Jewish schools in Europe are closed today. Synagogues and other places where Jews gather have been evaluating the risk they face and acting as they need to. Some might say that the claims Hamas has called for a “Day of Rage” today are internet rumours but we have to take them seriously because the consequences of failing to are so severe.
There will be calls for jihad against Jews. There always are. As emboldened as militants and wanna-bes are by Hamas’, as they see it, success in killing Jews (and yes, I chose that designation specifically and intentionally) last weekend, it won’t be different now. There have been and will be calls for jihad against us.
When Palestine attacks Israel, antisemitic violence around the world increases. When Israel attacks Palestine, antisemitic violence around the world increases. This is what diaspora Jews live with.
Bomb threats on diaspora Jewish organisations started last Saturday. Diaspora Jews have been on high alert all week.
The majority of people at those demonstrations will be peaceful. But some won’t. Some will use the gatherings to foment violence against diaspora Jews. There’s no right answer in this. If you’re affected and chaffing at the denial of your right to shout in numbers, please consider that this ban will very likely save lives, especially in France. Please don’t dismiss this just because those lives are diaspora Jews and you don’t much care about us.
Edit: Notices the number of people who have convinced themselves that putting French Jews in danger is alright, cause you know, Palestine. Terror attacks against Jews in France is a thing, you know. Done in the name of freeing Palestine, as if French Jews had the power to change anything in another country.
The median age in Gaza is 18…half the population is literal children because no one lives long enough to grow old. The reality of what Israel is doing to the people in Palestine is not something that can be hidden from and handwaved away any more.
Unfortunately most western states have completely ignored for years the atrocities committed against the people in Palestine. Not allowing these kinds of protests also prevents people in those countries from voicing their rejection of their governments position, making it more difficult for those governments to change their postures.
Putting pressure on Israel’s allies is for most people the only way they have to support Palestinians
The Israeli government is able to pursue its horrible policies because of a lack of support for palastinian people.
Preventing protest in powerful nations stops public opinion changing. Public opinion allows the political establishment to continue to avoid historical responsibility.
If western nations drop support of Israel and start using sanctions etc it would be much harder to destroy Gaza.
I feel like this would need protests well beyond the scale I can imagine any of the populations in these nations mounting, and that they’d have to be backed by widespread blockades & strikes.
But mostly that very little would slow Israel down, short of the US intervening militarily in the next few hours.
I understand, today my own nation votes to slap down a hand outstretched in peace and warmth. In my own state police deploy anti terror powers to crack down on anyone attending a rally against Israeli militancy.
But if we give up nothing will improve, and everything good we have started small and grew into unstoppable movements.
Am lucky on this one, in that my country is generally supportive of Palestinians and even our neoliberal government has been critical of Israel’s behaviour, now and also in the past. It is unlikely that they’d ban the protests.
Though if they did, it could easily result in far more people taking to the streets.
Wishing you all the best in your endeavours, wherever you are.
This ban also legitimises the idea that supporting Palestine is equal to supporting terrorism or antisemitism, which also can increase hate crimes against them (and Arab people in general)
The Israeli army has expressed that they are “very sorry” for the death of Lebanese Reuters journalist Issam Abdallah, who was killed in an Israeli shelling at the Lebanon border.
Despite the IDF’s expression of regret, the vehicle Abdallah was in was clearly marked as a media car. The incident occurred while Abdallah and other journalists were covering ongoing clashes at the border.
Lebanon’s caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati condemned Israel’s actions, and UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressed condolences, emphasizing the need for journalists to be protected.
It was one, so great. But we have more important things to vote or take care of. Holodomor was a genocide and took the lives of many in awful suffering. But we can’t do anything now. We gotta save those who are still alive.
I agree. This recognition sends a signal to would-be genocidal regimes in Europe that they’re not going to get away with things like they might have in the past.
That’s simply not true. If you hide ammunition, fighters amongst civilians, to use the as meat shield or their deaths as propaganda, they become collateral damage.
It’s horrible, but Hamas is counting on this! They could avoid this, by not hiding behind their own people.
Targeting civilians specificaly is a war crime.
EDIT: please, do explain how it’s ok to hide behind civilians… sorry, this doesn’t help
True, they (israel government) fucked up the place, in so many ways. They’re not the only actors, but they’re the ones with most power and possibilities.
They are still effing up, because we’re talking about men of war with stupidly large guns, afraid (with good reason) for their whole people, who maybe know victims, know a hostage… everybody knows what happens when warriors are mad… so why the fuck poke that bear?
There’s no good move. If israel doesn’t react, hamas will attack again, because hamas wants to exterminate every jew, not peace. If they react, they have to take out civilians because hamas uses them as human shields. And now with all that rage, the most racists and extremists from each side will have a chance to assuage their bloodlust.
Hamas have ruined Gaza’s future in a way that, in almost 3 decades of following this conflict, I never thought would be possible. And the racists in Israels government are living their wet dream.
so if hamas is exploiting civilians for their own protection, they should kill their victims too? cool dude. you’re totally not justifying killing civilians! it’s not technically a war crime, so its fine! fuck. off.
What is it with beehaw users and being super eager to kill kids?
Youre the 5th Ive seen who is just so damn excited to excuse killing civilians. You understand thats not a normal thing for rational adults to want, yes?
oh, sorry, did you not say killing crowds of civilians in the hopes that a hamas member was among them was a totally excusable act, and labelled as just unfortunate collateral damage in war?
I could have sworn you said that, but my lemmy app does bug out sometimes, maybe I clicked on the wrong comment.
So you dont think killing crowds of innocent people in the hope that there might have been a terrorist among them is excusable?
If you hide ammunition, fighters amongst civilians, to use the as meat shield or their deaths as propaganda, they become collateral damage.
Huh. Weird, that looks like your text copy and pasted right here, where you say that killing civilians under the claim of targeting “hidden fighters” among their ranks is excusable collateral damage of war.
Same argument used to defend the atomic bombing of hiroshima, another well known war crime. The city had a well established military headquarters and arms depot, tucked away in the center of civilian housing and business, after all. Just more collateral damage, right?
No, see, cause Im not some sadistic loser, I understand you can address threats in a crowd without killing the crowd.
There are plenty of non lethal incapacitation weapons that are specifically designed for hostiles surrounded by civilians. There are plenty of options for not killing innocent people that arent “guess I gotta die!”
You arent being argued against in bad faith, youre just being argued against by decent human beings. I know, shocking for you, but normal folk arent excited to kill palestinians.
that frankly isn’t the situation that we’re dealing with. the idea that israel either has to let Hamas operate unchallenged or kill civilians is a vast oversimplification of how conflict works, and giving the IDF blanket permission to kill civilians if it also hurts Hamas is fucking monstrous. you suck.
all civilian casualties are inadmissible. its not wrong, its a moral imperative, and one that the state of Israel is blatantly disregarding. the framing that “okay, these civilian causalities are okay” is fucking monstrous, and gives a ready made excuse for Israel to escalate violence in Gaza.
You’re right, the Israeli should just say “too bad guys, they have hostages, we can’t shoot in that direction, check mate” and let hamas slaughter them
the scenario you’re imagining doesn’t exist. this isn’t a rock paper scissors thing, where Israel either shoots through hostages to kill insurgents or dies themselves. if Hamas is hiding amongst civilians, they aren’t attacking Israel, they’re hiding. if they’re attacking Israel, they aren’t in a crowd of Palestinian civilians. the IDF does not need to have a shootout with civilians in the crossfire to protect its people. the IDF does not need to bomb civilian residences to wage war against an insurgency.
you are so willing to conflate the two, assume that Israel must kill or be killed themselves. that is a fucking falsehood. there is so fucking much a military force can do to defend against attack that doesn’t involve shelling apartment buildings, shooting into crowds, and otherwise being monsters.
for what it’s worth i think we’ve about exhausted what can be said on this topic past your own comment; i don’t think further responses between you and @khalic will really go anywhere and i’ve already nuked a bunch of the discussion downthread because it devolved completely.
No one is saying “all these civilian casualties are ok”, stop oversimplifilying the situation.
I know it’s tempting to make blanket statements about moral imperatives from your armchair, religion has been doing that to us for centuries, but it turns out the real world is actually full of moral dilemmas, where there IS no outcome where no one dies, and all you can do is pick the least bad option.
“All civilian casualties are inadmissible” is the coldest of cold takes, right there next to, “well I don’t think anyone should have a war at all!” Like, great, thanks, why didn’t anyone think of that?
i don’t think anyone should have a war at all. there, are you happy? i’m frankly uninterested in litigating what hypothetical circumstances under which it might be okay to kill a civilian.
I would argue a blanket statement of “killing civilians is always reprehensible” is a vast oversimplification of how conflict works.
Yeah, it sucks, war sucks, and it often turns out that the least bad option involves a decision where innocent people die. I know it feels like a hot take to say we shouldn’t give blanket permission to kill civilians, but it turns out no one is claiming that.
This thread makes it clear that lemmy commenters are not equipped to debate the vanilla trolly problem, let alone the Iranian/Palestinian conflict.
“killing civilians is always reprehensible” as a moral statement has nothing to do with the mechanics of conflict. i’m telling you what i believe. giving room for acceptable civilian casualties in a moral framework provides a ready made justification for bad actors, that so long as they present a situation as looking enough like the acceptable kind of civilian casualty then its fine that an innocent person was killed.
i am taking issue with the rhetoric of acceptable casualties. no. there are only casualties, and they are all horrific. rhetoric that is not an explicit condemnation of war can be used as a justification for it.
Anytime you are doing any kind of military or police action within a civilian area there is always the risk of unintended civilian harm.
If police and military forces took this doctorine that any amount of risk is too much then they simply would be unable to operate.
There has to be a certain amount of acceptable civilian risk and that should be proportional to the threat you are attempting to stop.
Just to clarify, I’m not advocating that Israel is taking acceptable risks. But I am advocating that those risks will always exist with ANY police or military action and the primary debate is over where the red line of acceptable/unacceptable is.
Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world, it’s also majority landlocked and has been under a naval and air blockade for nearly 2 decades.
You can make the case about the selection of which some specific civilian areas Hamas utilizes are intended to maximize the outage if struck, but ultimately there is NOWHERE inside Gaza that isn’t a civilian area, period. It’s just a matter of degrees i.e. retail shops vs schools.
Just looked at the gaza satellite map to be sure. There are kms of fields between the border and most cities. They’re cowards hiding behind their people.
Those are literally watched by automated and remote control machine guns, as well as 24/7 surveillance drones.
So you’re military strategic insight is to sit in an open field, just outside of range of the remote control 50 cal turrets, and wait for the drone to drop a PGM?
Feel free to browse my comment history. I’m no apologist for terrorists acts, but I’m also not blind to the realities on the ground, and what obstacles any opposition militant group within Gaza would have to plan around.
No, I’m saying that any military strategy has to operate around it’s own operational and environmental constraints, and the capabilities and obstacles of the opposing force.
Whatever you’re opinions are on any conflict, you should still understand that rational actors will respond accordingly to their constraints.
Rational doesn’t mean moral, it means they have a clear mission and objective, and a plan to achieve it.
You’re suggesting that instead of being combat effective, they should instead suicide themselves by operating in an open field in close proximity, and with no cover, to a vastly superior force. That would be irrational.
Who gives a fuck if it’s combat effective when it kills your people? If you’re not fighting for the lives of your people? What are you fighting for? In the case of Hamas, the answer is in their charter: kill all jews. They admit it themselves ffs.
I’m providing an extremely high level and simplified outline of the operational and strategic constraints for militants operating within Gaza, not moral commentary on it.
If you want my opinions, or moral judgments, feel free to browse my comment history. Jump into any of those conversations if you disagree.
Sorry, I get your point. It’s getting late here, I got carried away. You are right, it’s a tactically valid choice, but I really hope I’d kill myself before I do something like that, but life can fuck you up real bad so who knows…
Hamas could argue that the IDF is hiding behind their civilian population as well. It’s simply not a coherent defense for indiscriminate violence, you can’targue that one side is collateral damage and the other are victims.
Israel claims they are only striking “based on intelligence” but its obvious from the reports inside Gaza that this is not true, they’re bombing at random with the explicit goal of punishing Gazan civilians for being blockaded in Gaza with Hamas.
There are still over a hundred hostages. Crank down on Gaza…no electricity, etc…and you’ll eventually get some intel on where they are at. It’s war, and they put themselves in this position.
I assure you, Palestinian civilians didnt put themselves in Gaza. The Israeli government created the ghetto prison known as Gaza and relegated the Palestinians to it.
Egypt took Gaza in the '48 war, built camps and put Palestinians (then called Arabs, the word “Palestinian” still most often referred to Jews) in them. Nobody much cared until Israel took the territory in the Six Day War and Egypt refused to take it back after.
Likewise Jordan annexed West Bank, built its camps, put Palestinians in them and held it until '67. Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt all built camps for Palestinians WITHIN their own borders and refused to assimilate them or allow them to become citizens. They used Palestinians as pawns in their quest to eliminate the infidel state. It didn’t work. No one much cared unless the pawns can be used against Israel.
Palestinians who remained in Israel are now citizens with voting rights etc. Israel didn’t chuck them in camps like their neighbours did.
The camps are now cities by the way. But no one calls them that, cause “camps” is better to use against Israel.
@Rapidcreek I suppose you probably blame the citizens of North Korea for "harbouring" Kim Jong Un, too. But that's just not how life actually works.
Collective punishment of civillians is always a war crime, but blaming people with no access to free and fair elections in order to justify it is particularly cynical, especially when nearly half of them are still children.
You can take a walk through history and see oppressor and oppressed in every era. A common thread is when people are oppressed by internal forces they either revolt and take power or simply live with the oppression. Even the attempt to revolt is important.
Gaza has a two fold problem. First they ruled by Hamas who don’t give a shit about them. Plenty of Palestinians hate Hamas, but not enough to make a difference. Secondly, they are oppressed by Israel due to Hamas.
They can either live with this or revolt. They’ve chosen to live with it.
So according to you, Hamas is oppressing Palestinians, and Israel is oppressing Hamas, but it’s only righteous for Palestinians to stand up to Hamas. Isn’t it also important for Hamas to stand up to their oppressors?
After WWIi the UN created N Korea, because the Japanese that occupied the entire peninsula, had withdrawn and because the Soviets as well as the US both felt they should have control. Russia soon got bored with a sphere of influence in the Pacific.
It’s war, and they put themselves in this position.
Did they also put themselves in the inhumane conditions that sparked this war too? Or is decades of inhumane treatment of the Palestinian people immaterial to the situation?
Because Israel is a good part of the reason Hamas is as powerful as they are, so I guess they put themselves in this position too?
Yeah, who could ever know why Palestine harbors the group that Israel funded to delegitimize the more moderate political parties? It's not like the group Israel funded explicitly advocates for aggression against Israel in the name of freeing the Palestinians from the murderous boot of Israel and their decades long campaign of slowly exterminating the Palestinians and stealing all of their land.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.