘jeep’ down somewhere.
Are you fucking kidding me?
Imagine if every Palestinian Israel killed or raped had a wikipedia page.
Not every Hamas victim does either, doesn’t change the fact that Hamas did exactly what IDF does here
But imagine if they did…
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.
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.