It makes perfect sense. It’s not constructive, effective or helping to move towards any kind of resolution of this conflict, but on a personal level, it does make sense.
I think, as far as regular people go, at this stage both sides in the conflict are primarily motivated by revenge. We can dress it all up with fancy words of occupation, injustice, national self defense or whatever your chosen flavor of ideology is in this conflict. But for regular everyday people in the region the primary reason why they want to see the other regular people die is revenge.
@chillhelm I guess. There are probably plenty of ordinary humans who empathise with other civilians there too, it’s just we don’t hear so much about those.
I knew a woman whose husband was held prisoner by the Axis during WWII Her response was to go every weekend to a POW camp of “enemy” soldiers and bring them food, chocolate etc, since they were in the same situation as her husband. That, is also part of human nature, just not the side the war monger$ like to encourage.
That is really the tragedy about the whole thing. A small warmongering minority on both sides pulls in people who really just want to live in peace and safety and have enough to eat, a roof over their head,… who are likely the vast majority on both sides.
Yeah I think so. We get told it’s about “religion” but it’s really about geopolitical interests and a transnational military industrial complex that constantly stir this stuff up and exploit religious tensions.
It is about religion in the sense that religion makes it much easier for a small number of malicious people to control a large number of people and make them do things against their own interest.
These protests were started by families of hostages who are still in Gaza. They don’t want any supplies into Gaza until all hostages are released, because they fear that most of the aid will be stolen by Hamas anyway and used to prolong the war.
Before you scoff at the source, there’s video evidence included in the article that is impossible to deny.
It should be pretty obvious that food, medical supplies and fuel are needed by fighters as well and in much larger quantities per person.
This is a difficult problem to solve. Personally, I would still send supplies though, hoping that at least some of them reach civilians who need them, but I can understand the frustration of people who are personally affected by this war. This aid unfortunately does have a not just theoretical chance of prolonging the conflict, enabling the besieged terrorist organization to hold out for longer, which in turn means more suffering not just for hostages and Israelis who only just recently have seen a reduction in rocket attacks, but also for Palestinian civilians, who are caught between a rock (IDF) and a hard place (Hamas) for as long as the fighting continues.
Here’s the moral conundrum: Let’s say we could determine with near certainty that halting aid would shorten the war, even if it resulted in a temporary increase in human suffering due to increased shortages. If the total amount of human suffering would be lower as a result, due to the war being over sooner, would it be the right moral choice, even if people end up suffering more for a brief amount of time? Think of it as a variation of the trolley problem.
Based on what surviving hostages have reported and going by the fact that medication meant for them never reached them, not much.
For as much of a bastard as Netanyahu is, you can’t fight a modern war effectively without bombs (or else you get stagnation like in Ukraine, where air defenses on both sides make use of bombers difficult to impossible) and the hostages wouldn’t be in danger of getting bombed in the first place if Hamas hadn’t abducted them from their homes and started this war.
Intent matters. The actual death toll (which we don’t actually have for Gaza - we only have Hamas reporting figures, which includes obvious lies like that hospital parking lot incident that I’m sure you remember) is actually irrelevant in assessing whether or not something is a genocide. Think about this for a second: Would an army hell-bent on committing genocide roof-knock, drop leaflets, send warnings by telephone, messenger, social media and hacked TV stations? Why bother, why give warning to an enemy (any time you warn civilians, Hamas fighters will also be able to flee or hide) if the actual goal, like you are claiming, is eradication?
Before you’re saying that this is just a smoke screen: The Israeli government clearly doesn’t care about outside appearances, as they have stated multiple times, and would bring this war to its conclusion no matter what the world is saying, as they have also stated multiple times.
Also, stagnation doesn’t mean everything stops, it means the fighting continues, it means extremely limited access for aid workers, it means chaos, it means people fleeing, it means supplies getting stolen by Hamas.
@DdCno1 just to be clear, the reason I am calling this a genocide is because it closely matches Raphael Lemkin’s definition of a genocide.
I agree with you, intent matters.
A note on the death toll though, historically Hamas health authority figures have been fairly accurate to final independently assessed death tolls. This is according to all the biggest NGOs and news agencies I trust such as MSF and BBC. Obviously there are logistical challenges and they are likely undercounting those killed in rubble.
International humanitarian NGOs are now sounding the warning about looming deaths due to secondary causes malnutrition and disease which in a deliberate man-made famine situation still count.
Would an army hell-bent on committing genocide roof-knock, drop leaflets, send warnings by telephone, messenger, social media and hacked TV stations?
This is all IDF propaganda. Even if they are doing all of these things consistently and precisely, what evidence is there that these efforts have any effect I’m reducing civilian casualties?
We’d need an honest and open accounting of casualties to check that. And the IDF will not do that.
This does not read like propaganda to me and paints a balanced picture. It shows that there is both an enormous effort to save civilians, but that from the perspective of those civilians, the process is still confusing and traumatizing. There are unfortunately no perfect solutions. At the very least, homes can be rebuilt, people cannot.
It makes no sense anyway. Hamas murdered innocent people so they want to …murder more innocent people.
It makes perfect sense. It’s not constructive, effective or helping to move towards any kind of resolution of this conflict, but on a personal level, it does make sense.
I think, as far as regular people go, at this stage both sides in the conflict are primarily motivated by revenge. We can dress it all up with fancy words of occupation, injustice, national self defense or whatever your chosen flavor of ideology is in this conflict. But for regular everyday people in the region the primary reason why they want to see the other regular people die is revenge.
With that logic doesn’t that makes hamas targeting Israel civilians makes perfect sense since they are living under colonization?
Yes, that’s how it works. Neither side are frothing-at-the-mouth insane, they’re actions make sense to them under their limited perspectives.
@chillhelm I guess. There are probably plenty of ordinary humans who empathise with other civilians there too, it’s just we don’t hear so much about those.
I knew a woman whose husband was held prisoner by the Axis during WWII Her response was to go every weekend to a POW camp of “enemy” soldiers and bring them food, chocolate etc, since they were in the same situation as her husband. That, is also part of human nature, just not the side the war monger$ like to encourage.
That is really the tragedy about the whole thing. A small warmongering minority on both sides pulls in people who really just want to live in peace and safety and have enough to eat, a roof over their head,… who are likely the vast majority on both sides.
Yeah I think so. We get told it’s about “religion” but it’s really about geopolitical interests and a transnational military industrial complex that constantly stir this stuff up and exploit religious tensions.
It is about religion in the sense that religion makes it much easier for a small number of malicious people to control a large number of people and make them do things against their own interest.
Very true.
Well put. The warmongers kill innocent people. The next of kin want revenge, and empower the warmongers on their side. And onward the circle turns.
It also doesn’t help that the warmongers control the flow of information.
These protests were started by families of hostages who are still in Gaza. They don’t want any supplies into Gaza until all hostages are released, because they fear that most of the aid will be stolen by Hamas anyway and used to prolong the war.
How the fuck is hamas prolonging the genocide, fuck outta here
What are they afraid that they’re going to throw loaves of bread and first aid kits at Israeli soldiers? Knock it the fuck off
Hamas has consistently stolen aid meant for civilians:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/gaza-aid-trucks-stolen-by-gunmen-and-looted-as-convoys-start-crossing-from-israel/
Before you scoff at the source, there’s video evidence included in the article that is impossible to deny.
It should be pretty obvious that food, medical supplies and fuel are needed by fighters as well and in much larger quantities per person.
This is a difficult problem to solve. Personally, I would still send supplies though, hoping that at least some of them reach civilians who need them, but I can understand the frustration of people who are personally affected by this war. This aid unfortunately does have a not just theoretical chance of prolonging the conflict, enabling the besieged terrorist organization to hold out for longer, which in turn means more suffering not just for hostages and Israelis who only just recently have seen a reduction in rocket attacks, but also for Palestinian civilians, who are caught between a rock (IDF) and a hard place (Hamas) for as long as the fighting continues.
Here’s the moral conundrum: Let’s say we could determine with near certainty that halting aid would shorten the war, even if it resulted in a temporary increase in human suffering due to increased shortages. If the total amount of human suffering would be lower as a result, due to the war being over sooner, would it be the right moral choice, even if people end up suffering more for a brief amount of time? Think of it as a variation of the trolley problem.
Starving the entire population, half of which are children, is an inhumane solution. If it is too effective, it becomes the final solution.
U.S. special envoy: no record of Hamas blocking or seizing aid Reuters
Article from November 4. The one I linked is from December 17.
deleted by creator
@DdCno1 I wonder what they imagine the hostages are eating.
What is happening to the hostages when they are being bombed by that psychopath Netanyahu.
Based on what surviving hostages have reported and going by the fact that medication meant for them never reached them, not much.
For as much of a bastard as Netanyahu is, you can’t fight a modern war effectively without bombs (or else you get stagnation like in Ukraine, where air defenses on both sides make use of bombers difficult to impossible) and the hostages wouldn’t be in danger of getting bombed in the first place if Hamas hadn’t abducted them from their homes and started this war.
@DdCno1 I would much rather stagnation than genocide.
At least 1.5% of the population of Gaza has been killed in under 5 months.
To put that into perspective, in the Bosnian Genocide 3% of Bosniaks were killed in a process which took over 2 years.
Intent matters. The actual death toll (which we don’t actually have for Gaza - we only have Hamas reporting figures, which includes obvious lies like that hospital parking lot incident that I’m sure you remember) is actually irrelevant in assessing whether or not something is a genocide. Think about this for a second: Would an army hell-bent on committing genocide roof-knock, drop leaflets, send warnings by telephone, messenger, social media and hacked TV stations? Why bother, why give warning to an enemy (any time you warn civilians, Hamas fighters will also be able to flee or hide) if the actual goal, like you are claiming, is eradication?
Before you’re saying that this is just a smoke screen: The Israeli government clearly doesn’t care about outside appearances, as they have stated multiple times, and would bring this war to its conclusion no matter what the world is saying, as they have also stated multiple times.
Also, stagnation doesn’t mean everything stops, it means the fighting continues, it means extremely limited access for aid workers, it means chaos, it means people fleeing, it means supplies getting stolen by Hamas.
@DdCno1 just to be clear, the reason I am calling this a genocide is because it closely matches Raphael Lemkin’s definition of a genocide.
I agree with you, intent matters.
A note on the death toll though, historically Hamas health authority figures have been fairly accurate to final independently assessed death tolls. This is according to all the biggest NGOs and news agencies I trust such as MSF and BBC. Obviously there are logistical challenges and they are likely undercounting those killed in rubble.
International humanitarian NGOs are now sounding the warning about looming deaths due to secondary causes malnutrition and disease which in a deliberate man-made famine situation still count.
This is all IDF propaganda. Even if they are doing all of these things consistently and precisely, what evidence is there that these efforts have any effect I’m reducing civilian casualties?
We’d need an honest and open accounting of casualties to check that. And the IDF will not do that.
The world must be very simple for you. Anything that doesn’t fit within your worldview is automatically labelled as propaganda. Read this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67327079
This does not read like propaganda to me and paints a balanced picture. It shows that there is both an enormous effort to save civilians, but that from the perspective of those civilians, the process is still confusing and traumatizing. There are unfortunately no perfect solutions. At the very least, homes can be rebuilt, people cannot.
Funny. You didn’t read past the first sentence of my comment.