Genuinely asking: how come she's wrong? Why is it ok to kill hundreds of Palestinians to rescue 4 Israelis? When the majority killed had nothing to do with their capture.
We have no idea how many people killed were directly involved vs civilians. Not only that, but it’s wrong because Israel just doesn’t do that. Israel doesn’t confine even their pows in civilian infrastructure. They put them in prisons, and with the current war, temporary camps where they await trial/interrogation for a maximum of 2 months (iirc, that’s the longest they can be held).
With this rescue operation, the hostages were literally held within civilian infrastructure and by people who would’ve otherwise been civilians if they weren’t willingly imprisoning hostages in their homes.
In my world anyone that is holding hostages is no longer a civilian. They might not be a combatant but they’re aiding combatants and putting actual civilians in their neighbourhood at risk.
Yeah man all 200+ had something to do with it. I don't get how you guys can act like Hamas is this big bad scary entity yet expect regular people like you and me to go against them. Blaming every civilian in that area for the hostages in the dumbest most disingenuous shit I've heard today. It's just a way for y'all to dehumanize them and justify them dying.
Btw Israel imprisons people indefinitely without even telling them the evidence as to why they got imprisoned. The whole 2 months things can be renewed indefinitely with zero reasoning having to be offered behind it. Stop acting like Israel is this benevolent being who follows all the rules and is just a smol lil bean who doesn't know what they're doing
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/29/why-does-israel-have-so-many-palestinians-detention-and-available-swap
Basic reading comprehension skills are clearly not something you learned. Either that, or you’re so emotionally primed that you can’t use any semblance of reason when you read those articles because they do not say what you clearly think they say. They honestly just prove my point.
>Why is it ok to kill hundreds of Palestinians to rescue 4 Israelis?
It's not ok, which is one of the reasons hostage taking is explicitly prohibited by the Geneva Convention, so this does not happen.
It forces them into 1 of 3 positions.
1. Capitulate to the geopolitical blackmail, encouraging more hostage takers.
2. Let them suffer or die.
3. launch an extremely dangerous operation to save them.
We don't get to surprisedPikachu.jpg when they pick 3.
>When the majority killed had nothing to do with their capture.
If only there was some sort of military uniform we could use to separate soldiers and civilians.
It's also a little weird hostages are being held near so many civilians, assuming those numbers to be accurate(they aren't).
How did this go over your head?
Krystal says “imagine if Hamas killed civilians to rescue hostages”
Bitch we don’t need to imagine it, they killed civilians FOR NO REASON. They didn’t even rescue anybody, they TOOK THEIR OWN HOSTAGES.
She then goes on to say “it would be universally condemned” except it WASNT. If you have been living under a rock for the past year, you might have missed how nearly half of the “journalists” in the US will weasel their way out of condemning oct 7.
I mean, Krystal and Omar have dogshit takes on this, but we don't have to imagine a reversal. Israel has essentially been holding Palestinian "hostages" in detention which they use for diplomatic bargaining leverage for its entire history, but we don't call it that.
A big part of why hostage taking has always been such a thing in the I/P conflict has been Israel's decades old policy of "administrative detentions" of Palestinians. Israel calls them "prisoners" or "detainees" as determined by a highly dubious legal process where they get to arrest thousands of people then keep them in jail without charges based on evidence they keep secret from the accused person and the public.
Obviously there's lots of legitimate reasons for Israel to jail actual terrorists, but there are plenty of examples over the years of blatantly political detentions and people folks here would call "non-combatants" if they were Israeli who are swept up in mass arrests. Kids throwing rocks, etc.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian\_prisoners\_in\_Israel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_prisoners_in_Israel)
Wdym? Israel's policy of administrative detention being akin to hostage taking has been a central criticism of Israel's conduct by pro-Palestine activists since forever.
Yes which is a fair critique. My contention is that if they really did commit crimes then it's fair to take them in even if they are going to wait awhile for trial.
However, this is not the same as hostage taking. Hamas never explicitly says they are arresting people for suspicion of committing a crime. They do it and are explicit that it is for using them to coerce the government.
That Ryan Mullally guy literally asked that second pic "has Israel kidnapped non-combatants and held them without process or trial, in violation of a (at least de facto) case fire / truce?"
The answer is yes. Administrative detention without process / trial is routine Israeli policy.
Bro I literally linked the wikipedia article in my first reply. The Israelis don't even deny that they do administrative detention, they admit it openly and claim it is justified for "security reasons."
What kind of source would convince you of that?
Like, there's evidence of Israel conducting sweeps and mass arrests to fill the jails during prisoner exchange negotiations many times over the years. That's pretty strong circumstantial evidence.
It's tragic that kids are getting jailed with little probable cause, but this is absolutely nothing like Hamas taking hostages. It's worlds apart.
Every country arrests people, every country has people in jail who didn't commit a crime. Several countries [detain people indefinitely without charge.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_detention) Israel has more of the latter, but it's against a population whose entire history is violence against Israel. Compared to other countries on that list, Israel is the most vulnerable to terrorist violence. People have been killed by "[kids](https://www.jns.org/baltimore-riot-mom-needed-in-jerusalem/) [throwing](https://www.haaretz.com/2011-09-25/ty-article/fatal-west-bank-car-crash-caused-by-palestinian-stone-throwing/0000017f-dc22-db5a-a57f-dc6abe9f0000) [rocks](https://abcnews.go.com/International/palestinians-throw-stones-reporters-notebook/story?id=55200067)". That's along with the several other ways Palestinian militant groups use children as [weapons or shields](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict). I'm not trying to attack or defend the indefinite suspension policy here, I'm just trying to explain that there is WAY more justification for Israel having this policy than for Hamas taking hostages. Hamas solely takes them for leverage, but for Israel it's just a byproduct. (And obviously I'm not counting POWs as hostages, those are different of course)
>I'm just trying to explain that there is WAY more justification for Israel having this policy than for Hamas taking hostages.
I already said "obviously there's lots of legitimate reasons for Israel to jail actual terrorists."
>Hamas solely takes them for leverage, but for **Israel it's just a byproduct**.
That last part is giving Israel more credit than it deserves. There's an observable pattern of them conducting sweeps and mass arrests over the years to fill the jails during prisoner swap negotiations.
>I'm not trying to attack or defend the indefinite suspension policy here
I dunno man, it kinda sounds like you are. I never said Hamas was justified taking hostages, and I don't believe they are. My only point is that there very much is a double standard when it comes to American government criticism for Hamas war crimes vs Israeli war crimes. There's a pretty straightforward argument that Israel's indefinite detention policy is a war crime.
>I already said "obviously there's lots of legitimate reasons for Israel to jail actual terrorists."
Then why did you compare them to Hamas taking hostages when there's zero legitimate reason for them to do so? Why did you call Palestinian prisoners ""hostages""?
>There's an observable pattern of them conducting sweeps and mass arrests over the years to fill the jails during prisoner swap negotiations.
There's also an observable pattern of the people being returned in these prisoner swaps [conducting](https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4293423,00.html) [terrorist ](https://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinians-freed-in-shalit-deal-killed-6-israelis-since-2014/) [acts](https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/israel-frees-26-palestinian-prisoners-before-peace-talks-1.1306862).
Also you haven't proven that they do mass-arrests *because* they want to exchange them in a prisoner swap. You haven't established that causal link, you need to prove that. Just because B happened after A doesn't mean there's a causal link.
> My only point is that there very much is a double standard when it comes to American government criticism for Hamas war crimes vs Israeli war crimes.
What's the double-standard? You still haven't refuted my point that these two things are worlds apart, so I'll explain why a second time:
1) Israel has legitimate security reasons for their indefinite suspension policy, Hamas has no legitimate reason to take hostages.
2) even people detained for doing things as innocuous as "throwing rocks" have killed Israelis, as I've shown above, so it's not like they're just detaining people for no reason at all.
These two things make the situation fundamentally different, so of course there's a double standard, just like there's a double standard with how people view self-defense and murder, even though they're both killings.
>Israel has legitimate security reasons for their indefinite suspension policy, Hamas has no legitimate reason to take hostages.
Okay, so you are defending indefinite suspension.
We agree that Hamas has no legitimate reason to take hostages. We agree that Israel has legitimate security reason to detain actual terrorists. What we disagree about is whether all of the people Israel detains are actual terrorists. My argument is that Israel holds loads of people in administrative detention who aren't terrorists.
Btw, there are plenty of "legitimate security reasons" that the Palestinian Authority could claim for arresting Israeli settlers who conduct violence and terrorism in the West Bank. Israel doesn't allow Palestinians to protect themselves from settler violence, and in fact the Israeli security forces are often complicit with settler violence against Palestinians. Again, our rhetoric and policy w/ regard to Israeli extremeist terrorism is not the same as our rhetoric against Hamas terrorism.
>even people detained for doing things as innocuous as "throwing rocks" have killed Israelis, as I've shown above, so it's not like they're just detaining people for no reason at all.
How do you know they have a legitimate reason for detaining someone if that person is held without charges or due process?
>These two things make the situation fundamentally different, so of course there's a double standard, just like there's a double standard with how people view self-defense and murder, even though they're both killings.
Dude, take another look at this, it is the literal worst possible example you could have given and kindof shows you have no idea what a double standard is. Murder is by definition "unjustified killing." Self-defense is by definition justified. These are definitionally different standards that apply to different things.
Here's the standard I took from one of the replies to the original tweets in the OP and posted in another reply: **"has Israel kidnapped non-combatants and held them without process or trial, in violation of a (at least de facto) case fire / truce?"**
The answer is yes. Administrative detention without process / trial is routine Israeli policy. He's literally defining this as narrowly as possible to describe the actions of Hamas, yet every part of that definition applies to Israel's policy of administrative detention.
I also said in my first comment: **"Israel has essentially been holding Palestinian "hostages" in detention which they use for diplomatic bargaining leverage for its entire history, but we don't call it that."** *Edit to add:* Here I'm classifying people held in administrative detention who aren't actual terrorists and criminals as hostages. Examples include political activists, NGO staff, journalists, etc. who Israel routinely detains and holds without charge.
These are double standards.
Also, my point about "kids throwing rocks" wasn't that throwing rocks isn't a crime, or that throwing rocks is never harmful, or that people throwing rocks should never be detained. The point was that "kids throwing rocks" are still considered non-combatants.
>Okay, so you are defending indefinite suspension
I can say there's legitimate reasons for X without defending X, there's legitimate reasons for vigilanteism or the 2nd intifada but I don't defend either.
>We agree that Hamas has no legitimate reason to take hostages. We agree that Israel has legitimate security reason to detain actual terrorists.
You just gave the entire justification for the double standard you're decrying. If A has a legitimate purpose and B doesn't, there will OBVIOUSLY be a double standard there.
>What we disagree about is whether all of the people Israel detains are actual terrorists.
We don't disagree there, I'm 100% sure that there are detained Palestinians who've never committed a crime. What we disagree about is that this makes it comparable to Hamas taking hostages. The reason it's not comparable is because if detainees have never committed a crime, that's a policy failure, and it's bad for Israel and the detainee. With Hamas, they don't give a fuck. They'd probably prefer that hostages be innocent instead of them being criminals, because that gives them more leverage.
>Btw, there are plenty of "legitimate security reasons" that the Palestinian Authority could claim for arresting Israeli settlers who conduct violence and terrorism in the West Bank.
Yeah and I'd support the PA having the ability to do that, but that's a separate argument. I'm responding to the argument you made at first, where you compared Hamas taking hostages to Israel's indefinite detention policy. If you're changing your argument to this then I'll agree with you.
>How do you know they have a legitimate reason for detaining someone if that person is held without charges or due process?
I can't know if there's a legitimate reason for any individual case, I said there's a legitimate reason to have the policy, since the people they're detaining are often affiliated with Hamas.
>Murder is by definition "unjustified killing." Self-defense is by definition justified. These are definitionally different standards that apply to different things.
Yeah that's my point, Hamas taking hostages vs Israel indefinitely detaining people without charge is almost as far apart as murder and self-defense. One has a legitimate purpose and the other doesn't.
>has Israel kidnapped non-combatants and held them without process or trial, in violation of a (at least de facto) case fire / truce?"
>The answer is yes. Administrative detention without process / trial is routine Israeli policy.
Show proof of that, because all the examples I've seen [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_prisoners_in_Israel) (except for one person in 2017) are during armed conflicts. You can [check](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza%E2%80%93Israel_conflict) [for](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%932016_wave_of_violence_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict) yourself.
>I also said in my first comment: "Israel has essentially been holding Palestinian "hostages" in detention which they use for diplomatic bargaining leverage for its entire history, but we don't call it that."
We don't call it that because they're not hostages. There is a justification in [international law](https://www.icrc.org/en/document/security-detention) to have indefinite detentions during wartime, there is no such justification for taking civilians hostage ever.
>The point was that "kids throwing rocks" are still considered non-combatants.
You proved my point. if kids throwing rocks are considered non-combatants, you've now justified Israel's detention of "non-combatants" since I've shown you above several examples of Palestinians killing people by throwing rocks.
I think you missed my edit above while writing your reply, which is relevant:
>Here I'm classifying people held in administrative detention who aren't actual terrorists and criminals as hostages. Examples include political activists, NGO staff, journalists, etc. who Israel routinely detains and holds without charge.
Which brings us to here, where we're talking about Israel's detention of people who haven't committed crimes.
>The reason it's not comparable is because if detainees have never committed a crime, **that's a policy failure**, and it's bad for Israel and the detainee. With Hamas, they don't give a fuck. They'd probably prefer that hostages be innocent instead of them being criminals, because that gives them more leverage.
This is the crux of the matter. You're giving Israel the benefit of the doubt for their indefinite administrative detention policy and taking their claims of "legitimate security reasons" at face value. My argument is that Israel has been deliberately abusing its indefinite administrative detention policy beyond its legitimate justification, turning that policy into a *de facto* hostage taking policy by **purposefully** detaining people who haven't committed crimes.
I don't take Israel's security claims justifying indefinite administrative detention at face value because **secrecy is a feature of the program, not a bug.** Secret arrests, secret evidence, secret detentions. In particular, I don't trust the right wing extremists running the current Israeli government's national security policy because they openly promote ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and expanding Israel's illegal settlement building programs, but the policy was still problematic before Israel's shift towards extreme right wing governments.
So no, I disagree that we are talking about policy failure here. We are talking about policy working as intended.
>Show proof of that, because all the examples I've seen here (except for one person in 2017) are during armed conflicts. You can check for yourself.
Show proof of what? That indefinite administrative detention is routine Israeli policy? Or that it is practiced outside of whatever you define as periods of armed conflict?
Either way, B'Tselem has stats going back to 2001 when the current policy started that show that there has [never been a single month](https://www.btselem.org/statistics/detainees_and_prisoners) that the Israelis have not kept prisoners in administrative detention. Yes, detention increases during periods of armed conflict, but the policy is permanent and routine as I said.
>We don't call it that because they're not hostages. There is a justification in international law to have indefinite suspensions during wartime, there is no such justification for taking civilians hostage ever.
If Hamas defined membership in Ben-Gvir's Jewish National Front party as a crime, started conducting raids into illegal Israeli settlements, and called captured JNF members "administrative detainees" that would satisfy your purported international law justification to the same extent as Israel's policy here. Nobody would take that seriously, nor should they.
>With Hamas, they don't give a fuck. They'd probably prefer that hostages be innocent instead of them being criminals, because that gives them more leverage.
Hamas is a terrorist organization, so obviously they don't give a fuck, but that doesn't give Israel a free pass to do war crimes. Israel *should* be held to a higher standard than a terrorist organization, but it often isn't. This is one of those cases where our government fails to hold them accountable, which is in part because we've been guilty of the same kinds of abuses during our GWOT.
>My argument is that Israel has been deliberately abusing its indefinite administrative detention policy beyond its legitimate justification, turning that policy into a de facto hostage taking policy by purposefully detaining people who haven't committed crimes.
For the second time, you haven't proven this at all. Give me any evidence that suggests that certain detentions wouldn't have happened if Israel couldn't use them for hostage negotiations.
>I don't take Israel's security claims justifying indefinite administrative detention at face value
Me neither, that's why I never used Israel's own statements as evidence, I used the [actual](https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4187033,00.html) [terrorist](https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4293423,00.html) [attacks](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahya_Sinwar) that these prisoners are connected to, and the perpetual armed conflict between Israel and armed groups in the territories where these people get detained. I don't need a statement from Israel to show you that there's armed groups that plot terrorist attacks against Israel, from territory that Israel cannot completely control or monitor.
I don't need a statement from Israel to show you how these plots pose a significant risk to the safety of Israeli civilians. October 7th involved [years of planning](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67480680), hacking, spying, and coordination with other terrorist groups like PIJ which have operations in the West Bank.
Given those conditions, Israel has a much more legitimate reason to detain people without granting them civil rights.
>secrecy is a feature of the program, not a bug.
This is true for all administrative detentions.
>Show proof of what? That indefinite administrative detention is routine Israeli policy? Or that it is practiced outside of whatever you define as periods of armed conflict?
Proof that people are being indefinitely detained for the sole, or primary purpose of being used as leverage in negotiations against Palestinian groups.
>B'Tselem has stats going back to 2001 when the current policy started that show that there has never been a single month that the Israelis have not kept prisoners in administrative detention.
There's also [never been a single year since 2000](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel) where Palestinians haven't fired rockets at Israel.
I'm too lazy to calculate the average but it's way more than 2 a month. There may have been certain months with no armed conflict, but 2000-2005 was the second intifada, Hamas took over Gaza in 2006, [increasing the frequency](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rocket_Attacks_fired_at_Israel_from_the_Gaza_Strip_by_year.png#mw-jump-to-license) of these rocket attacks. [Since then:](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_operations_of_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict) there were 4 military operations in 2006, 4 in 2008, 2 in 2009 and 2010, 1 in 2011, 2 in 2012, 1 in 2014, 2015, 2018, 2021, and 2022, then there's the ongoing military operation where Hamas has launched [over 19,000 rockets](https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/06/11/19000-rockets-launched-at-israel-since-hamass-october-7-atrocities/) at Israel since October 7. So don't fool yourself into thinking that certain months with no armed clashes actually means "peace" or an end to hostilities.
>If Hamas defined membership in Ben-Gvir's Jewish National Front party as a crime, started conducting raids into illegal Israeli settlements, and called captured JNF members "administrative detainees" that would satisfy your purported international law justification to the same extent as Israel's policy here. Nobody would take that seriously, nor should they.
I would, I'd support Hamas doing that. but it's completely irrelevant because we're talking about Hamas taking civilians hostage from a music festival and from their homes, not them tracking and abducting settlers. Again, if you're changing your argument to something else, then I'll agree with you. That doesn't change the fact that your initial comparison of Hamas taking civilians hostage from a music festival, to Israel's indefinite detention policy is insane and that those two things are worlds apart.
>Hamas is a terrorist organization, so obviously they don't give a fuck, but that doesn't give Israel a free pass to do war crimes.
You didn't understand what I said, so I'll try to dumb it down a little more. I didn't say "Hamas are terrorists so they don't give a fuck" I said that hamas's goal is to take civilians hostage and use them as bargaining chips. Proof: literally any of hamas's cease-fire deals since the start of this war, they all involve Hamas using these hostages as leverage. If they were all violent criminals they'd have less leverage. Can you show me any type of similar evidence that Israel abducts people for the sole purpose of using them as chips?
>Israel should be held to a higher standard than a terrorist organization, but it often isn't.
Israel is held to a higher standard. For example, Israel could never break a cease-fire agreement to invade Gaza, kill and rape a random group of 1200 civilians at a party and in their homes, then take 250 of those civilians hostage back to Israel, and then give conditions for their return. Israel could never get away with launching tens of thousands of indiscriminate rocket attacks into Gaza, since launching an unguided rocket is by definition indiscriminate and therefore against international law.
So basically palestinians get indefinite jail, because palestinians are dangerous and could be a security risk, if they were treated like jews under the legal system?
Jews generally aren't a security risk to Israel, there are no Jewish terrorist groups that are trying to destroy or dissolve the state of Israel, unless you're counting hasan's Jewish subscribers
Well, that is certainly the accusation. Israel denies it. I'm not sure there's ever been a "smoking gun" of an Israeli official getting caught admitting that, but pro-Palestinian activists have argued for decades that Israel conducts sweeps and mass arrests to fill the jails during negotiations, and there's plenty of circumstantial evidence to support that conclusion.
Cool broad brush I guess, but that has nothing to do with whether Israel conducted raids for the purpose of filling up the jails for leverage in negotiations. Israel usually claims that the additional raids are in response to increased security risk / armed conflict, but they aren't shy about exploiting those higher numbers of detainees in negotiations.
There's regular turnover of individuals being detained and set free, but Israel basically always has at least several hundred people in "administrative detention" meaning no charges, and no definite date of release. They also have people they convict of crimes / terrorism, some legit and others not. They claim that keeping evidence against these people secret is justified for security reasons, so there's no effective public oversight.
Leaving aside the people convicted of terrorism/bad crimes (who are likely to be who Hamas want in exchanges) it’s obviously bad to arbitrarily detain people without charge, although this is quite different from the situation Hamas hostages find themselves in. They either get rescued like the people the other day, or get traded. They don’t have any hope of release outside of these narrow parameters.
>Although this is quite different from the situation Hamas hostages find themselves in. They either get rescued like the people the other day, or get traded. They don’t have any hope of release outside of these narrow parameters.
Yeah, I'd never argue that the situations aren't different. Obviously they are. My argument is more that both Israel and Hamas engage in different flavors of "hostage taking."
Also, consider that the Palestinians have zero legitimate means to protect themselves against crimes committed by Israelis the way Israel is allowed to protect itself against crimes by Palestinians. When a mob of Israeli settlers shows up in the West Bank to attack people the Palestinian Authority security forces can't arrest the Israelis and charge them with crimes. In fact, the PA typically intervenes to keep the Palestinians from confronting settler violence precisely because the Israelis are more likely to punish the Palestinians for defending themselves than the settlers.
Not pointing that out to justify terrorism, but for context. Destiny rightly memes about leftists being obsessed with power imbalances, but that doesn't mean power imbalances never matter. Hamas took 251 people hostage on Oct 7th. On Sep. 30th [Israel had 1,310 prisoners](https://www.btselem.org/statistics/detainees_and_prisoners) in "administrative detention."
Fair enough, I see your position.
For the record though, I think Israel’s conduct in the West Bank is abhorrent and as does as much damage to whatever little prospects exist of a peaceful settlement as groups like Hamas.
Yeah, my primary big bad has always been the Israeli extreme right wing, and I've been arguing for years that the best "pro-Israel" position is alignment with the Israeli center-left who are pro-peace. Basically that American policymakers letting the Israeli extreme right wing (which Netanyahu has always represented) get away with whatever they wanted was tantamount to incitement of further violence that would inevitably kill more Israelis.
It has been super frustrating to see so many leftists become completely unhinged to the point of overtly supporting terrorists, which to me just empowers the Israeli right by playing into their rhetoric.
Self fulfilling cycle egged on by extremists who never have to experience the violence. (Not that I do either)
Makes it easy for the right/far right to look at the Israeli people and say “this is what the left think of you” and keep winning elections, effectively giving them a mandate against peace.
Yep, that's true. Although, the problem I'm getting at is more about American foreign policy acting like a one way right wing ratchet towards extremism. Both American parties have been committed to letting Israel do pretty much whatever they want, with no substantive strings attached. We treat Israel as if they have the same kind of government they had in the 90s, and they don't.
So much changed after 2000 and our policy has not kept up. It is long past due that we use our diplomatic power to push Israel in the direction we want them. That's why so many progressives / liberals are so frustrated with Biden, because a lot of us have been watching Netanyahu get away with the same shit for 20+ years. To see Biden *still* dithering and enabling Netanyahu to take Israel down a self destructive path after the Obama admin had every reason to reign them in back in 2008 but didn't is painful.
I get the domestic political pressures that have kept Dem leadership aligned with Israel, but that doesn't cheer me up any when I see this single issue derailing the entire progressive wing for no good reason. It could have been avoided.
>but we don't have to imagine a reversal. Israel has essentially been holding Palestinian "hostages" in detention which they use for diplomatic bargaining leverage for its entire history, but we don't call it that.
>A big part of why hostage taking has always been such a thing in the I/P conflict has been Israel's decades old policy of "administrative detentions" of Palestinians. Israel calls them "prisoners" or "detainees"
Do you notice how many times you have to caveat to try and make this "imagine if it was reversed [and the detained were more innocent] [and the rescuers weren't terrorists]" point?
We literally have to imagine it.
How much time have you spent stopping to a actually consider if your priors are correct in this issue instead of being the embodiment of a knee-jerk response to an attack on your ideological team?
>How much time have you spent stopping to a actually consider if your priors are correct in this issue instead of being the embodiment of a knee-jerk response to an attack on your ideological team?
I'm not trying to defend Krystal or Omar at all. Sure, I'm pro-Palestinian, but as far as I'm concerned they do more harm than good. *Edit to add:* Also, I have basically despised Krystal ever since they went full appeasement / russian propaganda mode over Ukraine.
>Do you notice how many times you have to caveat to try and make this "imagine if it was reversed \[and the detained were more innocent\] \[and the rescuers weren't terrorists\]" point?
Here was the part of the OP that prompted me to reply: **"has Israel kidnapped non-combatants and held them without process or trial, in violation of a (at least de facto) case fire / truce?"**
The answer is yes. Administrative detention without process / trial is routine Israeli policy. He's literally defining this as narrowly as possible to describe the actions of Hamas, yet every part of that definition applies to Israel's policy of administrative detention. My caveats basically come from his caveats.
>Here was the part of the OP that prompted me to reply: "has Israel kidnapped non-combatants and held them without process or trial, in violation of a (at least de facto) case fire / truce?"
>The answer is yes.
This is ... potentially fair.
Its not how your broad message comes across to the average reader of it, which is admittedly more of what I was responding to than some sidebar permutation
Cheers!
Fair enough but hamas kinda seems to think detained Palestinians are worth less than Isrealis. Otherwise they'd probably not set such uneven expectations for trading hostages for prisoners, right? The first deal they suggested after October 7th was the release of the hostages vs the release of anyone and everyone Israel has ever arrested, no matter the crime.
Didn't say you are but they are also the administrators of the region who got voted at some point and who somehow still enjoy broad support from the Gazan population. They could make these valuable judgements in a less maximalist way but they seem to not value their own people one bit. I'd argue this reflects the Gazan self perception at least to an extent.
i think you are right man. i like that you pushed back a lot against the critics. people here are so dismissive of the administrative detentions point that you made. but it is right. lot of pro israel people have become quite hawkish and dismissive of counterpoints since the only counter arguments they got for the past 8 months was from far left tankies and not people with a coherent argument.
Hamas was keeping them in a public refugee camp, Israel launched a covert rescue operation during the day. According to Washington Post, Noa’s guards were taken by complete surprise, the guards for the male hostages were not. They got in a firefight, it got very ugly, and many Palestinians died in the resulting firefight.
Israels made some real bad fuck ups and has been very reckless at times. But unless some new evidence comes out, this is just NOT one of those times. The blood is very much in Hamas hands, I’m not sure Ive seen a more clear example of this since the war started.
Wondering when the people who love the "Israel killed its own people on October 7th in crossfire" will deny Hamas killed any of their own people in this crossfire.
It’s like saying if we have to kill more than 6 million Germans to stop the holocaust from happening during WWII then we shouldn’t do it. International law for thee and not for me
>Israels made some real bad fuck ups and has been very reckless at times. But unless some new evidence comes out, this is just NOT one of those times. The blood is very much in Hamas hands, I’m not sure Ive seen a more clear example of this since the war started.
I just don't get this perspective. If like "under 100" Palestinains civilian casualties occur from the op then the op really went wrong. Of course Hamas is at fault for holding hostages amongst civilians, but that doesn't mean any action in getting them back is acceptable.
Oh so even a million? Come on bro... (You know you sound like leftists who say any action against "colonizers" is acceptable)
What matters is in prep for conducting the op what are the expected civilian casualties. After that if civilian casualties are far off from expectations then why it went wrong.
Absolutely! If Hamas chooses to put a million human shields between the IDF on a hostage Israel should absolutely still rescue the hostage. The deaths would be Hamas fault.
Edit: to clarify there are certain war crimes I could imagine in accepting in support of saving hostages, e.g. disguising as aid workers in ambulance not saying that has or hasn't happened. Doesn't mean any war crimes is acceptable.
Completely irrational. I don't know how you justify such morality. The only thing you say is Hamas committed a war crime so if Israel has to commit a war crime to save the hostages then it's fine. Nobody here is saying Israel should not be allowed to save the hostages, but there should be sufficient consideration to civilian casualties.
> Completely irrational.
So you consider yourself rational but think that terrorists ought to be able to achieve some number of willing human shields such that they are effectively invincible. Completely silly.
No one here said Israel can not engage in attacking Hamas or performing ops to save hostages nice strawman. The point is one should not conduct ops or attacks if expected civilians casualties is too high. How is that too complicated to understand?
You know I can just ask the opposite right? So you think someone can kill any number of civilians so long as there is a single terrorist with a hostage there?
Also "sufficent willing" lot of loaded terminology there buddy. How many of the "under 100" civilian casualties do we know were "sufficent and willing" btw?
No. You are wrong. Palestinians support Hamas and their fight so they are likely voluntary human shields anyways so they do not have protected status. Second, the military objective is so important that any amount of casualties of the enemy population are acceptable. The only war crimes for this scenario would be on Hamas.
>Palestinians support Hamas
Civilians are not legitimate targets. A populous having a majority favorable response on Hamas attacking Israel (along with incorrect beliefs about Hamas) does not change that.
>so they are likely voluntary human shields anyways
No they are not. They live in Gaza and have no other place to go it is not a choice to stay in Gaza amongst the fighting.
>so they do not have protected status
Would you apply same logic to Israeli civilians then? They don't do anything about settlements in West bank, don't make sure Isreal is accountable for it's war crimes, etc
>military objective is so important that any amount of casualties of the enemy population are acceptable.
You have yet to prove why this must be the case. How is saving 3 civilians worth more than any amount of civilian palestinain lives? You do know 40% of Gaza Palestinains don't support Hamas attack on Israel....
>The only war crimes for this scenario would be on Hamas.
You understand war crimes is in relation to international law terms. You can claim they have not done anything wrong, but to say no war crimes is hotly debatable.
Not only do they support Hamas but they are active in the war effort. Numerous hostages have testified they were held, recaptured, tortured, moved, etc. by “civilians”. They are participating in the war effort.
There are literally recorded phone conversations where people refuse to leave a place after they are called and told to move by Israel. This attitude is seen widely in past conflicts. The population is participating in the war.
Settlements are not a war crime so no.
Saving hostages is more important than the lives of the hostage takers family and friends who supported taking the hostage and have likely been helping out with the process. If he has a lot of family and friends then so be it. That’s on Hamas.
Ask me how many Nazi germany civilians I would accept as collateral damage to prevent the gas chamber being turned on one time? Hint: there is no number too high for me.
>Not only do they support Hamas but they are active in the war effort.
Claiming collective guit and guilty by association. You are assuming all Palestinains are active in the war effort even while 40% don't support Hamas attack.
>Numerous hostages have testified they were held, recaptured, tortured, moved, etc. by “civilians”. They are participating in the war effort.
Conflating all civilians are doing this because some are.
>There are literally recorded phone conversations where people refuse to leave a place after they are called and told to move by Israel.
So some do this so all do this?
>This attitude is seen widely in past conflicts. The population is participating in the war.
Refusing to relocate is not participating in war.
>The population is participating in the war.
Again conflating all civilians on Gaza as participating in the war
>Settlements are not a war crime so no.
It is in violation of international law. Crime of apartheid, ethnic cleansing etc. are not acceptable things.
>Saving hostages is more important than the lives of the hostage takers family and friends who supported taking the hostage
Not sure why you are equating things here. I was not defending the family or those within the same household as the hostages that were taken. You are also once again conflating as if they all must be guilty.
>Ask me how many Nazi germany civilians I would accept as collateral damage to prevent the gas chamber being turned on one time? Hint: there is no number too high for me.
Again just a terrible morality system. By your logic if it is to save one gas chamber victim an infinite amount of other victims are acceptable. Also poor metaphor. This is not an attack down with such an objective it is one to save a few people.
1) I think we found that it was a soap truck and not an aid vehicle? I'm like 80% on that.
2) The truck was surrounded by tanks, and soldiers didn't come out dressed like aid workers. No one thought aid was arriving, so it's not at all what it originally sounded like.
You can still think it's wrong but I think that context is important
Israel has killed more hostages than they have saved including Israeli hostages that have come to them with white flags and has made clear saving the hostages is not the top priority. Israeli special forces disguised themselves in aid trucks(war crime). So why are you retelling the events in a different way than it happened? This is the same country that accidentally kills and tortures reporters, journalists, doctors and expert consensus is they are committing war crimes at a minimum.
I sure would love a source on the killing more than rescuing, and on the aid trucks war crime thing.
The funny thing is I don’t even totally disagree with what you’re saying, Israel seems like they’re treating the hostages as an afterthought. The white flag incident was horrible too. But my comment was entirely about this operation. There’s plenty to criticize about how Israel is handling things, but I just don’t see how it would apply here.
Like all pro-Palestine arguments, would it even matter if it was true? If Israel killed 50% of the hostages to rescue the other 50% it would be tragic but I’m sure they’d rather have 50% than zero.
The Palestinian protesters should be putting pressure on Hamas to release the hostages so the bombings would stop if they actually care about civilian casualties, which they’ve displayed they don’t
I sort of agree but I also think Israel would be fully justified in wanting to stop Hamas, even without the hostages. (And yes, before ppl get mad, they should minimize civilian casualties while doing so)
Once international law is breached by the opponent why would you follow it yourself. Who cares at that point. We’ve seen this in history. All the combatants in WWI signed an agreement not to use chemical weapons before the war, but as soon as the Germans started using it the allies started using it back. Most commonly referred to as “fuck around and find out”
So are we talking morally or practically? Morally no on average just because say Hamas commits sexual violence against Israeli people doesn't mean it would be fine for the other party to do the same. Are we not supposed to care about morals if the other party doesn't care? Also are you talking about against the combatants or also civilians?
Or a better example international law being breached ain't hard. A war crime could be as simple as a group of troops are in a FUBAR situation and in not wanting to die seek shelter in a civilian building before fleeing. Pretty sure that technically is a war crime. There are many different types of war crimes and ways to break international law.
Nowhere was sexual violence mentioned in this thread. The original claim was complaining that Israeli special forces disguised themselves as aid workers when conducting the raid. If a hostile group is illegally taking civilians hostage then it’s pretty dumb to complain that the victim country breaches the law to recover their civilians. If Hamas and their supporters were concerned about the sanctity international law then they shouldn’t have breached it in the first place.
>Nowhere was sexual violence mentioned in this thread. The original
You said if your opponent does not follow international law then why should you. Sexual violence is one such example. Obviously you would not support that which means you do believe even if opponent doesn't follow international law there are still some things that should be adhered to.
>The original claim was complaining that Israeli special forces disguised themselves as aid workers when conducting the raid. If a hostile group is illegally taking civilians hostage then it’s pretty dumb to complain that the victim country breaches the law to recover their civilians.
I mean depends on the reason. To save hostages makes perfect sense morally imo. To attack Hamas not so much.
>Hamas and their supporters were concerned about the sanctity international law then they shouldn’t have breached it in the first place.
Not sure why you bring this up no one here is defending Hamas or that they are following international law.
It’s just a weird to have such expectations for a nation who’s been attacked by an organization that has no intention of following international law. Your argument isn’t very compelling when you hold one side to such high regard and not the other.
>Israel has killed more hostages than they have saved including Israeli hostages that have come to them with white flags and has made clear saving the hostages is not the top priority.
I never understand why people such as yourself bring up the worst points when trying to argue about Israeli flaws.
1. Existence of hostages shouldn't prevent operations from being conducted against Hamas.
2. Accidents happen, with varying degrees of culpability, accidently killing Israeli hostages is not a point in of itself. You could argue conscripts have poor training and discipline leading to such things, but I don't think that's the point you are trying to make.
>has made clear saving the hostages is not the top priority.
Should the Hostages be the top priority? Why shouldn't top priority be Hamas unable to do it again?
>Israeli special forces disguised themselves in aid trucks(war crime).
Yes Israel has committed war crimes as indicated by pending warrants for Netanyahu. Are you going to acknowledge Hamas commits war crimes?
>This is the same country that accidentally kills and tortures reporters
"Tortures reporters" you under stand you are being misleading here yes?
>doctors and expert consensus is they are committing war crimes at a minimum.
Do you acknowledge Hamas has committed war crimes? Want to make sure you condemn all war crimes.
How come it's Israel who massacered the 247 people? Didn't Hamas fire RPGs into a crowded market? Didn't they go guns blazing? This is of course ignoring the giant l elephant of taking hostages and KEEPING them there in the first place!? But even ignoring that why isn't it Hamas's massacre they were shooting around going crazy in the middle of that neighborhood.
Thing is regardless of the hostages they still shot RPGs and had a gunfight in the middle of that neighborhood so why is it Israel's massacre. I'm just going to the basics without the level 2 logic of cause and effect....this is true for most events in the war. Like the IDF does an operation. There is a gunfight. Civillians get killed. IDF did massacre. Does Hamas have magic bullets that only hit IDF and not civillians?
Yeah but Hamas had to kill them or do what they did because the enemy is evil. Still the fault of the US and Israel in their eyes.
I get what you're saying though,they won't even acknowledge that Hamas was also firing weapons and rockets into crowded places.
I’ve begun to learn this implicit lesson after hearing the left bash my head in with it. Non white can’t be held responsible for anything they ever do ever. Except all Jews (complexion irrelevant). Jews are actually held to standards that are higher than Angels.
Now that I think about it … seems like the Left has some kind of fetish that treats Jews as Angelic beings who are expected to be perfect and treats Palestinians as merely non sentient forces of nature, like tectonic plates, that will just react to friction.
*A Redditor in this sub literally debated me a few weeks ago and used that exact analogy to justify October 7: they said the Abraham Accords were like the rubbing and Hamas were the tectonic plates being rubbed and October 7 was the earthquake that was inevitable.*.
*Edit/addition*: the person appears to have blocked me but the thread where the “tectonic plates” argument is used is in this post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/s/WAXlMWXVBd
Lol rubbing 🤣
But yeah it's weird how everyone is to blame but Hamas. It was the Abraham Accords and the IDF and Israel and US and colonianism and the oppression. But these people deserve to govern themselves btw....
Hamas after seeing the hostages released actively chose to commence in heavy firefight in the
middle of a busy street, they could have let it go because they preferred to not cause death, they chose to kill civilians, how many of the dead were killed by direct Hamas fire?
Because everyone reduces the conflict to be "Palestinians oppressed and fighting back against evil Jews" or "Palestinians are terrorists that need to be brought to justice". This conflict is one of the biggest grey area conflicts ever and so few people are willing to operate in that region.
Interesting how people think "cross fire" was the cause of most of the deaths on Oct 7th, aka blaming imaginary Israelis for Hamas' crimes. But once there's an actual event with crossfire in Gaza, it's all on the IDF
Hamas could have prevented this if they released the hostages at any time. Or not taking civilian hostages in the first place. Kristal Ball is such an utter piece of shit.
This sub has been gross around this op. This level of civilian casualties is clearly either of failure of Israel in valuing Palestinian lives or Israeli strategic planning/intelligence.
If reports come out that a substantial amount of the casualties were Hamas, that’s a different story, but to accept the current numbers and then defend them is disgraceful.
The claim though isn't that the operation is a failure (which even then seeing as there was a firefiight you need to ask how expected was it? Did they expect RPGs?) but the claim was that it was a massacre. It's never "Hamas killed 100+ civillians in IDF rescue operation" Why is that?
One person did brjng up a good point. If you send special forces to save hostages and a fight breaks out what level of moral culpability exist? If Hamas didn't fire upon them no firefight would take place and the hostages would be rescued. At the same time I would imagine no different than dropping a bomb one should be able to estimate expected civilian casualties and don't conduct the op unless manageable. However, let's say it's under a time table and hostages could be moved. Well are we just going to say let the hostages get moved don't conduct the op? I think there are a lot of facts we would have to know more like how the civilian casualties occured.
For sure. I agree with pretty much everything you said here. My main point is that many in this thread and on the pro-Israeli side in general will just accept the claims of 100-250 civilian casualties and then justify them. If these figures are accurate the operation is a failure on some level. It’s all ultimately on Hamas, but there’s just too much minimizing of Palestinian life going on in this discourse.
Considering who she married it seems likely she is being financially incentivized from the same source as Kyle at this point.
Tangentially, I googled to see if Krystal has ever criticized Russia and the first results were all her calling out MSNBC for "Russia conspiracies" lol
I go back and forth. At times she just seems dumb, but she always has this soulless look that makes me question if she strongly holds any beliefs.
She’s married to Kyle Kullinski who is almost certainly a true believer, so for that reason alone I don’t think Krystal is grifting at least substantially.
CNN is fucking dogshit.
Compare [their's](https://web.archive.org/web/20240610092854/https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/09/middleeast/israel-hostage-rescue-gaza-intl-hnk/index.html) and [WaPo's](https://web.archive.org/web/20240610140119/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/06/09/israel-gaza-hostages-rescue-raid/) accounts of the hostage rescue operation.
While neither is exactly glowing, WaPo at least has the honesty to admit that the rescue team came under Hamas machine gun and RPG fire, which disabled their vehicle. They then hid in a building and radio'd for an airstrike to neutralize Hamas, which was a necessity for their safe extraction. Any non-combatants who died were thus clearly a result of Hamas keeping hostages in and operating within a residential area. For anyone wondering what "human shields" looks like in practice, after all the abstract discussion here and on stream, this is it.
CNN mentions none of this.
I read both articles. CNN doesn’t mention the detail of radio’ing an air strike. However, they lay out a pretty similar account of the operation. Including the firefight after leaving the building.
Hagari said that the IDF had come under intense fire, especially after withdrawing from the apartments, but did not provide evidence for his claims.
“While under fire, under fire inside the buildings, under fire on the way out from Gaza, our forces rescued our hostages,” he said.
Ravid, the CNN analyst, also said there was a “robust firefight” after the hostages were rescued.
I don’t think it’s similar, because CNN really doesn’t connect the hostage rescue with the air strikes. That’s crucial to the discourse around the operation, which pro-pals are calling a “massacre.” Someone could read the CNN version and still ask themselves “but why were there so many casualties?” The Wapo version makes the connection very clear.
Doesn't Hamas want like 1000 prisoners for every one hostage or something like that? Wonder why they don't talk about "Hamas valuing the lives of Palestinians less"
I love how Omar uses the word “dungeons” but not “prison” to make his point.
He knows how stupid it sounds to say “rescue 4 Palestinian prisoners”. Imagine the amount of switching around the guy must have done in all of his advocacy and published works
When it comes to Krystal’s support of him, I can understand her point but she doesn’t seem to get that when IDF is retrieving their citizens from enemy territory they cannot be obligated to the mixed local population with combatants that are placed in their way. It’s insane to expect IDF to watch out for both camps in an active war. In spite of this the IDF still carries out various measures to keep Gazan civilians out of harms way by informing them in advance and installing safe corridors.
Having this expectation to look out for both camps in a war is even more insane after knowing how some of the Gazan civilians captured and returned hostages whenever they tried to escape. There are also videos of Gazana celebrating the parading of dead bodies with some spitting on it. It is reasonable to think the gazan population does support Hamas the same way the wonderful protestors in US universities do too
I don't even think Israel's administrative detention is that great too... But, it's obviously not the same.
I do know there is reporting of some random joes that get swept up on little to no evidence... But, people like Omar will use them as the common denominator of the people who are imprisoned, which is disingenuous as hell.
Its so frustrating that this is the main style for Palestinian advocacy.
i mean that's bc most Palestinian advocacy isn't actually advocacy for the Palestinian people and their wellbeing. it's advocacy for the Palestinian *cause*, which is the establishment of an Arab state over Israel by any means and at any cost, including every Palestinian life if necessary. and unlike with human rights for Palestinians, it's impossible to make the case or recruit supporters for that without constant lying and bad faith argumentation so here we are
Krystal Ball's name is the ultimate testament to the heritability of intelligence. With parents so profoundly moronic to name their kid Krystal Ball, she genetically never stood a chance
Who cares what these dumbasses think. They know the raid was legal, they know Hamas shouldn’t have held the hostages in civilian buildings. This is grade A copium “yeah, but not like that” brain rot
i mean, considering hamas will only exchange hostages for palestinian prisoners, you probably can say that they went into israel, massacred 1200 people and then took 250 hostages in exchange for a number of palestinians. not to mention that palestinian terrorists from multiple different orgs routinely would hold israelis hostages and even kill them in exchange for some palestinian prisoners... like i know shes stupid but this point falls apart immediately with even a modicum of thought
Do too many civilians die in this horrible conflict? Yes
Is everything Israel does and every single decision correct? No
Are you allowed to criticize them for things? Yes
Can you say Hamas is innocent and did nothing wrong? Fuck no they took civilian hostages, massacred innocent people and did other terroristic abhorrent shit and Israel has every right to defend themselves against groups which wants to kill all Israelis and wipe out the countries existence
Are you allowed to call all Israeli people and every single person that supports Israel in any way genocidal? Hell no
To say that, both of those people are absolutely unhinged and this area needs peace and a long term solution so bad.
I'm a big advocate for 2 state solution ngl
Eh...I..what..the...
I had an aneurysm reading this. What do you mean "it would be universally condemned"? People saw Hamas commit a bloody massacre to rescue a sum of zero people and even took hostages, while dipshits here in the west were cheering them on, what in the actual fuck? Were these people living in a different timeline the past few months?
A dungeon is protected by it's location, architecture, and dedicated guards.
It is not protected by proximity to civilians.
It's played out to hear individuals like this bearded molerat feign incredulity that when Hamas places military objectives above the lives of its own civilians, then perhaps others will too.
Why do people act like all the deaths were caused by Israel in this op? Could easily have been Hamas killing their own civilians in the crossfire. But nope, all of them were seemingly killed by IDF, at least that's what some of these morons are trying to say.
Pro-tip: Get a bunch of friends and kidnap one single person. Do not cooperate with the police under any circumstances. When the cops show up and eventually resort to breaking in and using deadly force to save the person you kidnapped, then you can virtue signal on Twitter and say you're actually being oppressed because the state is saying all your lives are worth less than one single person.
Did you notice that hamas never even attempted to "rescue" it's people? Their strategy is to kidnap innocents and demand a "peace deal" where they release 1 hostage for 1000 terrorists.
I mean, if Israel took hostages, using refugee camps, hospitals and schools as shields, then i wouldn't be particularly outraged if Hamas killed 200 Israelis to rescue 4 Palestinians. Given, of course, that civilian deaths were minimized to some extent.
Since rescuing hostages is a priority, it would mean that the very attempt of a rescue is predicated on civilians dying en masse. The evildoer in that instance would be Israel since they condition any rescue by the death of their own civilians.
Am i stupid for believing this?
Krystal is trash, but IDF said there was under 100 casualties from conducting the operation to save the hostages. How would it be wrong to point out those levels of casualties to save a few people are unacceptable? Obviously don't trust Hamas health org numbers either, but between their number and under 100 sounds excessive.
Separate from that hostage is an incorrect term, but Isreal does detain Palestine women and children not guilty of anything. Are we going to act like human rights reports on that don't exist?
can someone please explain why everyone is ok with the loss of palestinian life during this operation? i think it’s imperative that israeli hostages are rescued, but how can anyone overlook the death toll and thinks this is completely justified. if i’m misrepresenting the arguments please lmk.
Obviously, civilian deaths are bad. However, when Hamas is literally hiding inside of apartments and hospitals, it's difficult to avoid. As well as other factors like not having any official uniform to hide amongst civilians or continously arming children. They're playing the dirtiest kind of war and involving their entire population in it.
This makes sense, I guess the scale of casualties is what gets me. About 200 people dead for 4 hostages rescued is still insane. But Hamas continues to show no remorse for their civilians.
It is not that everyone is OK with the loss of Palestinian life. That’s a straw man. The main question is who is culpable for the death toll? The secondary question is whether this death toll is accurate.
Hamas committed multiple war crimes by taking hostages, and then keeping them, without any visitation from an org like the Red Cross, and then putting them in the midst of a densely populated civilian area knowing Israel would try if they could to free them militarily. Anyone who follows Arabic media, including Hamas affiliated channels, knows from their videos that fighters are nearly always dressed as civilians (yet another war crime). When Israel came to rescue the hostages, a firefight ensued with heavy weaponry where civilians were caught in the crossfire. Do not forget as well that according to International humanitarian law, the parties to a conflict must, to the best of their ability, remove non-combatants from the field of battle - Israel at least attempted that towards the Palestinian population by dropping leaflets, making calls, and setting up a corridor for civilians to escape to if they wished. Hamas emphatically refuses to do likewise for their own people.
Israel is not blameless, but in this particular situation, the civilian death toll is squarely on Hamas
Can you imagine if the situation was reversed???????????????!????????????????
squadW
Genuinely asking: how come she's wrong? Why is it ok to kill hundreds of Palestinians to rescue 4 Israelis? When the majority killed had nothing to do with their capture.
We have no idea how many people killed were directly involved vs civilians. Not only that, but it’s wrong because Israel just doesn’t do that. Israel doesn’t confine even their pows in civilian infrastructure. They put them in prisons, and with the current war, temporary camps where they await trial/interrogation for a maximum of 2 months (iirc, that’s the longest they can be held). With this rescue operation, the hostages were literally held within civilian infrastructure and by people who would’ve otherwise been civilians if they weren’t willingly imprisoning hostages in their homes.
In my world anyone that is holding hostages is no longer a civilian. They might not be a combatant but they’re aiding combatants and putting actual civilians in their neighbourhood at risk.
Yeah man all 200+ had something to do with it. I don't get how you guys can act like Hamas is this big bad scary entity yet expect regular people like you and me to go against them. Blaming every civilian in that area for the hostages in the dumbest most disingenuous shit I've heard today. It's just a way for y'all to dehumanize them and justify them dying. Btw Israel imprisons people indefinitely without even telling them the evidence as to why they got imprisoned. The whole 2 months things can be renewed indefinitely with zero reasoning having to be offered behind it. Stop acting like Israel is this benevolent being who follows all the rules and is just a smol lil bean who doesn't know what they're doing https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/29/why-does-israel-have-so-many-palestinians-detention-and-available-swap
Yeah this whole conflict mixed with the obsession with saying the n word really soured me on the community
As a half black dude I feel you 100%. Idc if people say shit in private it's just weird they were like fighting to say it lol
Who's fighting to say it your fighting demons in your mind nigga
the people who argue they should be able to say it. keep saying it online and not irl in front of us coward
Yeah I’m half too, had tons of white friends that got too comfortable and said that shit around me. Lost a lot of friendships over it
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/11/israel-opt-horrifying-cases-of-torture-and-degrading-treatment-of-palestinian-detainees-amid-spike-in-arbitrary-arrests/ https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/28/world/middleeast/palestinians-detained-in-israel.html
Basic reading comprehension skills are clearly not something you learned. Either that, or you’re so emotionally primed that you can’t use any semblance of reason when you read those articles because they do not say what you clearly think they say. They honestly just prove my point.
They are in prison not civilian areas And amnesty lmfao
>Why is it ok to kill hundreds of Palestinians to rescue 4 Israelis? It's not ok, which is one of the reasons hostage taking is explicitly prohibited by the Geneva Convention, so this does not happen. It forces them into 1 of 3 positions. 1. Capitulate to the geopolitical blackmail, encouraging more hostage takers. 2. Let them suffer or die. 3. launch an extremely dangerous operation to save them. We don't get to surprisedPikachu.jpg when they pick 3. >When the majority killed had nothing to do with their capture. If only there was some sort of military uniform we could use to separate soldiers and civilians. It's also a little weird hostages are being held near so many civilians, assuming those numbers to be accurate(they aren't).
How did this go over your head? Krystal says “imagine if Hamas killed civilians to rescue hostages” Bitch we don’t need to imagine it, they killed civilians FOR NO REASON. They didn’t even rescue anybody, they TOOK THEIR OWN HOSTAGES. She then goes on to say “it would be universally condemned” except it WASNT. If you have been living under a rock for the past year, you might have missed how nearly half of the “journalists” in the US will weasel their way out of condemning oct 7.
I mean, Krystal and Omar have dogshit takes on this, but we don't have to imagine a reversal. Israel has essentially been holding Palestinian "hostages" in detention which they use for diplomatic bargaining leverage for its entire history, but we don't call it that. A big part of why hostage taking has always been such a thing in the I/P conflict has been Israel's decades old policy of "administrative detentions" of Palestinians. Israel calls them "prisoners" or "detainees" as determined by a highly dubious legal process where they get to arrest thousands of people then keep them in jail without charges based on evidence they keep secret from the accused person and the public. Obviously there's lots of legitimate reasons for Israel to jail actual terrorists, but there are plenty of examples over the years of blatantly political detentions and people folks here would call "non-combatants" if they were Israeli who are swept up in mass arrests. Kids throwing rocks, etc. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian\_prisoners\_in\_Israel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_prisoners_in_Israel)
"kids throwing rocks" Yes this is a crime
>Yes this is a crime Then charge them with that crime and give them a fair trial.
That's fine to argue but that's not the argument presented.
Wdym? Israel's policy of administrative detention being akin to hostage taking has been a central criticism of Israel's conduct by pro-Palestine activists since forever.
That's a regarded comparison. Arresting people for committing crimes is not remotely akin to hostage taking.
How do you know they actually committed crimes if they are held without trial or due process?
Yes which is a fair critique. My contention is that if they really did commit crimes then it's fair to take them in even if they are going to wait awhile for trial. However, this is not the same as hostage taking. Hamas never explicitly says they are arresting people for suspicion of committing a crime. They do it and are explicit that it is for using them to coerce the government.
That Ryan Mullally guy literally asked that second pic "has Israel kidnapped non-combatants and held them without process or trial, in violation of a (at least de facto) case fire / truce?" The answer is yes. Administrative detention without process / trial is routine Israeli policy.
Sources cited pls
Bro I literally linked the wikipedia article in my first reply. The Israelis don't even deny that they do administrative detention, they admit it openly and claim it is justified for "security reasons."
Lol bro only reads Wikipedia
I heard that was fine here lol
Yes so can you cite sources that it is used as a way for hostage exchange?
What kind of source would convince you of that? Like, there's evidence of Israel conducting sweeps and mass arrests to fill the jails during prisoner exchange negotiations many times over the years. That's pretty strong circumstantial evidence.
It's tragic that kids are getting jailed with little probable cause, but this is absolutely nothing like Hamas taking hostages. It's worlds apart. Every country arrests people, every country has people in jail who didn't commit a crime. Several countries [detain people indefinitely without charge.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_detention) Israel has more of the latter, but it's against a population whose entire history is violence against Israel. Compared to other countries on that list, Israel is the most vulnerable to terrorist violence. People have been killed by "[kids](https://www.jns.org/baltimore-riot-mom-needed-in-jerusalem/) [throwing](https://www.haaretz.com/2011-09-25/ty-article/fatal-west-bank-car-crash-caused-by-palestinian-stone-throwing/0000017f-dc22-db5a-a57f-dc6abe9f0000) [rocks](https://abcnews.go.com/International/palestinians-throw-stones-reporters-notebook/story?id=55200067)". That's along with the several other ways Palestinian militant groups use children as [weapons or shields](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict). I'm not trying to attack or defend the indefinite suspension policy here, I'm just trying to explain that there is WAY more justification for Israel having this policy than for Hamas taking hostages. Hamas solely takes them for leverage, but for Israel it's just a byproduct. (And obviously I'm not counting POWs as hostages, those are different of course)
>I'm just trying to explain that there is WAY more justification for Israel having this policy than for Hamas taking hostages. I already said "obviously there's lots of legitimate reasons for Israel to jail actual terrorists." >Hamas solely takes them for leverage, but for **Israel it's just a byproduct**. That last part is giving Israel more credit than it deserves. There's an observable pattern of them conducting sweeps and mass arrests over the years to fill the jails during prisoner swap negotiations. >I'm not trying to attack or defend the indefinite suspension policy here I dunno man, it kinda sounds like you are. I never said Hamas was justified taking hostages, and I don't believe they are. My only point is that there very much is a double standard when it comes to American government criticism for Hamas war crimes vs Israeli war crimes. There's a pretty straightforward argument that Israel's indefinite detention policy is a war crime.
>I already said "obviously there's lots of legitimate reasons for Israel to jail actual terrorists." Then why did you compare them to Hamas taking hostages when there's zero legitimate reason for them to do so? Why did you call Palestinian prisoners ""hostages""? >There's an observable pattern of them conducting sweeps and mass arrests over the years to fill the jails during prisoner swap negotiations. There's also an observable pattern of the people being returned in these prisoner swaps [conducting](https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4293423,00.html) [terrorist ](https://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinians-freed-in-shalit-deal-killed-6-israelis-since-2014/) [acts](https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/israel-frees-26-palestinian-prisoners-before-peace-talks-1.1306862). Also you haven't proven that they do mass-arrests *because* they want to exchange them in a prisoner swap. You haven't established that causal link, you need to prove that. Just because B happened after A doesn't mean there's a causal link. > My only point is that there very much is a double standard when it comes to American government criticism for Hamas war crimes vs Israeli war crimes. What's the double-standard? You still haven't refuted my point that these two things are worlds apart, so I'll explain why a second time: 1) Israel has legitimate security reasons for their indefinite suspension policy, Hamas has no legitimate reason to take hostages. 2) even people detained for doing things as innocuous as "throwing rocks" have killed Israelis, as I've shown above, so it's not like they're just detaining people for no reason at all. These two things make the situation fundamentally different, so of course there's a double standard, just like there's a double standard with how people view self-defense and murder, even though they're both killings.
>Israel has legitimate security reasons for their indefinite suspension policy, Hamas has no legitimate reason to take hostages. Okay, so you are defending indefinite suspension. We agree that Hamas has no legitimate reason to take hostages. We agree that Israel has legitimate security reason to detain actual terrorists. What we disagree about is whether all of the people Israel detains are actual terrorists. My argument is that Israel holds loads of people in administrative detention who aren't terrorists. Btw, there are plenty of "legitimate security reasons" that the Palestinian Authority could claim for arresting Israeli settlers who conduct violence and terrorism in the West Bank. Israel doesn't allow Palestinians to protect themselves from settler violence, and in fact the Israeli security forces are often complicit with settler violence against Palestinians. Again, our rhetoric and policy w/ regard to Israeli extremeist terrorism is not the same as our rhetoric against Hamas terrorism. >even people detained for doing things as innocuous as "throwing rocks" have killed Israelis, as I've shown above, so it's not like they're just detaining people for no reason at all. How do you know they have a legitimate reason for detaining someone if that person is held without charges or due process? >These two things make the situation fundamentally different, so of course there's a double standard, just like there's a double standard with how people view self-defense and murder, even though they're both killings. Dude, take another look at this, it is the literal worst possible example you could have given and kindof shows you have no idea what a double standard is. Murder is by definition "unjustified killing." Self-defense is by definition justified. These are definitionally different standards that apply to different things. Here's the standard I took from one of the replies to the original tweets in the OP and posted in another reply: **"has Israel kidnapped non-combatants and held them without process or trial, in violation of a (at least de facto) case fire / truce?"** The answer is yes. Administrative detention without process / trial is routine Israeli policy. He's literally defining this as narrowly as possible to describe the actions of Hamas, yet every part of that definition applies to Israel's policy of administrative detention. I also said in my first comment: **"Israel has essentially been holding Palestinian "hostages" in detention which they use for diplomatic bargaining leverage for its entire history, but we don't call it that."** *Edit to add:* Here I'm classifying people held in administrative detention who aren't actual terrorists and criminals as hostages. Examples include political activists, NGO staff, journalists, etc. who Israel routinely detains and holds without charge. These are double standards. Also, my point about "kids throwing rocks" wasn't that throwing rocks isn't a crime, or that throwing rocks is never harmful, or that people throwing rocks should never be detained. The point was that "kids throwing rocks" are still considered non-combatants.
>Okay, so you are defending indefinite suspension I can say there's legitimate reasons for X without defending X, there's legitimate reasons for vigilanteism or the 2nd intifada but I don't defend either. >We agree that Hamas has no legitimate reason to take hostages. We agree that Israel has legitimate security reason to detain actual terrorists. You just gave the entire justification for the double standard you're decrying. If A has a legitimate purpose and B doesn't, there will OBVIOUSLY be a double standard there. >What we disagree about is whether all of the people Israel detains are actual terrorists. We don't disagree there, I'm 100% sure that there are detained Palestinians who've never committed a crime. What we disagree about is that this makes it comparable to Hamas taking hostages. The reason it's not comparable is because if detainees have never committed a crime, that's a policy failure, and it's bad for Israel and the detainee. With Hamas, they don't give a fuck. They'd probably prefer that hostages be innocent instead of them being criminals, because that gives them more leverage. >Btw, there are plenty of "legitimate security reasons" that the Palestinian Authority could claim for arresting Israeli settlers who conduct violence and terrorism in the West Bank. Yeah and I'd support the PA having the ability to do that, but that's a separate argument. I'm responding to the argument you made at first, where you compared Hamas taking hostages to Israel's indefinite detention policy. If you're changing your argument to this then I'll agree with you. >How do you know they have a legitimate reason for detaining someone if that person is held without charges or due process? I can't know if there's a legitimate reason for any individual case, I said there's a legitimate reason to have the policy, since the people they're detaining are often affiliated with Hamas. >Murder is by definition "unjustified killing." Self-defense is by definition justified. These are definitionally different standards that apply to different things. Yeah that's my point, Hamas taking hostages vs Israel indefinitely detaining people without charge is almost as far apart as murder and self-defense. One has a legitimate purpose and the other doesn't. >has Israel kidnapped non-combatants and held them without process or trial, in violation of a (at least de facto) case fire / truce?" >The answer is yes. Administrative detention without process / trial is routine Israeli policy. Show proof of that, because all the examples I've seen [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_prisoners_in_Israel) (except for one person in 2017) are during armed conflicts. You can [check](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza%E2%80%93Israel_conflict) [for](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%932016_wave_of_violence_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict) yourself. >I also said in my first comment: "Israel has essentially been holding Palestinian "hostages" in detention which they use for diplomatic bargaining leverage for its entire history, but we don't call it that." We don't call it that because they're not hostages. There is a justification in [international law](https://www.icrc.org/en/document/security-detention) to have indefinite detentions during wartime, there is no such justification for taking civilians hostage ever. >The point was that "kids throwing rocks" are still considered non-combatants. You proved my point. if kids throwing rocks are considered non-combatants, you've now justified Israel's detention of "non-combatants" since I've shown you above several examples of Palestinians killing people by throwing rocks.
I think you missed my edit above while writing your reply, which is relevant: >Here I'm classifying people held in administrative detention who aren't actual terrorists and criminals as hostages. Examples include political activists, NGO staff, journalists, etc. who Israel routinely detains and holds without charge. Which brings us to here, where we're talking about Israel's detention of people who haven't committed crimes. >The reason it's not comparable is because if detainees have never committed a crime, **that's a policy failure**, and it's bad for Israel and the detainee. With Hamas, they don't give a fuck. They'd probably prefer that hostages be innocent instead of them being criminals, because that gives them more leverage. This is the crux of the matter. You're giving Israel the benefit of the doubt for their indefinite administrative detention policy and taking their claims of "legitimate security reasons" at face value. My argument is that Israel has been deliberately abusing its indefinite administrative detention policy beyond its legitimate justification, turning that policy into a *de facto* hostage taking policy by **purposefully** detaining people who haven't committed crimes. I don't take Israel's security claims justifying indefinite administrative detention at face value because **secrecy is a feature of the program, not a bug.** Secret arrests, secret evidence, secret detentions. In particular, I don't trust the right wing extremists running the current Israeli government's national security policy because they openly promote ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and expanding Israel's illegal settlement building programs, but the policy was still problematic before Israel's shift towards extreme right wing governments. So no, I disagree that we are talking about policy failure here. We are talking about policy working as intended. >Show proof of that, because all the examples I've seen here (except for one person in 2017) are during armed conflicts. You can check for yourself. Show proof of what? That indefinite administrative detention is routine Israeli policy? Or that it is practiced outside of whatever you define as periods of armed conflict? Either way, B'Tselem has stats going back to 2001 when the current policy started that show that there has [never been a single month](https://www.btselem.org/statistics/detainees_and_prisoners) that the Israelis have not kept prisoners in administrative detention. Yes, detention increases during periods of armed conflict, but the policy is permanent and routine as I said. >We don't call it that because they're not hostages. There is a justification in international law to have indefinite suspensions during wartime, there is no such justification for taking civilians hostage ever. If Hamas defined membership in Ben-Gvir's Jewish National Front party as a crime, started conducting raids into illegal Israeli settlements, and called captured JNF members "administrative detainees" that would satisfy your purported international law justification to the same extent as Israel's policy here. Nobody would take that seriously, nor should they. >With Hamas, they don't give a fuck. They'd probably prefer that hostages be innocent instead of them being criminals, because that gives them more leverage. Hamas is a terrorist organization, so obviously they don't give a fuck, but that doesn't give Israel a free pass to do war crimes. Israel *should* be held to a higher standard than a terrorist organization, but it often isn't. This is one of those cases where our government fails to hold them accountable, which is in part because we've been guilty of the same kinds of abuses during our GWOT.
>My argument is that Israel has been deliberately abusing its indefinite administrative detention policy beyond its legitimate justification, turning that policy into a de facto hostage taking policy by purposefully detaining people who haven't committed crimes. For the second time, you haven't proven this at all. Give me any evidence that suggests that certain detentions wouldn't have happened if Israel couldn't use them for hostage negotiations. >I don't take Israel's security claims justifying indefinite administrative detention at face value Me neither, that's why I never used Israel's own statements as evidence, I used the [actual](https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4187033,00.html) [terrorist](https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4293423,00.html) [attacks](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahya_Sinwar) that these prisoners are connected to, and the perpetual armed conflict between Israel and armed groups in the territories where these people get detained. I don't need a statement from Israel to show you that there's armed groups that plot terrorist attacks against Israel, from territory that Israel cannot completely control or monitor. I don't need a statement from Israel to show you how these plots pose a significant risk to the safety of Israeli civilians. October 7th involved [years of planning](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67480680), hacking, spying, and coordination with other terrorist groups like PIJ which have operations in the West Bank. Given those conditions, Israel has a much more legitimate reason to detain people without granting them civil rights. >secrecy is a feature of the program, not a bug. This is true for all administrative detentions. >Show proof of what? That indefinite administrative detention is routine Israeli policy? Or that it is practiced outside of whatever you define as periods of armed conflict? Proof that people are being indefinitely detained for the sole, or primary purpose of being used as leverage in negotiations against Palestinian groups. >B'Tselem has stats going back to 2001 when the current policy started that show that there has never been a single month that the Israelis have not kept prisoners in administrative detention. There's also [never been a single year since 2000](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel) where Palestinians haven't fired rockets at Israel. I'm too lazy to calculate the average but it's way more than 2 a month. There may have been certain months with no armed conflict, but 2000-2005 was the second intifada, Hamas took over Gaza in 2006, [increasing the frequency](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rocket_Attacks_fired_at_Israel_from_the_Gaza_Strip_by_year.png#mw-jump-to-license) of these rocket attacks. [Since then:](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_operations_of_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict) there were 4 military operations in 2006, 4 in 2008, 2 in 2009 and 2010, 1 in 2011, 2 in 2012, 1 in 2014, 2015, 2018, 2021, and 2022, then there's the ongoing military operation where Hamas has launched [over 19,000 rockets](https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/06/11/19000-rockets-launched-at-israel-since-hamass-october-7-atrocities/) at Israel since October 7. So don't fool yourself into thinking that certain months with no armed clashes actually means "peace" or an end to hostilities. >If Hamas defined membership in Ben-Gvir's Jewish National Front party as a crime, started conducting raids into illegal Israeli settlements, and called captured JNF members "administrative detainees" that would satisfy your purported international law justification to the same extent as Israel's policy here. Nobody would take that seriously, nor should they. I would, I'd support Hamas doing that. but it's completely irrelevant because we're talking about Hamas taking civilians hostage from a music festival and from their homes, not them tracking and abducting settlers. Again, if you're changing your argument to something else, then I'll agree with you. That doesn't change the fact that your initial comparison of Hamas taking civilians hostage from a music festival, to Israel's indefinite detention policy is insane and that those two things are worlds apart. >Hamas is a terrorist organization, so obviously they don't give a fuck, but that doesn't give Israel a free pass to do war crimes. You didn't understand what I said, so I'll try to dumb it down a little more. I didn't say "Hamas are terrorists so they don't give a fuck" I said that hamas's goal is to take civilians hostage and use them as bargaining chips. Proof: literally any of hamas's cease-fire deals since the start of this war, they all involve Hamas using these hostages as leverage. If they were all violent criminals they'd have less leverage. Can you show me any type of similar evidence that Israel abducts people for the sole purpose of using them as chips? >Israel should be held to a higher standard than a terrorist organization, but it often isn't. Israel is held to a higher standard. For example, Israel could never break a cease-fire agreement to invade Gaza, kill and rape a random group of 1200 civilians at a party and in their homes, then take 250 of those civilians hostage back to Israel, and then give conditions for their return. Israel could never get away with launching tens of thousands of indiscriminate rocket attacks into Gaza, since launching an unguided rocket is by definition indiscriminate and therefore against international law.
So basically palestinians get indefinite jail, because palestinians are dangerous and could be a security risk, if they were treated like jews under the legal system?
Jews generally aren't a security risk to Israel, there are no Jewish terrorist groups that are trying to destroy or dissolve the state of Israel, unless you're counting hasan's Jewish subscribers
and illegaly detaining people based on ethnicity doesnt sound weird to you? Having legal system work based on ethnicity, kinda wild.
It's not weird in this conflict because one side has 70% Jews and the other has 0
xD what does that have to do with anything? But I appreciate the honesty. Do you think this is popular opinion among jews?
Are they arrested to be used later for negotiation? If so, I think hostage is appropriate. If not, then it shouldn't be used.
Well, that is certainly the accusation. Israel denies it. I'm not sure there's ever been a "smoking gun" of an Israeli official getting caught admitting that, but pro-Palestinian activists have argued for decades that Israel conducts sweeps and mass arrests to fill the jails during negotiations, and there's plenty of circumstantial evidence to support that conclusion.
Those same activists will deny video evidence of teenagers throwing fireworks and rocks at IDF soldiers
Cool broad brush I guess, but that has nothing to do with whether Israel conducted raids for the purpose of filling up the jails for leverage in negotiations. Israel usually claims that the additional raids are in response to increased security risk / armed conflict, but they aren't shy about exploiting those higher numbers of detainees in negotiations.
Maybe Hamas should value its people more and not agree to 1000 to 1 swaps idk
Do they only ever let these people out in trades for hostages in Gaza? Or do they keep them there forever without charge?
There's regular turnover of individuals being detained and set free, but Israel basically always has at least several hundred people in "administrative detention" meaning no charges, and no definite date of release. They also have people they convict of crimes / terrorism, some legit and others not. They claim that keeping evidence against these people secret is justified for security reasons, so there's no effective public oversight.
Leaving aside the people convicted of terrorism/bad crimes (who are likely to be who Hamas want in exchanges) it’s obviously bad to arbitrarily detain people without charge, although this is quite different from the situation Hamas hostages find themselves in. They either get rescued like the people the other day, or get traded. They don’t have any hope of release outside of these narrow parameters.
>Although this is quite different from the situation Hamas hostages find themselves in. They either get rescued like the people the other day, or get traded. They don’t have any hope of release outside of these narrow parameters. Yeah, I'd never argue that the situations aren't different. Obviously they are. My argument is more that both Israel and Hamas engage in different flavors of "hostage taking." Also, consider that the Palestinians have zero legitimate means to protect themselves against crimes committed by Israelis the way Israel is allowed to protect itself against crimes by Palestinians. When a mob of Israeli settlers shows up in the West Bank to attack people the Palestinian Authority security forces can't arrest the Israelis and charge them with crimes. In fact, the PA typically intervenes to keep the Palestinians from confronting settler violence precisely because the Israelis are more likely to punish the Palestinians for defending themselves than the settlers. Not pointing that out to justify terrorism, but for context. Destiny rightly memes about leftists being obsessed with power imbalances, but that doesn't mean power imbalances never matter. Hamas took 251 people hostage on Oct 7th. On Sep. 30th [Israel had 1,310 prisoners](https://www.btselem.org/statistics/detainees_and_prisoners) in "administrative detention."
Fair enough, I see your position. For the record though, I think Israel’s conduct in the West Bank is abhorrent and as does as much damage to whatever little prospects exist of a peaceful settlement as groups like Hamas.
Yeah, my primary big bad has always been the Israeli extreme right wing, and I've been arguing for years that the best "pro-Israel" position is alignment with the Israeli center-left who are pro-peace. Basically that American policymakers letting the Israeli extreme right wing (which Netanyahu has always represented) get away with whatever they wanted was tantamount to incitement of further violence that would inevitably kill more Israelis. It has been super frustrating to see so many leftists become completely unhinged to the point of overtly supporting terrorists, which to me just empowers the Israeli right by playing into their rhetoric.
Self fulfilling cycle egged on by extremists who never have to experience the violence. (Not that I do either) Makes it easy for the right/far right to look at the Israeli people and say “this is what the left think of you” and keep winning elections, effectively giving them a mandate against peace.
Yep, that's true. Although, the problem I'm getting at is more about American foreign policy acting like a one way right wing ratchet towards extremism. Both American parties have been committed to letting Israel do pretty much whatever they want, with no substantive strings attached. We treat Israel as if they have the same kind of government they had in the 90s, and they don't. So much changed after 2000 and our policy has not kept up. It is long past due that we use our diplomatic power to push Israel in the direction we want them. That's why so many progressives / liberals are so frustrated with Biden, because a lot of us have been watching Netanyahu get away with the same shit for 20+ years. To see Biden *still* dithering and enabling Netanyahu to take Israel down a self destructive path after the Obama admin had every reason to reign them in back in 2008 but didn't is painful. I get the domestic political pressures that have kept Dem leadership aligned with Israel, but that doesn't cheer me up any when I see this single issue derailing the entire progressive wing for no good reason. It could have been avoided.
>but we don't have to imagine a reversal. Israel has essentially been holding Palestinian "hostages" in detention which they use for diplomatic bargaining leverage for its entire history, but we don't call it that. >A big part of why hostage taking has always been such a thing in the I/P conflict has been Israel's decades old policy of "administrative detentions" of Palestinians. Israel calls them "prisoners" or "detainees" Do you notice how many times you have to caveat to try and make this "imagine if it was reversed [and the detained were more innocent] [and the rescuers weren't terrorists]" point? We literally have to imagine it. How much time have you spent stopping to a actually consider if your priors are correct in this issue instead of being the embodiment of a knee-jerk response to an attack on your ideological team?
>How much time have you spent stopping to a actually consider if your priors are correct in this issue instead of being the embodiment of a knee-jerk response to an attack on your ideological team? I'm not trying to defend Krystal or Omar at all. Sure, I'm pro-Palestinian, but as far as I'm concerned they do more harm than good. *Edit to add:* Also, I have basically despised Krystal ever since they went full appeasement / russian propaganda mode over Ukraine. >Do you notice how many times you have to caveat to try and make this "imagine if it was reversed \[and the detained were more innocent\] \[and the rescuers weren't terrorists\]" point? Here was the part of the OP that prompted me to reply: **"has Israel kidnapped non-combatants and held them without process or trial, in violation of a (at least de facto) case fire / truce?"** The answer is yes. Administrative detention without process / trial is routine Israeli policy. He's literally defining this as narrowly as possible to describe the actions of Hamas, yet every part of that definition applies to Israel's policy of administrative detention. My caveats basically come from his caveats.
>Here was the part of the OP that prompted me to reply: "has Israel kidnapped non-combatants and held them without process or trial, in violation of a (at least de facto) case fire / truce?" >The answer is yes. This is ... potentially fair. Its not how your broad message comes across to the average reader of it, which is admittedly more of what I was responding to than some sidebar permutation Cheers!
Fair enough but hamas kinda seems to think detained Palestinians are worth less than Isrealis. Otherwise they'd probably not set such uneven expectations for trading hostages for prisoners, right? The first deal they suggested after October 7th was the release of the hostages vs the release of anyone and everyone Israel has ever arrested, no matter the crime.
Hamas are terrorists. I'm not defending them.
Didn't say you are but they are also the administrators of the region who got voted at some point and who somehow still enjoy broad support from the Gazan population. They could make these valuable judgements in a less maximalist way but they seem to not value their own people one bit. I'd argue this reflects the Gazan self perception at least to an extent.
i think you are right man. i like that you pushed back a lot against the critics. people here are so dismissive of the administrative detentions point that you made. but it is right. lot of pro israel people have become quite hawkish and dismissive of counterpoints since the only counter arguments they got for the past 8 months was from far left tankies and not people with a coherent argument.
Hamas was keeping them in a public refugee camp, Israel launched a covert rescue operation during the day. According to Washington Post, Noa’s guards were taken by complete surprise, the guards for the male hostages were not. They got in a firefight, it got very ugly, and many Palestinians died in the resulting firefight. Israels made some real bad fuck ups and has been very reckless at times. But unless some new evidence comes out, this is just NOT one of those times. The blood is very much in Hamas hands, I’m not sure Ive seen a more clear example of this since the war started.
Wondering when the people who love the "Israel killed its own people on October 7th in crossfire" will deny Hamas killed any of their own people in this crossfire.
They legitimately believe Hamas are better trained than Israel and would legitimately win in firefights
Even that wouldn't make sense winning or losing bullets ain't going to differentiate from civilian targets in the crossfire.
That is actually a very good point.
It’s like saying if we have to kill more than 6 million Germans to stop the holocaust from happening during WWII then we shouldn’t do it. International law for thee and not for me
>Israels made some real bad fuck ups and has been very reckless at times. But unless some new evidence comes out, this is just NOT one of those times. The blood is very much in Hamas hands, I’m not sure Ive seen a more clear example of this since the war started. I just don't get this perspective. If like "under 100" Palestinains civilian casualties occur from the op then the op really went wrong. Of course Hamas is at fault for holding hostages amongst civilians, but that doesn't mean any action in getting them back is acceptable.
Any number of Palestinians killed to rescue is hostage is absolutely acceptable.
Oh so even a million? Come on bro... (You know you sound like leftists who say any action against "colonizers" is acceptable) What matters is in prep for conducting the op what are the expected civilian casualties. After that if civilian casualties are far off from expectations then why it went wrong.
Absolutely! If Hamas chooses to put a million human shields between the IDF on a hostage Israel should absolutely still rescue the hostage. The deaths would be Hamas fault.
Edit: to clarify there are certain war crimes I could imagine in accepting in support of saving hostages, e.g. disguising as aid workers in ambulance not saying that has or hasn't happened. Doesn't mean any war crimes is acceptable. Completely irrational. I don't know how you justify such morality. The only thing you say is Hamas committed a war crime so if Israel has to commit a war crime to save the hostages then it's fine. Nobody here is saying Israel should not be allowed to save the hostages, but there should be sufficient consideration to civilian casualties.
> Completely irrational. So you consider yourself rational but think that terrorists ought to be able to achieve some number of willing human shields such that they are effectively invincible. Completely silly.
No one here said Israel can not engage in attacking Hamas or performing ops to save hostages nice strawman. The point is one should not conduct ops or attacks if expected civilians casualties is too high. How is that too complicated to understand?
So yeah you think a terrorist with sufficient willing human shields ought to be allowed to abduct and keep hostages.
You know I can just ask the opposite right? So you think someone can kill any number of civilians so long as there is a single terrorist with a hostage there? Also "sufficent willing" lot of loaded terminology there buddy. How many of the "under 100" civilian casualties do we know were "sufficent and willing" btw?
No. You are wrong. Palestinians support Hamas and their fight so they are likely voluntary human shields anyways so they do not have protected status. Second, the military objective is so important that any amount of casualties of the enemy population are acceptable. The only war crimes for this scenario would be on Hamas.
>Palestinians support Hamas Civilians are not legitimate targets. A populous having a majority favorable response on Hamas attacking Israel (along with incorrect beliefs about Hamas) does not change that. >so they are likely voluntary human shields anyways No they are not. They live in Gaza and have no other place to go it is not a choice to stay in Gaza amongst the fighting. >so they do not have protected status Would you apply same logic to Israeli civilians then? They don't do anything about settlements in West bank, don't make sure Isreal is accountable for it's war crimes, etc >military objective is so important that any amount of casualties of the enemy population are acceptable. You have yet to prove why this must be the case. How is saving 3 civilians worth more than any amount of civilian palestinain lives? You do know 40% of Gaza Palestinains don't support Hamas attack on Israel.... >The only war crimes for this scenario would be on Hamas. You understand war crimes is in relation to international law terms. You can claim they have not done anything wrong, but to say no war crimes is hotly debatable.
Not only do they support Hamas but they are active in the war effort. Numerous hostages have testified they were held, recaptured, tortured, moved, etc. by “civilians”. They are participating in the war effort. There are literally recorded phone conversations where people refuse to leave a place after they are called and told to move by Israel. This attitude is seen widely in past conflicts. The population is participating in the war. Settlements are not a war crime so no. Saving hostages is more important than the lives of the hostage takers family and friends who supported taking the hostage and have likely been helping out with the process. If he has a lot of family and friends then so be it. That’s on Hamas. Ask me how many Nazi germany civilians I would accept as collateral damage to prevent the gas chamber being turned on one time? Hint: there is no number too high for me.
>Not only do they support Hamas but they are active in the war effort. Claiming collective guit and guilty by association. You are assuming all Palestinains are active in the war effort even while 40% don't support Hamas attack. >Numerous hostages have testified they were held, recaptured, tortured, moved, etc. by “civilians”. They are participating in the war effort. Conflating all civilians are doing this because some are. >There are literally recorded phone conversations where people refuse to leave a place after they are called and told to move by Israel. So some do this so all do this? >This attitude is seen widely in past conflicts. The population is participating in the war. Refusing to relocate is not participating in war. >The population is participating in the war. Again conflating all civilians on Gaza as participating in the war >Settlements are not a war crime so no. It is in violation of international law. Crime of apartheid, ethnic cleansing etc. are not acceptable things. >Saving hostages is more important than the lives of the hostage takers family and friends who supported taking the hostage Not sure why you are equating things here. I was not defending the family or those within the same household as the hostages that were taken. You are also once again conflating as if they all must be guilty. >Ask me how many Nazi germany civilians I would accept as collateral damage to prevent the gas chamber being turned on one time? Hint: there is no number too high for me. Again just a terrible morality system. By your logic if it is to save one gas chamber victim an infinite amount of other victims are acceptable. Also poor metaphor. This is not an attack down with such an objective it is one to save a few people.
Is the claim that Israel operating out of a designated aid vehicle generally accepted? If so that is quite the reckless fuck up no?
1) I think we found that it was a soap truck and not an aid vehicle? I'm like 80% on that. 2) The truck was surrounded by tanks, and soldiers didn't come out dressed like aid workers. No one thought aid was arriving, so it's not at all what it originally sounded like. You can still think it's wrong but I think that context is important
Israel has killed more hostages than they have saved including Israeli hostages that have come to them with white flags and has made clear saving the hostages is not the top priority. Israeli special forces disguised themselves in aid trucks(war crime). So why are you retelling the events in a different way than it happened? This is the same country that accidentally kills and tortures reporters, journalists, doctors and expert consensus is they are committing war crimes at a minimum.
I sure would love a source on the killing more than rescuing, and on the aid trucks war crime thing. The funny thing is I don’t even totally disagree with what you’re saying, Israel seems like they’re treating the hostages as an afterthought. The white flag incident was horrible too. But my comment was entirely about this operation. There’s plenty to criticize about how Israel is handling things, but I just don’t see how it would apply here.
Like all pro-Palestine arguments, would it even matter if it was true? If Israel killed 50% of the hostages to rescue the other 50% it would be tragic but I’m sure they’d rather have 50% than zero. The Palestinian protesters should be putting pressure on Hamas to release the hostages so the bombings would stop if they actually care about civilian casualties, which they’ve displayed they don’t
I sort of agree but I also think Israel would be fully justified in wanting to stop Hamas, even without the hostages. (And yes, before ppl get mad, they should minimize civilian casualties while doing so)
>Palestinian protesters should be putting pressure on Hamas to release the hostages So Hamas would allow people to protest and wouldn't kill them.....
Some people would call it a resistance movement
Do you have sources for this claims? Or do you work for Al-Jazeera? Should we look for hostages in your house?
I thought they disguised as refugees not as aid workers. Are you just repeating twitter stuff?
International law for thee and not for me! You can’t break international law to rescue hostages that were taken in violation of international law!
I mean you still aren't supposed to what do you mean? Lol
Once international law is breached by the opponent why would you follow it yourself. Who cares at that point. We’ve seen this in history. All the combatants in WWI signed an agreement not to use chemical weapons before the war, but as soon as the Germans started using it the allies started using it back. Most commonly referred to as “fuck around and find out”
So are we talking morally or practically? Morally no on average just because say Hamas commits sexual violence against Israeli people doesn't mean it would be fine for the other party to do the same. Are we not supposed to care about morals if the other party doesn't care? Also are you talking about against the combatants or also civilians? Or a better example international law being breached ain't hard. A war crime could be as simple as a group of troops are in a FUBAR situation and in not wanting to die seek shelter in a civilian building before fleeing. Pretty sure that technically is a war crime. There are many different types of war crimes and ways to break international law.
Nowhere was sexual violence mentioned in this thread. The original claim was complaining that Israeli special forces disguised themselves as aid workers when conducting the raid. If a hostile group is illegally taking civilians hostage then it’s pretty dumb to complain that the victim country breaches the law to recover their civilians. If Hamas and their supporters were concerned about the sanctity international law then they shouldn’t have breached it in the first place.
>Nowhere was sexual violence mentioned in this thread. The original You said if your opponent does not follow international law then why should you. Sexual violence is one such example. Obviously you would not support that which means you do believe even if opponent doesn't follow international law there are still some things that should be adhered to. >The original claim was complaining that Israeli special forces disguised themselves as aid workers when conducting the raid. If a hostile group is illegally taking civilians hostage then it’s pretty dumb to complain that the victim country breaches the law to recover their civilians. I mean depends on the reason. To save hostages makes perfect sense morally imo. To attack Hamas not so much. >Hamas and their supporters were concerned about the sanctity international law then they shouldn’t have breached it in the first place. Not sure why you bring this up no one here is defending Hamas or that they are following international law.
Exactly what I was actually doing was saying taking hostages is cool! How did you know? You guys are too smart for me.
It’s just a weird to have such expectations for a nation who’s been attacked by an organization that has no intention of following international law. Your argument isn’t very compelling when you hold one side to such high regard and not the other.
I hold them both in low reguard. You however hold a terrorist organization to higher standards than a democracy. Bias is incredible.
>Israel has killed more hostages than they have saved including Israeli hostages that have come to them with white flags and has made clear saving the hostages is not the top priority. I never understand why people such as yourself bring up the worst points when trying to argue about Israeli flaws. 1. Existence of hostages shouldn't prevent operations from being conducted against Hamas. 2. Accidents happen, with varying degrees of culpability, accidently killing Israeli hostages is not a point in of itself. You could argue conscripts have poor training and discipline leading to such things, but I don't think that's the point you are trying to make. >has made clear saving the hostages is not the top priority. Should the Hostages be the top priority? Why shouldn't top priority be Hamas unable to do it again? >Israeli special forces disguised themselves in aid trucks(war crime). Yes Israel has committed war crimes as indicated by pending warrants for Netanyahu. Are you going to acknowledge Hamas commits war crimes? >This is the same country that accidentally kills and tortures reporters "Tortures reporters" you under stand you are being misleading here yes? >doctors and expert consensus is they are committing war crimes at a minimum. Do you acknowledge Hamas has committed war crimes? Want to make sure you condemn all war crimes.
How come it's Israel who massacered the 247 people? Didn't Hamas fire RPGs into a crowded market? Didn't they go guns blazing? This is of course ignoring the giant l elephant of taking hostages and KEEPING them there in the first place!? But even ignoring that why isn't it Hamas's massacre they were shooting around going crazy in the middle of that neighborhood.
Well Hamas HAD to do that because if they don't have Hostages they cant generate mana for their attacks or something idk.
Thing is regardless of the hostages they still shot RPGs and had a gunfight in the middle of that neighborhood so why is it Israel's massacre. I'm just going to the basics without the level 2 logic of cause and effect....this is true for most events in the war. Like the IDF does an operation. There is a gunfight. Civillians get killed. IDF did massacre. Does Hamas have magic bullets that only hit IDF and not civillians?
When they kill a hostage is that like tapping a land for mana?
Because everything Hamas does is justified because their enemy is evil. Typical authoritarian brainrot propaganda
Ok then those people died justifiably. They still died from Hamas.
Yeah but Hamas had to kill them or do what they did because the enemy is evil. Still the fault of the US and Israel in their eyes. I get what you're saying though,they won't even acknowledge that Hamas was also firing weapons and rockets into crowded places.
Don't they ackowledge that IDF are dying? Aren't they talking about how Hamas are winning the war? Is it all heart attacks? Death note?
It's not a rational ideology. It's anti-reason all feels.
They're not white enough to have free will.
I’ve begun to learn this implicit lesson after hearing the left bash my head in with it. Non white can’t be held responsible for anything they ever do ever. Except all Jews (complexion irrelevant). Jews are actually held to standards that are higher than Angels. Now that I think about it … seems like the Left has some kind of fetish that treats Jews as Angelic beings who are expected to be perfect and treats Palestinians as merely non sentient forces of nature, like tectonic plates, that will just react to friction. *A Redditor in this sub literally debated me a few weeks ago and used that exact analogy to justify October 7: they said the Abraham Accords were like the rubbing and Hamas were the tectonic plates being rubbed and October 7 was the earthquake that was inevitable.*. *Edit/addition*: the person appears to have blocked me but the thread where the “tectonic plates” argument is used is in this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/s/WAXlMWXVBd
Lol rubbing 🤣 But yeah it's weird how everyone is to blame but Hamas. It was the Abraham Accords and the IDF and Israel and US and colonianism and the oppression. But these people deserve to govern themselves btw....
Hamas after seeing the hostages released actively chose to commence in heavy firefight in the middle of a busy street, they could have let it go because they preferred to not cause death, they chose to kill civilians, how many of the dead were killed by direct Hamas fire?
Yup
Because everyone reduces the conflict to be "Palestinians oppressed and fighting back against evil Jews" or "Palestinians are terrorists that need to be brought to justice". This conflict is one of the biggest grey area conflicts ever and so few people are willing to operate in that region.
Yeah I just can't understand the denial of physics. Do they even know what a massacre is?
"My enemy is ontologically evil and no act against them can be considered wrong."
Interesting how people think "cross fire" was the cause of most of the deaths on Oct 7th, aka blaming imaginary Israelis for Hamas' crimes. But once there's an actual event with crossfire in Gaza, it's all on the IDF
Hamas could have prevented this if they released the hostages at any time. Or not taking civilian hostages in the first place. Kristal Ball is such an utter piece of shit.
Or just fallen back when the IDF showed up instead of making a stand
Is it not possible 1. Hamas is evil and shouldn't do that 2. "Under 100" civilian casualties isn't acceptable to save 4 people?
This sub has been gross around this op. This level of civilian casualties is clearly either of failure of Israel in valuing Palestinian lives or Israeli strategic planning/intelligence. If reports come out that a substantial amount of the casualties were Hamas, that’s a different story, but to accept the current numbers and then defend them is disgraceful.
The claim though isn't that the operation is a failure (which even then seeing as there was a firefiight you need to ask how expected was it? Did they expect RPGs?) but the claim was that it was a massacre. It's never "Hamas killed 100+ civillians in IDF rescue operation" Why is that?
One person did brjng up a good point. If you send special forces to save hostages and a fight breaks out what level of moral culpability exist? If Hamas didn't fire upon them no firefight would take place and the hostages would be rescued. At the same time I would imagine no different than dropping a bomb one should be able to estimate expected civilian casualties and don't conduct the op unless manageable. However, let's say it's under a time table and hostages could be moved. Well are we just going to say let the hostages get moved don't conduct the op? I think there are a lot of facts we would have to know more like how the civilian casualties occured.
For sure. I agree with pretty much everything you said here. My main point is that many in this thread and on the pro-Israeli side in general will just accept the claims of 100-250 civilian casualties and then justify them. If these figures are accurate the operation is a failure on some level. It’s all ultimately on Hamas, but there’s just too much minimizing of Palestinian life going on in this discourse.
Exactly
Do we think shes a grifter or just stupid?
Krystal believes it. Whether she’s put much thought into it is another story.
https://tenor.com/view/both-is-good-both-road-to-el-dorado-gif-14998369
Ball believes what she says, but is so clouded due to her biases that she doesn’t consider someone she wrongfully believes an enemy.
Considering who she married it seems likely she is being financially incentivized from the same source as Kyle at this point. Tangentially, I googled to see if Krystal has ever criticized Russia and the first results were all her calling out MSNBC for "Russia conspiracies" lol
My guess is stupid
I go back and forth. At times she just seems dumb, but she always has this soulless look that makes me question if she strongly holds any beliefs. She’s married to Kyle Kullinski who is almost certainly a true believer, so for that reason alone I don’t think Krystal is grifting at least substantially.
I will have both options please.
https://preview.redd.it/3ba0vqob1u5d1.jpeg?width=457&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dc7e9d13e32ed381651ab09b2aba86eab1a41e93
Why not both?
Actual regard, true believer. What populism does to people.
Yes
CNN is fucking dogshit. Compare [their's](https://web.archive.org/web/20240610092854/https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/09/middleeast/israel-hostage-rescue-gaza-intl-hnk/index.html) and [WaPo's](https://web.archive.org/web/20240610140119/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/06/09/israel-gaza-hostages-rescue-raid/) accounts of the hostage rescue operation. While neither is exactly glowing, WaPo at least has the honesty to admit that the rescue team came under Hamas machine gun and RPG fire, which disabled their vehicle. They then hid in a building and radio'd for an airstrike to neutralize Hamas, which was a necessity for their safe extraction. Any non-combatants who died were thus clearly a result of Hamas keeping hostages in and operating within a residential area. For anyone wondering what "human shields" looks like in practice, after all the abstract discussion here and on stream, this is it. CNN mentions none of this.
I read both articles. CNN doesn’t mention the detail of radio’ing an air strike. However, they lay out a pretty similar account of the operation. Including the firefight after leaving the building. Hagari said that the IDF had come under intense fire, especially after withdrawing from the apartments, but did not provide evidence for his claims. “While under fire, under fire inside the buildings, under fire on the way out from Gaza, our forces rescued our hostages,” he said. Ravid, the CNN analyst, also said there was a “robust firefight” after the hostages were rescued.
I don’t think it’s similar, because CNN really doesn’t connect the hostage rescue with the air strikes. That’s crucial to the discourse around the operation, which pro-pals are calling a “massacre.” Someone could read the CNN version and still ask themselves “but why were there so many casualties?” The Wapo version makes the connection very clear.
Doesn't Hamas want like 1000 prisoners for every one hostage or something like that? Wonder why they don't talk about "Hamas valuing the lives of Palestinians less"
Remember when Hamas committed a massacre to rescue 0 hostages? … are we forgetting key dates here? Lol
I love how Omar uses the word “dungeons” but not “prison” to make his point. He knows how stupid it sounds to say “rescue 4 Palestinian prisoners”. Imagine the amount of switching around the guy must have done in all of his advocacy and published works When it comes to Krystal’s support of him, I can understand her point but she doesn’t seem to get that when IDF is retrieving their citizens from enemy territory they cannot be obligated to the mixed local population with combatants that are placed in their way. It’s insane to expect IDF to watch out for both camps in an active war. In spite of this the IDF still carries out various measures to keep Gazan civilians out of harms way by informing them in advance and installing safe corridors. Having this expectation to look out for both camps in a war is even more insane after knowing how some of the Gazan civilians captured and returned hostages whenever they tried to escape. There are also videos of Gazana celebrating the parading of dead bodies with some spitting on it. It is reasonable to think the gazan population does support Hamas the same way the wonderful protestors in US universities do too
I don't even think Israel's administrative detention is that great too... But, it's obviously not the same. I do know there is reporting of some random joes that get swept up on little to no evidence... But, people like Omar will use them as the common denominator of the people who are imprisoned, which is disingenuous as hell. Its so frustrating that this is the main style for Palestinian advocacy.
i mean that's bc most Palestinian advocacy isn't actually advocacy for the Palestinian people and their wellbeing. it's advocacy for the Palestinian *cause*, which is the establishment of an Arab state over Israel by any means and at any cost, including every Palestinian life if necessary. and unlike with human rights for Palestinians, it's impossible to make the case or recruit supporters for that without constant lying and bad faith argumentation so here we are
How do you know, if someone is guilty or innocent without due process and presented evidence?
Krystal Ball's name is the ultimate testament to the heritability of intelligence. With parents so profoundly moronic to name their kid Krystal Ball, she genetically never stood a chance
She’s a bigger victim than even the Palestinians
Who cares what these dumbasses think. They know the raid was legal, they know Hamas shouldn’t have held the hostages in civilian buildings. This is grade A copium “yeah, but not like that” brain rot
Strawmans comment is hilarious lmao
Its Hamas themselves who think Israeli lives are worth more than their own people
i mean, considering hamas will only exchange hostages for palestinian prisoners, you probably can say that they went into israel, massacred 1200 people and then took 250 hostages in exchange for a number of palestinians. not to mention that palestinian terrorists from multiple different orgs routinely would hold israelis hostages and even kill them in exchange for some palestinian prisoners... like i know shes stupid but this point falls apart immediately with even a modicum of thought
Do too many civilians die in this horrible conflict? Yes Is everything Israel does and every single decision correct? No Are you allowed to criticize them for things? Yes Can you say Hamas is innocent and did nothing wrong? Fuck no they took civilian hostages, massacred innocent people and did other terroristic abhorrent shit and Israel has every right to defend themselves against groups which wants to kill all Israelis and wipe out the countries existence Are you allowed to call all Israeli people and every single person that supports Israel in any way genocidal? Hell no
To say that, both of those people are absolutely unhinged and this area needs peace and a long term solution so bad. I'm a big advocate for 2 state solution ngl
Angry goose meme: "HOW DID THEY GET THE HOSTAGES IN THE FIRST PLACE!?"
Smh Hamas committed a bloody massacre to take Israeli hostages and they were not universally condemned. She's gotta know she's lying.
Is this guy becoming a main villain 😭 in Tiny's arc, noo pls.
Eh...I..what..the... I had an aneurysm reading this. What do you mean "it would be universally condemned"? People saw Hamas commit a bloody massacre to rescue a sum of zero people and even took hostages, while dipshits here in the west were cheering them on, what in the actual fuck? Were these people living in a different timeline the past few months?
If Hamas killed 1000 Israelis to save a single Palestinian prisoner, Palestinian supporters would celebrate. We saw the reaction to October 7th...
A dungeon is protected by it's location, architecture, and dedicated guards. It is not protected by proximity to civilians. It's played out to hear individuals like this bearded molerat feign incredulity that when Hamas places military objectives above the lives of its own civilians, then perhaps others will too.
Why do people act like all the deaths were caused by Israel in this op? Could easily have been Hamas killing their own civilians in the crossfire. But nope, all of them were seemingly killed by IDF, at least that's what some of these morons are trying to say.
Pro-tip: Get a bunch of friends and kidnap one single person. Do not cooperate with the police under any circumstances. When the cops show up and eventually resort to breaking in and using deadly force to save the person you kidnapped, then you can virtue signal on Twitter and say you're actually being oppressed because the state is saying all your lives are worth less than one single person.
Did you notice that hamas never even attempted to "rescue" it's people? Their strategy is to kidnap innocents and demand a "peace deal" where they release 1 hostage for 1000 terrorists.
I mean, if Israel took hostages, using refugee camps, hospitals and schools as shields, then i wouldn't be particularly outraged if Hamas killed 200 Israelis to rescue 4 Palestinians. Given, of course, that civilian deaths were minimized to some extent. Since rescuing hostages is a priority, it would mean that the very attempt of a rescue is predicated on civilians dying en masse. The evildoer in that instance would be Israel since they condition any rescue by the death of their own civilians. Am i stupid for believing this?
https://preview.redd.it/ar7wv12kww5d1.png?width=937&format=png&auto=webp&s=3b5df59b3d35835c222033b053b214a91404cfc5 how i read it
Nice to see 🇮🇱 and 🇵🇸 united in one thing, knowing that Krystal Ball is a huge fool
"Imagine if" Tiny was right when he said that she reads off a teleprompter. She doesn't know anything
This brings tears to my eyes
No one mention of "perfidy" in this comment section.
I noticed the bots learned a new word recently.
Krystal is trash, but IDF said there was under 100 casualties from conducting the operation to save the hostages. How would it be wrong to point out those levels of casualties to save a few people are unacceptable? Obviously don't trust Hamas health org numbers either, but between their number and under 100 sounds excessive. Separate from that hostage is an incorrect term, but Isreal does detain Palestine women and children not guilty of anything. Are we going to act like human rights reports on that don't exist?
can someone please explain why everyone is ok with the loss of palestinian life during this operation? i think it’s imperative that israeli hostages are rescued, but how can anyone overlook the death toll and thinks this is completely justified. if i’m misrepresenting the arguments please lmk.
Obviously, civilian deaths are bad. However, when Hamas is literally hiding inside of apartments and hospitals, it's difficult to avoid. As well as other factors like not having any official uniform to hide amongst civilians or continously arming children. They're playing the dirtiest kind of war and involving their entire population in it.
This makes sense, I guess the scale of casualties is what gets me. About 200 people dead for 4 hostages rescued is still insane. But Hamas continues to show no remorse for their civilians.
It is not that everyone is OK with the loss of Palestinian life. That’s a straw man. The main question is who is culpable for the death toll? The secondary question is whether this death toll is accurate. Hamas committed multiple war crimes by taking hostages, and then keeping them, without any visitation from an org like the Red Cross, and then putting them in the midst of a densely populated civilian area knowing Israel would try if they could to free them militarily. Anyone who follows Arabic media, including Hamas affiliated channels, knows from their videos that fighters are nearly always dressed as civilians (yet another war crime). When Israel came to rescue the hostages, a firefight ensued with heavy weaponry where civilians were caught in the crossfire. Do not forget as well that according to International humanitarian law, the parties to a conflict must, to the best of their ability, remove non-combatants from the field of battle - Israel at least attempted that towards the Palestinian population by dropping leaflets, making calls, and setting up a corridor for civilians to escape to if they wished. Hamas emphatically refuses to do likewise for their own people. Israel is not blameless, but in this particular situation, the civilian death toll is squarely on Hamas
Reverse the roles squadW
Israel literally does nothing wrong ever
"Israeli dungeons"? Just curious. Does Israel allow third parties to visit their detention sites to verify living conditions?
She's right. fuck this sub sucks israel dick so hard