One only has to see the differences between NATO bombing of serbian power stations vs the russians doing the same with Ukraine, or Israel killing children in gaza vs russian killing children vs the US killing afghan or Iraqi children.
NATO bombing of serbian power stations was done in response of Serbian ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, after the horrible crimes against humanity perpetrated by serbian forces in Bosnia.
"russians doing the same" is a blatant lie. What the russians are doing is a genocide.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine is pretty low on civ casualties. Look at Gaza, or the Iraq/Vietnam invasions compare numbers (civ casualties AND time it took) and then draw conclusions on the use of the word genocide.
I also would abstain from using "russians" (or USAers, or Israelis) when referring to actions of the respective govts. Keeps the discussion cleaner of generalizations wrt people that may totally not support their govt's actions.
If you watch combat footage from eastern Ukraine, you will learn that many frontline towns and villages have been completely leveled by artillery. See for example[1]. And I don't have to mention Bucha[2] and other war crimes.
The relatively low civilian casualty count isn't because "Russians are so noble", but because:
1. Frontlines are static, giving civilians plenty of time to evacuate
2. Civilians actually have where to evacuate, Ukraine is big and covered by an extremely dense air defense network. Women and children can also freely go to the EU.
3. Ukraine has received an unprecedented amount of humanitarian aid.
Villages being leveled is different from genocide. And Ukraine screeming genocide is also different from actual genocide. Genocide needs numbers and the number are not there in Ukraine's case.
> The relatively low civilian casualty count isn't because "Russians are so noble"
I was not arguing their nobility, I was saying the word genocide may have been to easily used in Ukraine's case.
Given that Russia has literally genocided huge parts of the Ukrainian population in the recent past, it's not such a far-fetched or unreasonable. There is a lot of history here that you're ignoring.
But maybe those millions of people were also not a "real genocide".
And the Jews should also calm down when people start shouting Heil Hitler.
Or the blacks when people start talking about lynchings.
At any rate, whether it is or isn't "genocide" or whether it is or isn't "low on civ casualties" isn't important. It's a stupid invasion and every single casualty is a murder. Whether you want to classify this as "genocide" is a mostly unimportant semantic matter that distracts from the real issue.
Genocide does not need numbers, genocide is defined in international law and that definition has to be met. It's currently being investigated by a number of organizations:
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine currently suffers from severe undercount.
The RF forces sieged Mariopol like a medieval city at the start of the war, creating large scale suffering. Afaik there was no water or power and people were melting ice for water.
The civilian casualties on the Ukraine war are at least 100,000+ maybe a multiple of that number.
While we're on the subject of "under-counting", there is no official count of the number of civilians killed during the US Gov's invasion of Iraq. No sense counting what you don't want to know and don't want to be accounted for? US voters / citizens certainly don't care.
Independent sources put it at 100,000+. I've randomly read 2x to 3x that but 100k+ is bad enough.
There is official count of number of civilians murdered by Soviets in 1932-1934 by hunger (Holodomor) - 7 millions as declared by Russian Duma on 02.04.2008.
However, these are adults only, because children deaths are not counted at that time. With school-age children, for which records are stored, number raises to 10.5 million. Number of under school age children died because of artificial hunger in 1932-1934 is still unknown.
I hope, this will help to calculate number of deaths in Iraq.
I am sorry but Genocide is not about actually killing people, it is about "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group", which includes "killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide)
> Russian Federation agents have taken at least 19,546 children to that country from Ukraine since 18 February 2022. Among other violations, Russian Federation citizenship is imposed on them, and they are forbidden to speak and learn the Ukrainian language or preserve their Ukrainian identity
Sorry, genocide is not bringing people to safe and allowing them school. If Putin wanted maximum death of Ukrainians he would carpet bomb big Ukrainian cities (like the US+allies did in Iraq, Vietnam, Japan, Germany, ...)
This war --as bad as it is-- is nothing close to some of the worst wars we've seen in the last 100 years.
He did carpet bomb a big Ukrainian city, Mariupol, the russians have completely destroyed it and killed most of its residents. The only reason he hasn't carpet bombed other big Ukrainian cities is because his bombers would get shot down by air defence systems.
> Genocide is about the extermination of a people.
Thus resulting a lot of civ casualties. If it's genocide is for ever up to debate. Civ casualties are usually not that debatable. Without a large number (%) of civ deaths in some place there cannot be a genocide.
It can still be genocide without murder. Things like preventing childbirth or deporting/stealing children (like what Putin is wanted for) also fall under genocide.
For the most part "mass murder" and "genocide" have a lot of overlap. But it's not the same crime.
Do you believe they bombed the theater because they were actively trying to kill Ukrainian children?
You know , people tend to believe the "other side" is so evil that they probably actually believe shit like this. That's the kind of belief that makes people think that all means justify the end and why we have wars that kill hundreds of thousands in the first place... if you saw people from the other side as just normal people like you and me you would probably understand that there's a lot more about that story that you and I will not know in a long time, if ever.
I'm not saying they are "so evil". They either support war or don't care. For many combatants to go to war to kill some Ukrainians is a way our of prison and/or poverty.
But don't say it is the war of the government. Isn't government a representation of the people? People of Russia supported invasion to Georgia in 2008, occupation of Crimea and Donbas in 2014.
russian soldiers are evil nazis, not normal people. Most of the russian population supports the invasion, destruction of Ukrainian cities and killing of Ukrainian children.
And where did you learn that? My wife is Ukrainian and knows lot of Russians and Belarussians (they're neighbours after all, and no they don't all hate each other!!), they watch each other TV shows and like mostly the same singers (they understand each other pretty well)... a lot of the biggest Ukrainian singers go to live and work in Russia (though obviously they're now being criticized heavily in Ukraine when they choose to stay). You don't seem to have any idea what you're talking about.
If you read any news in Ukraine you would know that. I'm Ukrainian and everyone in Ukraine who isn't a russian supporter shares my opinion. Some Ukrainian singers live and work in russia, most stopped going there after 2014, even more after 2022. It's you who doesn't seem to have any idea what you're talking about. Ukrainians and russians do hate each other now. russians celebrate the killing of Ukrainian civillians, and almost every Ukrainian hates them. Belarussians are different, most of the don't support russia and lukashenko.
> I'm Ukrainian and everyone in Ukraine who isn't a russian supporter shares my opinion.
When you say "everyone supports my opinions" you're basically denying people their own voice - I am in touch with Ukrainians and what you say is plain wrong - you don't need to be in Ukraine to know that. Seriously, your opinions are the kind of opinions people in the West generally view as signs of dicatorship and actually associate with Nazis and fascism.
You believe your opinions are right, everyone who is not "a russian supporter" shares them with you, and that ALL russians are nazis - when will you realize you are the problem, not the imaginary nazis both Ukrainians and Russians keep blaming everything on?
Stop making stuff up, just because your wife doesn't hate russians doesn't mean that all Ukrainians don't.
> When you say "everyone supports my opinions" you're basically denying people their own voice - I am in touch with Ukrainians and what you say is plain wrong - you don't need to be in Ukraine to know that. Seriously, your opinions are the kind of opinions people in the West generally view as signs of dicatorship and actually associate with Nazis and fascism.
I said that everyone in Ukraine supports my opinions, because I, unlike you, know what's going on in Ukraine. You have no clue about Ukraine or the opinions of Ukrainians. Some Ukrainians have relatives in russia, many have cut ties with them. I'm not denying people their own voice, just saying that almost all Ukrainians hate russians, which you would know if you lived in Ukraine.
> You believe your opinions are right, everyone who is not "a russian supporter" shares them with you, and that ALL russians are nazis - when will you realize you are the problem, not the imaginary nazis both Ukrainians and Russians keep blaming everything on?
Who doesn't believe their opinions are right? Even if you don't, that doesn't make me 'the problem'.
Why the quotes around russia supporter? A very small part of Ukrainians support russia, some even collaborate with them. I'm not claiming that everyone that doesn't share my opinions is a russia supporter, just saying that every Ukrainian that isn't a russia supporter hates russians because of the oppression and murder of Ukrainians by russia for many centuries and the war raging right now. There is nothing fascist about stating the facts.
Where did I say that ALL russians are nazis? I said that only about russian soldiers.
How am I the problem? Did I invade Ukraine? Did I kill tens to hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians? Did I commit horrific war crimes? I haven't done anything to blame me for the war.
Ukrainians, unlike russians, don't blame anything on 'imaginary' nazis.
They blame the war on the russians.
The russians support the invasion, as they supported the war in Georgia, occupation of Crimea and the war in Donbass.
russia is a fascist dictatorship, you need to be a brainwashed russian supporter to disagree with that.
Don't bother. Seriously. You won't convince anyone irrational enough to generalize hundreds of thousands of people into "russian soldiers are evil nazis, not normal people" with rational arguments. The only way to convince such people (that peace is better than killing) is to subject them to long-term, consistent propaganda, but... The only forces capable of doing that are interested in pretty much exactly the opposite outcome.
War is bad. Killing people, whoever they are, is wrong - and all people are just regular humans. There are no monsters, no "evil nazis" in reality, outside of fiction and propaganda. However, understanding that takes effort, and runs counter to many of the incentives built into human psychology.
Like you, I believe there's "a lot more to the story." I feel so helpless, knowing that I have no choice but to sit and watch all the atrocities happening all around the world because almost nobody is interested in stopping them. People who happily support the killing (of the "other side" only, of course) are the biggest reason this keeps happening. Since they're impossible to convince, these things are bound to continue.
There really isn't more to the story. russia has been oppressing and killing Ukrainians since the creation of the russian empire. They have only stopped for a brief period after the fall of the USSR. You are claiming there are no nazis. So Nazi Germany was fiction? russians are nazis, just look on the internet. Monsters do exist - war criminals, mass murderers, brutal dictators. Not all people are regular humans and some need to be punished for their evil actions. Where did you get this unicorns pooping rainbows bullshit? russians, not Ukrainians started this war and happily support the killing of the other side. They are the reason this keeps happening.
> Where did you get this unicorns pooping rainbows bullshit?
It's called "humanism," and it's not bullshit. It mostly says that killing people is wrong. Of course, you think otherwise, so it might seem like bullshit to you.
EDIT:
> So Nazi Germany was fiction?
No. The notion that all soldiers fighting on the Germany side in WW2 were monsters is, however. If the world subscribed to your ideology, there'd be a catacomb of millions buried under Nurnberg (there's no such thing, if you wondered).
> No. The notion that all soldiers fighting on the Germany side in WW2 were monsters is, however. If the world subscribed to your ideology, there'd be a catacomb of millions buried under Nurnberg (there's no such thing, if you wondered).
This is known as "the clean Wehrmacht myth", a belief that somehow, somewhere in the German military, there were units that did not have the blood of innocents on their hands. At least in Germany, that myth was shattered by an influential exhibition in the 1990s that showcased photos explicitly selected to display atrocities that were not committed by special squads in death camps hidden away in the woods, but out in the public, by regular units, on the streets and roads of cities and villages across Europe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_clean_Wehrmacht
And despite that, there indeed is no catacomb beneath Nürnberg. Virtually all German war criminals received no punishment whatsoever. Out of millions of people involved in the extermination of Jews and other crimes against peoples on occupied territories, only 6656 were ever convicted in Germany, and the vast majority received a sentence of 2 years of imprisonment or less. Only 164 were convicted of murder, yet millions had died. https://www.timesofisrael.com/historian-examines-germanys-mi...
I couldn't believe in the "clean Wehrmacht" myth even if I wanted to. I'm still not convinced all the Wehrmacht soldiers were inherently bad people or monsters. I'm not defending them - what they did across Europe, what led to millions of graves, was wrong. What I'm cautious about, though, is the hatred and emotional judgment that leads to more, not less, bloodshed.
The lack of a catacomb is good. The absence of any punishment for people outside those 7k convicted, however, is not.
> It's called "humanism," and it's not bullshit. It mostly says that killing people is wrong. Of course, you think otherwise, so it might seem like bullshit to you.
Where did I say that killing people is right? War criminals should be executed for their actions, but I'm not saying that every russian should be killed.
You are saying that there are no evil people and that everyone is a regular human. Then what about concentration camp commandants, mass murderers, war criminals? Do you think they are no worse than normal people, and deserve to live a good life? Then what you're saying is definitely bullshit.
> The notion that all soldiers fighting on the Germany side in WW2 were monsters is, however. If the world subscribed to your ideology, there'd be a catacomb of millions buried under Nurnberg (there's no such thing, if you wondered).
Where did I say that all soldiers fighting for Germany in WW2 were monsters?
I invoked Nazi Germany because you said there are no nazis and monsters and everyone is a regular human.
> Why is Russian army staffed by "evil nazis" exclusively, while actual Nazi army... wasn't?
What do you mean by 'actual'? Just because the russian ruling party aren't calling themselves National-Socialists doesn't mean they aren't 'actual' nazis. Search for "rashism". russia is even more evil than Nazi Germany because Germany had one very bad episode in 1933-1945, while russia has been committing atrocities, oppressing and occupying ever since the Grand Duchy of Moscow.
I mean the historical Nazis from WW2. Again: you admitted that not all Wehrmacht soldiers were evil, monsters, or even Nazis (other than nominally). But, in your words, all soldiers fighting for the Russian Federation right now in their aggression on Ukraine - are all bad people.
I'm asking, why do you agree to cut some slack for the former but are unwilling to do so for the latter?
Other than the latter being involved with you, personally, destroying your country and killing your people right now - of course. My grandpa lost 5 of his siblings to Germans in WW2 - they were civilians, killed because his uncle was a butcher, and happened to have a knife with him when they met German soldiers. It made him hate Germans, all of them, no exceptions, and I'm not surprised it turned out like that. He kept this hatred (only second to his hatred of Jews) to the very end of his life, and that's understandable, but it was irrational. I don't believe some Hans or Johann deserves to be hated 70 years later because of what happened back then. Similarly, dehumanizing and demonizing the whole Russian military (EDIT: or even the whole nation), including those poor convicts that supposedly die in droves as fodder for "human wave" tactics, is not rational now. I understand that hatred can be an emotional support for affected individuals, but it doesn't help the situation; instead, it makes it worse.
> Again: you admitted that not all Wehrmacht soldiers were evil, monsters, or even Nazis (other than nominally).
I mostly meant that I don't think all of them should have been executed, 18 million Germans served in the Wehrmacht.
> I don't believe some Hans or Johann deserves to be hated 70 years later because of what happened back then.
The russians have been oppressing and killing Ukrainians for over 300 years, 1991-2014 was just a small pause. Nazi Germany, on the other hand, existed for only 12 years, and Germany is very different now, and most soldiers that fought in WW2 are dead. russians keep doing horrible things since a very long time ago and hating them is completely justified until russia is denazified and becomes a normal country. People like Ivan the Terrible, stalin, putin wouldn't keep coming to power if something wasn't very wrong with the russian nation, and by the way russia consists of many different nations that were subjugated by muscovites. russia has a much longer history of pure evil and that's why I consider most russians evil. While killing all of them is wrong, they should be occupied and reeducated, and never allowed to have a large military and nukes ever again. Given the low population density of russia, most of its sparsely populated lands should be shared between all countries to provide living space for billions of people that isn't affected by global warming.
> The russians have been oppressing and killing Ukrainians for over 300 years
I know - and they did the same here, in Poland. We've lost our sovereignty, our culture was suppressed for centuries, and then we lost our elites in mass killings under Stalin again. I know, and believe me - I don't love Russians, nor do I support them.
They are culturally closer to the Mongol hordes of Genghis Khan than to Europeans. Not that Europeans have no skeletons in their closets, esp. regarding the colonies and what they did to Africa - but the Russian Empire and its later incarnations did a lot of bad things. I agree with that.
But, I still don't want to classify all of them as "evil". They think differently, have different values, and are brought up with particular ideology that disregards things like human rights or democracy. They don't know any better, and it's not their fault they were born into such a culture or society. You don't get to choose where you're born!
Still, I understand your point of view. I disagree with forcefully re-educating and assimilating them - that's precisely what they did to us for centuries, and that's wrong. But, as long as we agree that:
> While killing all of them is wrong
We can talk, discuss, and find some common ground. What I'm against is blind rage, blanket hatred, and taking revenge just for the sake of it. But rationally, Russians, as they currently are, pose a real threat, and we need to contain that threat somehow. We should be able to do so without killing and even more bloodshed. At least, that's what I hope for.
I'll repeat: I think most Russians, even the soldiers, are ordinary people. It's just that normal people, when put in certain circumstances (like the famous prison experiment), tend to do evil things. You and me, we'd probably do those things too, had we lived the way Russians live. Let's talk about shaping the circumstances (also through re-educating them, if possible, without a threat of physical violence) so that they can live their lives in ways that don't threaten their neighbors - ways that don't bring the worst of human nature to the front.
In any case, no killing, please. Other than that, though, all options should be on the table (even if I disagree with some).
> The Germans were forcefully re-educated after WW2, do you also disagree with that?
No. But that wasn't under gunpoint, was it? The Allies left quickly, at least in the West, and local authorities enforced the re-education. Similarly, Japan got a new constitution, and the occupation there ended quickly. The DDR/East Germany was different - the occupation there ended basically in 1991, after the fall of the USSR. I'd favor the Marshal plan-like solution rather than the Soviet model.
> The russian leadership and war criminals will have to be killed, and they fully deserve it.
Maybe they deserve it, but killing them is still beyond what I'd consider moral. Make them work in a mine for the rest of their lives, make sure they get no special treatment, and let them die when their time comes.
War criminals are OK to be killed, but only if captured during the war. I'm not too fond of it, but I understand that martial law must be different from peacetime law. If you catch them after the war is won, I'm against killing them. Again, a lifetime of hard labor in a mine would be better than spilling even more blood.
> Do you believe they bombed the theater because they were actively trying to kill Ukrainian children?
Yes. They are also actively bombing clinics (including the maternity ward in Mariupol too, look it up) and they have done that in Syria too. It's pretty well documented. They are evil, but more than that, it's a strategy.
They are currently also bombing civilian areas, fully aware that they are civilian areas.
There might be some normal people in Russia, but certainly the heads of the army, Putin and his inner circle are not normal, and they are doing this.
> They are currently also bombing civilian areas, fully aware that they are civilian areas.
They might be "fully aware" that those areas are used by the "enemy" to stockpile materiel and gather personnel. That would make those areas legitimate targets. Can you prove a) there were no military targets there, or b) the attackers were "aware" there were no military targets there? I can't - nobody can. That's why when you allow a war to happen, we've all lost already. Everything after that is just choosing sides and framing events to align with your expectations/convictions. I don't like that because it distracts from the fundamental problem: that war and killing are just wrong, no matter who does it and how.
> They might be "fully aware" that those areas are used by the "enemy" to stockpile materiel and gather personnel.
You are approaching this from the wrong end. People like doctors or firefighters are multipliers, that is, they make the whole group stronger by a disproportional amount. A doctor can aid themselves and others with above average effectiveness. The same applies to firefighters. A professional firefighter is far more effective in putting out fires, removing debris, and saving people than an untrained civilian. Rationally it makes perfect sense to prioritize them in targeting, as Russians have done. By shooting at field hospitals or doing double-tap missile attacks on cities (first hit a crowded shopping center, and then send another missile 30 min later to hit first responders), you can murder doctors, paramedics and firefighters and harm the whole group by a disproportional amount.
Such perfect rationality combined with utter lack of humanity is why most people would call it pure evil.
Thanks. I was thinking more about the guy who actually put in the coordinates and pressed the button, and whether they were aware of what their action meant. I kind of forgot about the ones who gave the order and were aware of the whole picture. I think, if anyone, these are the people who deserve the hatred, and should be put on trial, definitely.
Good examples with hospitals. Even if there is a personnel in the hospital it is still a war crime to target it.
Russian army is full of war criminals(some of them have been drafter directly from prisons), they simply don't care about crimes. And that is true because international community also don't care, there is no enforcement.
Mass killing of civilians? It is ok for Russians.
Invasion into neighboring country? It is ok for Russians.
Destroying grain storage to cause price spikes and food instability in Africa? It is ok for Russians.
Piracy on the Black Sea? It is ok for Russians.
Blowing ammunition depots in Europe Union? It is ok for Russians.
And list goes on, but nobody cares if oil is flowing.
I am not going to prove anything to you. It's very well publicly documented, within 5 minutes of googling you can see hundreds of cases of russians targeting civilian infrastructure and civilians themselves. The only way you can deny it's happenning is if you decline to believe all of those cases, in which case there is no way you will believe anything anyone writes about the subject.
> the attackers were "aware" there were no military targets there? I can't - nobody can.
Except for obviously targeting civilians, they were for a period of time also targeting grain depots and even quite open about that, thus exposing your lie. A grain depot is not a military target unless the aim of the military operation is starving civilian population, which again is a crime against humanity.
Just look at the facts. russians aren't bombing civillian areas because they are legitimate targets, but because they want to and are encouraged to kill as many civillians as possible. How do you explain Bucha? Were the civillians who were shot also 'legitimate targets'? It's not 'choosing sides' and 'framing events', russia started this war and russia is the bad guy in this war. Why does anyone have to prove anything to you? It won't convince you to stop supporting russia anyway.
> but because they want to and are encouraged to kill as many civillians as possible?
How do you know that? Link please.
> it won't convince you to stop supporting russia anyway.
Exactly this. I'm saying that killing people is wrong and war shouldn't happen, and you're telling me I'm supporting Russia. That's precisely the level of irrationality I was talking about, thanks for demonstrating it.
2) Number of civilian causalities is unknown, because part of territory is under occupation. However, excavation of mass-graves on liberated territories shows that Russians are ready to kill few percents of population. [2]
3) Ukrainian air defense is in much better shape now, so hundreds of Russians missiles are shot in flight. Russians are bombing civilians in cities with cassette bombs from the start of war[3], so low numbers of causalities is caused by good defense, not by good will of terrorist state which performs genocide of Ukrainians right now.
Hamas is using civilians as human shields pretty much literally. They set this war up so that there is as much civilian casualties as possible on their side to claim it's a genocide. In this particular case, Hamas has a written constitution claiming the destruction of Israel and the jewish people ; Hamas ARE the genociders, despite being the weak army in this war.
Ukraine is NOT using its population as human shields. There is no evidence of that. So every civil casualties that Russian inflicts on Ukrainians (which includes destroying infrastructure, sieging cities and deporting children, among other things like what happened in Butcha) is deliberate.
To open: I am not apologising for what Hamas has done at all. I think their actions are revolting. Whatever your view of the history of the region, the aim to eliminate Israel as a Jewish state is unrealistic, extreme and counterproductive.
Nonetheless, I do find the claim they are using human shields as interesting.
Whatever you think of Hamas' aims and methods (and I strongly disapprove of both), Palestinians engaged in conflict are by necessity fighting a guerrilla war against an occupying power. No, Israel is not in direct control of Gaza -- but it does have the capacity to use overwhelming force against any part of it, so it might as well be for the purposes of fighting a war.
Let's assume we are not pacifists and we think armed struggle is _sometimes_ justified (as do both the US and Israel). From the perspective of someone who viewed the establishment of Israel as illegitimate, and the occupation of Gaza unlawful, and Israel's action in Gaza and the West Bank as immoral, what would be the right course of action here?
From that perspective it might seem reasonable to plan and carry out sabotage against Israeli forces (I know that is not all Hamas have done -- they have also murdered civilians, but this is irrelevant to this argument).
There were many resistance movements in the 20th century that are now approved-of by Israel and allies. Was it illegitimate for French resistance fighters (for example) to plan attacks from civilian villages and hide weapons in farmhouses etc? This accusation of using human shields (which predates the current conflict) sometimes strikes me is part of a process to 'other' the Palestinian cause and render it a priori illegitimate, which does't help anyone.
Edit: I recognise this post could upset some people at the moment. It's really not my intention. It's posed as a genuine question and something for us all to reflect on. I might be wrong/misguided but interested to discuss.
It does however have a complete blockade on Gaza, and has done for decades. It also has control over a signifiant amount of territory inside the wall -- get too close and you get shot.
Gaza is on the sea, but you can't import water, fuel, food etc from the sea because Israel will sink any boat trying to.
It's bogus to compare french resistance to Hamas. French resistants had no intention of destroying Germany or killing all germans. If anything, the german military were the one committing a genocide (albeit not against the french I can give you that).
All politicians leaders of Palestinian people have eventually refused a 2-states solution. Israël does recognize a few groups as valid diplomatic partners but not Hamas, who is in charge right now. And yes that will lead to a lot of harsh suffering for Palestinian people, partly/mostly because of the way Hamas has handled things.
Note that I'm not downplaying what Israël has done in the region so far, and I'm not giving them excuses ; they do what they think is best for their security, rightfully or wrongfully, given that their neighbour is lead by a terrorist group. I'm not sure how I would react as a civilian or a leader of either country and I would certainly not advise anything to anyone. But clearly Hamas is the agressor just like Russia is the agressor in Ukraine (and both have intention of destroying not only the state but also the people).
I agree in part. But my question was basically this: when Hamas is eliminated and less extreme groups come to power, but are still committed to armed struggle … how should they proceed? Would it be legitimate to use guerilla tactics like the French resistance?
I have no idea. I guess Palestinians need something like the next Arafat, who actually commits to a 2-states solution. Or whatever leading group that is non-terrorist and that Israël feels safe negotiating with (there are a few). I feel that would be the best solution for most people involved.
That is, if and when Hamas is eradicated, which is a big if. A war with Iran isn't out of the question. Thing is Hamas represents like 35% of votes ? It's both a lot and very little. Maybe 10% of those 35% would actually be ok to take an assault weapon and resist. Meaning the vast majority would probably be ok to negotiate even a mediocre deal but owning their land and borders ? Can we even make a forecast like this ?
Edit : Bottom line, Palestinians will obviously and sadly be in a terrible position to negotiate, if and when that happens...
The problem Israel has is that negotiating with some people they select to make a deal won’t make other people think it’s right and accept it.
You need far fewer than 10% if a population to cause havoc for decades to come. I’m not condoning it, but the reality is that unless settlements are moved and Israel takes some bitter medicine this will reoccur in 10 years time when the next round of radicalised people come of age.
Remember, Netanyahu had been actively using Hamas as a way to divide the Palestinians and make 2 state solution less likely. the approach of Israel over the past 20 years doesn’t make the attacks right or justify them, but it made them more likely because it has humiliated a large enough population living very close to them and left them with no other effective options beyond nonviolent resistance. I wish they had chosen that, but it’s easier to say than live with.
I've so far only seen acquisitions of Hamas using human shields. One could argue the hostages are humans shields, but (a) IDF bombs Gaza regardless, (b) they are not prominently shown (as the IDF documentedly did), and (c) at least some of them survived and were traded for palestinians (that were often held without trial, so could we call them "hostages" as well?).
Isreal has been trying to keep their morals for decades using defensive measures. They constructed probaby best in the world air defense systems to protect their civilians daily. They could just send one rocket for one they were targetted by instead and Gaza would be inhabitable decades ago. So when they were rewarded for their restraint on 7 Oct with savagery I'm not really surprised that huge part of the world gives them now blank checkque to do what they believe they need to. Not to mention that what Putin did to Ukrainie softened the morals of people to "it's ok if it's for the right reasons".
Missing from your narrative is the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israeli settlers. The settlers are harassing and seizing land from Palestinians. Those settlers are protected by the Israeli Defense Forces. All of this is well documented and are repeatedly criticised by many well reputable human rights organisations.
So, no, it's not restrain that is rewarded by these savage attacks.
And while I condemn the terrorist attacks on innocent civilians by Hamas, we should not pretend they came out of a vacuum, or that the state of Israel is a pure peace loving innocent victim in all this.
No, exactly. That is why I wrote "I condemn the terrorist attacks on innocent civilians by Hamas". But my comment was an answer praise of Israel's constraint, like Israel was completely innocent in this conflict.
And the following two paragraphs seems to be incomprehensible to many:
Israel is an apartheid state. Palestines have the right to resist that oppression. Hamas (or any Palestine organisation) has no right to attack innocent civilians.
Hamas is a terror organisation. Israel has the right to defend itself. Israel has no right to attack innocent civilians.
I agree that death of any innocent civilian is regrettable but I question that all Palestinian citizens are innocent. Some of them fully support Hamas and worked with Hamas and for Hamas and would like to see all Jews dead just as much as Hamas and do everything in their power so that nobody can tell apart innocent civilian from a guilty one or from Hamas. I also question who's fault is it that these innocent civilians die. If a murderer is hiding between regular people shooting at cops who hunt him and at the people as well and cops try to stop him and accidentally shoot some of other people as well in the messy situation the blame is heavily on the murderer himself and very slightly on the police who undoubtedly did the right thing, were just a bit bad on technical implementation, though as good as they could be, given the circumstances.
I don't think all Palestinians are innocent. I know there are Israelis that are war criminals. None of those facts are excuses to kill Palestinians or Israeli indiscriminately. Letting people die just because they happen to belong to a certain ethnical group is plain racism.
Israel has long passed a scale of the killing that could be explained as "collateral damage".
"the civilian death toll as of 20 November is 16,413, with nearly 34,000 injured. This would mean one in every 142 Palestinian civilians killed in a month and a half."
"With an estimated 70% of the dead being women and children – and many of the slain men unlikely to have been combatants "
There's surely a lot of evil being done, but I'm not entirely convinced by the article about civilian losses. 42% are children (compared to 6% in Ukraine, 8.6% in Iraq and 10% in Syria). How could an attacker ever achieve that even they tried?
If those atypical numbers are true it shows that defenders are not protecting their children like any sane population would but rather place them in obvious military targets to turn them into martyrs.
Personally I believe that those numbers should be treated as indication that they are not accurate. Author of the article prefers to take them as a proof of unique evilness of Israel.
Gaza’s population is very young, so these numbers reflect the demographics. If anything, it shows that Israel is indiscriminate in its killing in Gaza. Bombs tend to be that way.
But of course, we don’t know what and who to trust. Maybe we should ask why Israel is suppressing any reporting from the strip if they are interested in that the world gets to know the truth about what is happening there.
Population of Syria is nearly just as young. I don't see anything to justify 4 times as high children death percentage there.
I think reporters are there, after all they are getting killed too. Again I can't blame Israel for trying to keep repoters away since their deaths are very impactful and also since Palestinians have a huge history of faking deaths and injuries for reporting purposes. Maybe history is the wrong word because there are cases of this even as recent as last hostage-prisoner exchange.
So the fighters in Syria are more discriminatory when they kill than the IDF.
It’s a well known fact that Israel is limiting information coming out from Gaza. If all the reports about their indiscriminate killings were false, wouldn’t it be in their interest if more independent reporters were there, not fewer?
You have already made up your mind, and no evidence will ever make you change your mind. You are trying to explain away all the evidence, and when you can’t, you’ll just say it is lies created by Hamas.
Well that appears to demonstrate that Hamas works and prevents even greater harm than the harm carried out by Hamas. Probably not a message Israel wants to send.
It's not ridiculous. Your statement reads as "I condemn it, but they really had it coming", which a reasonable person could understand to mean "I don't really condemn it".
Only if you read it in complete isolation. It was an answer to someone who praised Israel for its restraint, like Israel was this pure white dove in the region
Here I know it get too complicated for many: I admit, Israel had something coming. I don't support attacks on civilians. Those two statements can be simultaneously true.
Israel is an apartheid state. Hamas is a terror organisation, I don't agree with the actions of Israel. I don't agree with the actions of Hamas. I think Palestines have the right to resist. I don't think anyone, Hamas or Israel, has the right to attack innocent civilians.
> If your land was occupied by an invading force armed and financed by the US and its allies would you sit back and do nothing while that force murdered your people and stole your property, or would you have done exactly what Hamas did on October the 7th?
No, I would have accepted one of the many peace proposals the other side offered.
Regardless, your framing of how there are only two binary options – (1) doing nothing to advance my political goals, or (2) resorting to the most savage terrorism imaginable – and no other options between them is appalling and telling.
Israel is a state established by UN resolution.
If you really want to blame someone you can blame the British. The British incidentally also promised a Palestinian state to the Palestinians and it was provisioned in the resolution but the Palestinians rejected it.
However, if we really were to do this comparison. The Israelis have have been way to nice. The Palestinians have been on the loosing side of 4-5 wars - its unprecedented. To the victor goes the spoils, thats how it is in the real world.
If there is cause for a Palestinian state, then there is also cause for a Jewish state. Problem is the Palestinians rejects this notion and want the Jewish state gone.
Yes, some Palestinians were displaced, even more Jews were displaced at the same time. Even by total numbers, which is hard, since Jews are always a minority and even if you don't count European Jews and just look at the surrounding countries.
One injustice doesn't excuse the other, but people need to move on. Germans did need to part with land as well.
The stolen property story would need some correcting here.
If you're seriously suggesting that attacking unarmed civilians intentionally, killing parents in front of their children and then kidnapping the children, slaughtering defenseless party-goers, etc. is what I any resistance movement would do, that's ridiculous. If Hamas would only have attacked military targets, there would be no legitimacy to Israel's actions. However, what actually happened was that they attacked plenty of civilian targets, in a premeditated fashion, in areas that are recognized internationally to be part of Israel.
Something being inevitable is different from it being justified.
Hamas’ and Palestinian Jihad’s violence is a predictable response to Israel’s abandonment of two-party talks and its right wing’s ascendency within its politics. That doesn’t justify gunning down kids at a concert.
Similarly, the IDF levelling much of Gaza in retribution was a predictable repercussion of killing Israeli civilians, including children. That doesn’t make their deaths fair.
> do you have full rights to complain about what you made inevitable happening?
No, it undermines the complaint’s legitimacy.
That doesn’t mean we must be unsympathetic; but it is a factor. Also, these decisions are often made by individuals within groups. Collective punishment is immoral. It’s also quite likely to produce blowback.
Putin could do the same to half of Europe, eh. The fact that he doesn't, doesn't mean his actions are justified. Not applying overwhelming force doesn't mean that applying any other type of force is justified.
> Isreal has been trying to keep their morals for decades
There are no morals left, in that conflict, since the 1982 mass murder of thousands of Lebanese civilians in Beirut at the very least - if not earlier. Both sides have happily displayed the worst in human nature, multiple times, over the last 70 years.
> what Putin did to Ukrainie softened the morals of people to "it's ok if it's for the right reasons".
Again, that's hardly new. From Vietnam to Desert Storm to Afghanistan, significant chunks of any public opinion will determine it's ok to apply violence. That doesn't mean it's morally justified - morals are determined in ways that go beyond counting how many individuals are pro or against something.
This is not a "both sides" issue. Thought experiment for you.
Q: What would happen today if Hamas and supporters permanently gave up all their weapons and surrendered? A: Israel would immediately stop any wartime action.
Q: What would happen today if Israel gave up it's defenses and military, took down the borders? A: Iran and Hamas would kill every last Jew in Israel. They have to, it is their charter.
Also, how many Jews and Christians are living in Gaza openly vs Israel? What would happen to them in the above?
Christian have been living in Gaza and West banks for the last 2000 years… (and a Church was bombed in Gaza killing 18 Christians). In fact the number of Christian has only started to decrease for the last 70 years as they suffer the exact same treatment as Muslims.
Yes that's exactly what happened in the west bank. Once they stopped fighting, they were left alone! Oh wait no, it just led to massive colonial projects backed by the Israeli government. Oopsie!
That's an odd question. Obviously I'd rather live in the more peaceful side, but that has nothing to do with anything. If you had to chose between living in nazi occupied Paris and Stalingrad, which one would you chose? Does that mean that the Russians made a bad choice resisting the invaders?
For some people, living comfortably isn't the most important thing they can have. Not getting conquered, invaded, or literally colonized is a good thing. Don't you agree?
If Israel wants peace, it shouldn't push for massive colonization efforts and shouldn't use its army to back any colonist living in the Westbank when an armed group finally decides to lay down arms.
If psychopathy is the only way for a group to prevent its own annihilation (whether it happens now or slowly), you will almost always get psychopathic behavior. That's true for everyone, hell in fact even Israel has that embedded in it's very own defense strategy with the Samson option. Which makes the Israeli side even less credible
> Not getting conquered, invaded, or literally colonized is a good thing. Don't you agree?
Actually I don't. It depends on the circumstances and the price. Sometimes getting colonized is the best outcome possible. Especially if the alternative is getting wiped out by way stronger opponent.
US colonized large part of Mexico. Are people there better or worse because of that?
> Especially if the alternative is getting wiped out by way stronger opponent.
That's a personal judgement which fundamentally contradicts the populations' rights to self-determination, i.e. the basis of international law since WWI (famously enshrined by Woodrow Wilson, among others). It's the basis for US support for the independence of Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine, Taiwan, etc - all countries threatened by a "way stronger opponent" claiming their territory. US attitudes to Israel are fundamentally contradictory of pretty much all fundamental principles guiding US foreign policies for more than 100 years, they are simply baffling from the outside.
> US colonized large part of Mexico. Are people there better or worse because of that?
Considering the local population at the time (which was itself not even indigenous) was often displaced, I'd say people were worse off. The US also colonized the entirety of Native American land, and people there are definitely worse off. Your principle simply doesn't stand up to logical examination.
Are the people who are descendants of the Mexican citizens who survived the ordeal and now are US citizens better off than current Mexican citizens or not?
As for Poland and Baltic states it has nothing to do with any principles. It's about US weakening Russia. If US didn't have a business in that those countries would have zero support for their aspirations for independence. And they wouldn't be better off under the Russian rule because I'm not claiming it's always the case just it's sometimes the case. And only when you are subdued by more civisationally advanced country.
> I'm not claiming it's always the case just it's sometimes the case
Lol, that's a solid foundation for a logical argument. "Sometimes maybe good, sometimes maybe shit", is a football-manager level of philosophy...
In the end, if we cannot build a coherent foreign policy based on solid humanitarian principles in the third millennium, what hope do we have to survive as a species? If might makes right, sooner or later we'll just nuke each other.
Oh and btw, your lovely american-mexican war reintroduced slavery to slavery-free territories, and was a great success for non-native populations. Colonization tends to be good for colonizers rather than the colonized, unsurprisingly. Obviously this is great, if one is among the colons.
> if we cannot build a coherent foreign policy based on solid humanitarian principles in the third millennium, what hope do we have to survive as a species?
Apparently we can't do that since we are keeping protected a group of people that want to have specific ethnicity dead so much that they put it into their constitution. I'm all for harmonic and humanitarian future, but to ever hope achieving that sworn murderers must be subdued.
> "Sometimes maybe good, sometimes maybe shit", is a football-manager level of philosophy...
But notice it's a practical philosophy that reflects reality. Wishing very hard that it wasn't exactly true won't change it.
> Colonization tends to be good for colonizers rather than the colonized, unsurprisingly.
Why do the Indians own more property in London than the British? Why the British are now a minority in their own capital? Could it ever have happened if UK didn't go on a colonization spree a while ago? In the long run being conquered sometimes brings insane benefits. Circling back to the topic I believe Palestinians would get immense benefits in the long run for laying down arms and joining the Israelis on their terms.
Those "sworn murderers" would be a tiny minority with no support, like any openly-racist group in most societies, if the mainstream wasn't so openly discriminated against by the same folks the "murderers" purposely hate.
Most armed movements in contested territories are historically overcome not by "subduing", but by actually addressing the grievances of the mainstream population who helps them. Look at Northern Ireland: the IRA was never defeated by military means, but they were engaged politically to solve the mainstream grievances that were well-founded: removing most anti-catholic discrimination across society, allowing free movement across the Irish border, and allowing each person to define themselves as Irish if they wanted to (rather than British). Until Israel takes a serious integrationist approach that removes its apartheid-style structures, the mainstream in Gaza will continue to support armed resistance, because they have nothing to lose from doing so and nothing to gain from not doing so.
> notice it's a practical philosophy
No, it's just fatalistic shortsightedness. If you can't imagine a better world, obviously you can't build it.
> Why do the Indians own more property in London than the British?
Because they resisted their occupation, reclaimed their immense land and resources, and fought to get back on a level playing-field. Definitely not because they accepted white-man rule!
(And if you claim that living in London is something to crave, man, you've probably never been there for more than a week :)
Mhmmm, I get what you are saying. And I even agree on a personal level. But I still think that there is a double standard as to who seems to be allowed to use violence in those cases. It's fine to even disagree with Palestinians, and I also understand that Israel has a right to exist at this point.
But the issue is when the west supports fully and unconditionally one side but condemns another for doing the same. It generates alienation and resentment especially when we try to rationalize that support and morally justify it, when in reality we just don't care when our side does it.
Which again, I understand, but the sugar coating is what triggers me.
I think Isreal wasn't given free pass ever. And now, only after it suffered worse atrocity ever, its free pass only lasted few weeks for most people. There's a huge disproportion of strength there and it's natural to root for a little guy. But when you look closer at the conflict and motivations of its participants it's easier. Because one side wants to have peace for itself to thrive and the other wants them dead and gone and it's not shy about advertising that intention at any opportunity.
Palestinians have a right to exist and to defend themselves but what they were doing with crude rockets and attacks wasn't a defence. It was an attempt at genocide. And people only fail to recognize it at such because it was so inept due to Israel defensive power.
Is that why it immediately started colonizing it's neighbor when it could get away with it (as in, when it didn't cost too much to keep the colonies secure)? Also, what other country in the world is allowed to literally push settlements outside of its territory, and then slowly conquer said settlements? Actually,which other country it allowed to colonize anything without international condemnation?
In another country? Probably there's none. In their own country, on territories claimed by some minority as their own? I bet there's a few at least. Something in Azerbaijan for sure.
It's not "their country", nobody (and I mean nobody) recognizes Gaza and West Bank as part of Israel. You could get away with "in their colonies", but then your argument would fall apart again.
Those answers are preposterous and your argument is laughable. This is indeed a "both sides" issue, because otherwise it wouldn't have remained a hot conflict after 70 years. There are legitimate and now multi-generational grievances on both sides, that are really difficult to recompose. You can't engage with simplistic attitudes if you want to be intellectually honest.
You don't like the argument because you know it to be true. The exception is the settlements in the West Bank, but those began after extremism in Israel rose considerably. That is a severe problem, but if people excuse terrorism as resistance, the same would apply here.
As others mentioned, your argument is fundamentally contradicted by facts.
The problem is that, without serious ideological engagement, neither side will ever stop. The current state of play is the failure of the non-solution that is "Two States", aka "Israel and bantustans". Bantustans have historically been unsustainable for any government that tried to implement them.
That's one hell of an exception lol. The only exception being a blatant disregard for Palestinian sovereignty, and proof that Palestinians will never be left alone even if they'd stop fighting (which is mostly the case in the west bank, compared to Gaza) as Israel is clearly seeking their entire territory, if it is is an exception, still disproves your entire point.
War is rarely about morals. But if they did drop them, we would be talking about casualties 20-30 times higher.
This isn't about morals, since that would demand that every death is one too many. Killing just as many Palestinians as Jews were killed would be a fundamentally unmoral justification as well.
I think there is different expectation towards Israel, every country would have reacted to an attack like it happend to it and I don't see an alternative to topple the regime in Gaza.
The blockade of essentials is questionable, if done for an extended time. The previous blockade of goods wasn't though, it was requested by the PA and Egypt as well. Arguably it wasn't thorough enough.
That's funny because to me, there's so much more leniency towards Israel. Blockading an entire city for almost two decades, and controlling almost every external aspect of its life while also openly and proudly colonizing the west bank with 0 repercussions is something only Israel can get away with. Bombing a city into rubbles with 0 official international condemnation from the west is also a thing only Israel can do.
Israel withdrew from Gaza and a requirement was a blockade of weapons and material that could be weaponized. That was also demanded by the PA and Egypt for obvious reasons.
> Bombing a city into rubbles with 0 official international condemnation from the west is also a thing only Israel can do.
There's plenty to criticize Israel for, but this isn't one of them. If Tijuana started sending terrorists over the border to San Diego, Mexico elected members of a known terrorist organization to public office and started a campaign to kick the US out of California "from the colorado to the sea?" and staged an attack on civilians the US would suddenly have a couple more territories and LockMart Grumman Atomics stock would skyrocket. The same applies for any other neighbor.
I think if Tijuana was under military and civilian blockade for 2 decades, with a nominal "autonomy" that involves anything but actually allowing any meaningful development (a port, electricity etc), and with the American navy openly attacking and murdering anyone who tries to help (like with the flotilla attack)... even Americans would probably not be surprised if said city wouldn't be super peaceful. And even America would've been condemned by Europe or something for even doing all of those things I listed above.
Especially if the US was already promoting and military enforcing colonization of more peaceful mexican territory around Tijuana lol
Israel is not a state with Christian morale, they are not a part of the "Western world". They have their own religion and morale, which are older than Christianity. Only part of holy books are shared between two.
From a Western perspective, there's no denying at least some Christian influence. We inherit a morality and philosophical tradition and that was shaped by a Christian-dominated culture for a large chunk of its history.
Highly recommend (not Spider-Man) Tom Holland's book Dominion for more on how that all played out.
Religion shapes morale. Morale shapes religion. They are not equal, but they influence each other.
Moreover, human actions is heavily influenced by circumstances. With low birth rate, it's better to protect children. With high birth rate, it's OK to sacrifice some young man to free some space, like farmers do for their crops, thus we see different messages in different circumstances even in countries with same religion and morale.
Moreover, humans are good at placing arbitrary boundaries, for example Catholics are OK to kill other nations en masse because "they are not Catholics, so they have no soul, so they are not humans, they are like pigs". Some versions of Islam even encourages holy war against non-Muslims. Some other minor religions are even promoting cannibalism. Even atheists are promoting mass killings, for example communists want to kill all rich(-ier than them).
So, while Christianity promotes peace, latest 2 world wars and current greatest war since WWII, are between Christians. Guess who will use nuclear weapon for second time in the history? North Korea? Iran? China? USA? Britain? Russia? Ukraine?
https://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/25/us/crew-of-cruiser-that-d...