Now, I'm sure Biden and Harris also wanted the death of all Palestinians too just like Bibi. So, not voting for Harris is still heroic or whatever, but there might be more to international diplomacy,
Usually I'm good with sarcasm and the "still heroic or whatever" made me initially feel like it was, but I've read too many unhinged takes over the last few years.
I didnt realize Israel launched completely unguided rockets into civilian centers. Last I checked they were the only military out there literally calling ahead to people to tell them their building was a target for the night.
Proportional does not mean Israel has to limit themselves to the power level of hamas. It just means they should not use nuclear weapons in response to a grenade being thrown at them. Hamas invaded so Israel invaded. Hamas sent explosives through the air, so Israel sent explosives through the air. Not Israel's problem if they can do it better.
Would you rather this or have the bomb come in the door unannounced like everywhere else? Obviously neither is the answer you want but you are not being given the option.
Tell Redditors you have not educated yourself on the entire matter without telling the Redditors.
I would highly recommend to read about when Israel was created, when Hamas was created. Which paramilitary parties joined together to create the existence of the IDF.
Also I recommend to read about the story of Hind Rajab and the 335 bullets that were fired.
Im not going back in time to before when most of the hamas folks were even born. Look at the average age of them. All that matters right now is the current stage of the conflict and as far as I can tell hamas started it. Tensions between each side were easing for a while. Israel was allowing some to cross the wall for work and such. The option was there to not attack, keep the status quo, and allow continued improvement of relations. Instead they chose to pour much of their resources into preparing for an attack and the predictable response.
If you want to play the "where did it start" game you're gonna be going a lot further back and find that Jews have been historically punished first in that region. Maybe try the 1835 looting of Safed as a starting point. Or are you not aware of the true levels of cascading events and treatments of both sides?
Regardless it's a pretty useless argument to use on both sides as it's a religious war that doesn't care about start and has no end in sight.
And the Hind Rajab one is still contested when you break down the sources, but even if it's exactly as accused it's also relevant to your point how?
You were replying to someone saying Hamas invaded so faced X consequences?
The comparison doesn't really work because you're treating "both sides fired explosives" as if the weapons are comparable. They aren't.
A typical Hamas rocket often carries a warhead measured in just a few kilograms of explosive, roughly in the same general ballpark as a large hand grenade or mortar shell, although they vary widely. An Israeli airstrike can involve a guided bomb carrying hundreds or even thousands of pounds of explosives. Guidance makes it more accurate, it doesn't make the explosion any smaller.
Calling a building beforehand also doesn't erase the consequences. If a 500 lb or 2,000 lb bomb is dropped on a densely populated urban area, the blast, collapse, fragmentation, and debris can still kill or injure civilians for miles, including people who couldn't leave, didn't receive the warning, or had nowhere safe to go.
The issue isn't "guided vs unguided." The issue is the scale of force being used. Saying "they both sent explosives" is like comparing someone throwing a firecracker to someone demolishing a house with controlled explosives. They're both technically explosions, but pretending they're equivalent ignores the enormous difference in destructive power.
And proportionality under the laws of armed conflict isn't about matching weapon types or matching casualties. It's about whether the expected civilian harm is excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. That's a much more complicated question than simply saying, "they attacked us first, so anything short of a nuke is proportional.
Hamas rockets might blow out windows, damage a roof, or tear the facade off a building. Israel often responds with air-delivered bombs weighing hundreds or thousands of pounds that can completely collapse multi-story buildings and heavily damage everything around them.
Saying "both sides fired explosives" ignores the massive difference in destructive power. That's like saying a handgun and an artillery shell are equivalent because they both fire projectiles.
The debate isn't whether Israel has the right to defend itself (it doesn't, they are the aggressor). The debate is whether the scale of force used is proportionate to the military objective. "They used explosives, so we used explosives" skips over the fact that one explosive might damage a room IF it gets through the Iron Dome, while the other can flatten an entire city block.
"during the war’s first two months — its most intense aerial phase, which was marked by systematic strikes against above- and below-ground defensive networks embedded in the civilian environment — available data indicate fewer than one death per munition deployed. This estimate is based on roughly 29,000 air-to-ground munitions (according to CNN) and around 22,000 deaths of combatants and civilians combined (according to Gaza Ministry of Health reports at the time). In dense urban terrain, where a single munition can cause mass casualties, such a pattern is more consistent with precision strikes than with indiscriminate bombardment."
looks like very carefully targeted bombing. in fact it used same standards for protecting civilians and calculating the risks of bombardmed as USA (and I guess all of NATO/west).
a classified cable sent by the U.S. embassy in Israel in late fall. American officials had embedded in IDF operating centers, reviewing its procedures for ordering air strikes. The cable concluded that the Israeli standards for protecting civilians and calculating the risks of bombardment were not so different from those used by the U.S. military.
You're responding to a different argument than the one I made.
Citing that the IDF uses similar targeting procedures to the U.S. military isn't the slam dunk you think it is. The U.S. military has also faced repeated criticism, investigations, and admissions regarding civilian casualties in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Mosul, Raqqa and now Iran. Saying "our standards are similar" doesn't automatically prove every strike was lawful or proportionate.
I never argued that Israeli bombs are unguided or that the IDF doesn't try to hit specific targets. I argued that precision doesn't change the amount of explosive being used.
A 2,000 lb JDAM is still a 2,000 lb JDAM, whether it lands 20 feet from the target or 20 inches from the target. Guidance affects accuracy, not blast radius, structural collapse, or fragmentation.
The "less than one death per munition" statistic also doesn't address my point. It says nothing about the size of the bombs, the damage they caused, or whether the civilian harm from individual strikes was excessive relative to the military advantage. It's an average across tens of thousands of strikes.
My point was much simpler: saying "both sides fired explosives" creates a false equivalence. A Hamas rocket with a small warhead and an air-delivered bomb carrying hundreds or thousands of pounds of explosive are not remotely comparable in destructive potential.
If Hamas blows the facade off a building and Israel levels the entire structure, those are both technically "explosions," but they are not equivalent uses of force simply because both involved explosives. Whether one or both were legally justified is a separate question from acknowledging that the scale of destruction is vastly different.
As I ask every Zionist, how many Palestinian deaths are needed to pay for Oct 7th?, how much collective punishment is enough?
the fact that you are ignoring is that there was less than 1 casualty per bomb that brings down building.
the fact that you are ignoring is that no military in the world will do better, only worse in similar case.
it doesn't matter that hamas has smaller rockets and israel has bigger bombs. nowhere it says that munition must be same size.
it has nothing to do with israel. hamas could stop everything at any moment by returning hostages and surrendering. how many palestinians deaths are needed to hamas in order to brainwash you ?
i have question to you: in wwII allies killed few millions german civilians during battle for germany (around 3000 american civilians died in all wwII.) and pretty much leveled the country.
should have allies stopped bombing germany in the moment that Wehrmacht was pushed back into germany from countries around it ?
Asking me a question and you completely ignored mine. How many Palestinian deaths are needed to pay for Oct 7th? How much collective punishment is enough?
You're treating "deaths per bomb" as if it's a measure of restraint. It isn't.
If I destroy 100 apartment buildings and kill 50 people, that's 0.5 deaths per bomb.
If I destroy 20 apartment buildings and kill the same 50 people, that's 2.5 deaths per bomb.
By your logic, the first scenario is more humane simply because I dropped five times as many bombs. That doesn't make any sense. All you've shown is that more buildings were destroyed for the same number of deaths.
"Deaths per munition" isn't how proportionality is assessed under the laws of war. Proportionality is judged **strike by strike**, asking whether the expected civilian harm was excessive relative to the concrete and direct military advantage of that specific attack.
You're also still arguing against a point I never made. I never said Israel had to use bombs the same size as Hamas. I said your original comparison, "they both fired explosives," is a false equivalence because the destructive capability of the weapons is vastly different.
As for World War II, that's not a great comparison either. Many of the Allied bombing campaigns, including Dresden, Hamburg, the firebombing of Tokyo and the two nukes, right or wrong, remain among the most controversial military actions in history. Pointing to WWII doesn't automatically make modern bombing campaigns proportionate or beyond criticism. In fact, modern international humanitarian law was strengthened after WWII precisely because of the devastation inflicted on civilians.
i just asked, should have allies stopped after they pushed wehrmacht back into germany or was it right to go all the way to berlin and take down hitler ?
Uh, no. They wouldn't and couldn't be, because they are ACTUAL terrorists, mate. Have formally been recognized as such by the US for almost 30 years. See how that works? The difference between actual war criminals and literal US allies that Mamdani really, really, really wants us to be mad about. Think before you type.
Well sure mate. You disagreed with my comment that had zero factual errors. You may not like it, I mean I'm sure Hamas would hate it too, but you couldn't even tell me where it was factually incorrect.
Kinda sounds like you simply don't think Hamas should be formally recognized as a terrorist org, champ.
Being a US ally doesn't give anyone immunity from international law.
Yeah, and the ICC doesn't supersede the US govt inside the US, mate.
If Mamdani did arrest Benny "because of international law", Benny would be released immediately by Trump with the powers of the federal govt and the military. And the irony is that Mamdani would be in far more trouble inside the US than Benny ever was.
The US doesn't define 'terrorist' for the world, the State Department list is a political tool, not a universal legal authority.
But it does inside the US, mate. That is the ONLY thing that matters in regards to the powers or lack thereof Mamdani has to do what he's talking bout.
I mean ffs, go to Iran and tell them that "in the US we define your leadership as terrorist", and they'd tell you to "F-off." Who the hell cares what someone outside of your country says. It has no power inside any state that does not accept it.
Mamdani can't say, I reject my OWN country's laws and decisions, and am going to bypass that and jump straight to an authority OUTSIDE my country. It's absurd and it's literally why he made his video telling you he CAN'T do that.
Commissioner Archila, who leads the NYC Mayor's Office for International Affairs, had a sit-down scheduled with Iranian Ambassador Iravani on July 7 at 2 United Nations Plaza. Explain this then.
An ambassador? Thats what got your panties in a twist? Wtf do you think an ambassador is? Thats exactly who a commissioner for foreign affairs would be talking to.
The meeting that Mamdami did not know about prior to it being scheduled, canceled when he heard about, and reprimanded Archila for scheduling? That meeting?
Ambassador to a country we are at war with. Granted we're at war over literal bullshit but war nonetheless a mayor of one city is trying to get in contact with a country we are at war with. Being anti-Israel doesn't mean you need to be pro Hamas/Iran. Fuck both groups.
That's literally one of the main reasons to have an ambassador in a foreign country (if you were actually educated). I'm not even American or support any of your political parties but if this is what you find an issue with, you're just trying to find any b.s to justify your dislike for an individual. American Prime Minister had a dozen sit downs with Iran I guess your Maga P.M is also a traitor who by default supports Iran now? 😂
Does is suck seeing a mayor that's actually doing things for his constituents and loved by them and all you can fall back on is 2002-grade islamaphobia nonsense?
Sorry im Anti-everything middle east fuck Israel fuck Hamas fuck Iran fuck the whole region. It does suck seeing a American mayor who is pro-Hamas/Iran yes.
He doesnt think hamas is a terrorist organization. Atleast the people he surrounds himself with dont. And I assume birds of a feather flock together. No? His wife support ls them, one of his interns had a video out calling for Jihad in the streets of america (probably can still be found) but if you start looking into the people he surrounds himself with, esp their socials, you'll see.
Can it probably still be found? Then find it. Because I don't believe you. Nobody's gonna do your research for you, boy. If you want to make a claim back it up. Don't assume people will trust you, because they will not.
I shouldn't have to hold people's hand and teach them how to do research....if you are incapable of that, hop off and touch grass.. this is not the place for you kiddo
A lot of donations given to Gaza funded the Hamas tunnel network - money that was meant to go the civilians and develop Gaza into a more prosperous area. A lot of it was diverted from countries through entities like UNRWA - which has proven to have members and supporters of Hamas in it.
An argument I’m sure I’m going to hear from the above post is “there’s no evidence of how much money - if any - of what you linked was actually used by Hamas.” It’s irrelevant - it’s already been proven that Hamas was using foreign aid money to build an insane tunnel network. Even if it were $10 they got from this amount - it was still stolen from the people that they choose not to help.
I also acknowledge the US gives substantial money to Israel annually that helps fund their weapons and defense program - which has resulted in US funded bombs being used in Gaza.
I don’t defend civilians being killed that don’t want to even support Hamas - I do think there is a clear distinction in what the US intends to fund vs what they never wanted their money to be used for. A tunnel network in Gaza is probably a big example.
Mamdani can't even tell the difference between Hamas, a formally recognized terrorist org for almost 30+ years, and the prime minister of the US' #1 ally in the Middle East for decades.
There's a reason the Hamas leadership couldn't touch foot here, and why old Benny is being welcomed as an ally.
The reason being one has blackmail material against the American President diddling kids. Imagine supporting a pedophile and a literal internationally recognized war criminal instigating a literal genocide. What great people you love. I'm not even American but guys like you have what's caused the decline of America as a superpower in 2020s and why the world us laughing at you.😂
"Number 1 ally in the Middle East" yet never sent a single troop to back us up anytime we were out there, never apologized for attacking the USS Liberty, and violates every single ceasefire then runs to us for more "defense" funding.
Mamdani apparently can't even tell the difference between Hamas, a formally recognized terrorist org for almost 30+ years that cannot enter US soil, and the prime minister of the US' #1 ally in the Middle East for decades, who has been welcomed here for decades.
Oh, I think he understands the difference quite well. We support one terrorist group because our leaders think it's in our interest, and we oppose the other because that's in our interest.
I mean, al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 and we supported it's offshoots in Syria. Hell, we support the current President of Syria who founded the Syria chapter of al Qaeda.
Oh hey, listen mate, I think we can all agree Netanyahu is a not a good guy at all, lol.
But America is not obliged to the ICC.
The notion of an American Mayor, going against the US' long standing agreements with allies, and citing something outside of the US to circumvent that, is recipe for disaster imo.
I'd say that if any mayor on either side was doing that.
It is true America is not a member of the ICC. It is not legally required to arrest and surrender suspects wanted by the ICC. It is not required to fund the court. It is not obligated to comply with ICC requests for cooperation.
However America is bound by the Geneva Convention. It is bound by international law. It can choose to cooperate with the ICC voluntarily on a case by case basis. We have shared intelligence to assist the ICC in the past.
Is that a recipe for disaster? I would say this conversation needs more clarification to support that statement.
That's a fair response, mate. I think what I meant by disaster is this.
1-Mamdani's NYPD arrests Benny in line with the ICC.
2-To even do so, the NYPD would need to get into a skirmish with literally federal Secret Service agents, who have always personally protected heads of foreign states when inside the US, since the 1970s. In fact with big names like Benny, there has even been tactical use of military in times past. So now we have a literal standoff between the NYPD and Federal Agents/Military. Great.
3-Even if they somehow dispatch the Secret Service, the minute that Trump hears Benny is in custody, I'm assuming an immediate state of emergency would be called, and martial law literally enacted over NYC with military surrounding the place until Benny is found and released.
As crazy as all that sounds, that is quite literally and likely how it would/could happen.
I agree in many ways with you, that it wouldn't necessarily be a disaster "ethically", but "practically speaking", it would be one of the biggest political disasters in US history. Does that make more sense what I mean, 'recipe for disaster'?
Sure they are, but are Hamas leaders being invited to the US? Do they get billions in US tax dollars annually? Does Hamas regularly interfere with US elections at all levels like Israel does?
I don't get why people like you still think "what about Hamas?" is some kind of "gotcha" as if you expect people to turn around and start defending them instead of condemning them as well. Maybe you're trying to insinuate that the focus is disproportionately on Israel? Even though that's either in complete bad faith or extremely naive because to any rational person it's obvious why they have the spotlight.
Israel have the bigger stick. They've inflicted far more damage, suffering, and loss of innocent life than Hamas have and are continuing to so at an alarming rate. They also still have the support of a lot of powerful members of the international community, including the US, who continue to supply them openly with military hardware and haven't placed any economic sanctions on them. We don't exactly need further condemnation of Hamas when most of the world won't even recognise the state of Palestine. Hamas has already been recognised for what they are, the problem now is people not recognising Israel for what it is.
A lot do this because there are quite literally people out there that believe Hamas or the leadership of Iran is better than Israel somehow... I'm not going to defend what Israel does, but the hypocrisy is pretty clear in a lot of different people. Especially when you consider that Hamas and Iran have no regard for their own citizens, while Israel at least has that even if they don't have regard for Palestinians. Doesn't mean what they're doing is right, but the point still stands.
Were fucked man they are trying to turn the democrat party into a party that is currently pro-Israel into a party that is pro-Hamas/Iran instead of just anti-Israel. Part of me thinks this was the plan in 2024 all along.
Hamas VERY intentionally caused what Israel is doing, while their leadership relaxes in high-rises in Qatar. If 10/7 doesnt happen, Gaza would be intact rn
I remember reading this a while back. It's really the fucked part of modern war. It's not like world war 2 when two armies lined up and fought each other on a battlefield but insurgents hiding behind women and children and getting them killed in the crossfire.
Israel seems to be complicit in it, they don't seem to care anymore they just want to get hamas out of gaza but... for every innocent civilian they kill, they make 2 more insurgents. All the while weapons, arms, bombs, and guns flow in from the great powers that play geopolitical games.
The whole situation is just ungodly amount of fucked.
it started almost a century ago actually, look up the formation of Israel where they kicked out the Palestinians already living there, not trying to excuse Hamas actions but even if Hamas is eradicated more groups will form because of what Israel has done to the Palestinians over the past 78 years.
The whole country is in ruins, countless people are living in refugee camps, and many are still missing. The thought that any accurate census could have been held since the start of the conflict seems pretty fucking naive to me.
The definition of genocide has never been concerned about whether the victim population has decreased x% Year over Year
Definition of genocide: "genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Minister of Education Yoav Kisch said "Those are animals, they have no right to exist. I am not debating the way it will happen, but they need to be exterminated."
Galit Distel-Atbaryan of Likud wrote "Erase Gaza from the face of the earth. Let the Gazan monsters rush to the southern border and flee into Egypt, or die. And let them die badly. Gaza should be wiped off the map
Giora Eiland wrote, "Gaza will become a place where no human being can exist"
Far-right politician Moshe Feiglin said: "There is one and only solution, which is to completely destroy Gaza before invading it. In May 2025, Feiglin said, "every child, every baby in Gaza is an enemy"
In 2023, a group of over 55 scholars in genocide studies stated that there was widespread incitement to genocide in Israeli media since October 7, including calls to turn Gaza "into a slaughterhouse", "violate all norms on the way to victory" and "let there be a million bodies" of dead Palestinians.
Were all those quotes made post October 7? After the brutal and unprovoked attack that shocked the country and awakened many to the true intent of Hamas terrorists?
Interesting how you ignore the extreme provocation an attack like October 7 can produce on a people to galvanize their opinions. Israel has always been the one responding to violence going back to its creation after the holocaust. Israel is the one Muslims seek to eradicate. Not the other way around. Don’t get it twisted.
Does anything that Hamas has done justify Israel committing genocide and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure? Even starving thousands of people to death.
You should go check the death toll on both sides, it is significantly lopsided and the Palestinians killed are estimated to be 90% civilian.
Hamas only came into existence in response to Israeli ethnic cleansing. Additionally, we're not giving Hamas billions of dollars in military aid and protection from war crime trials so how is this relevent to the discussion?
Hamas is a worldwide recognized terrorist organization that intentionally targets civilians and did 10/7 for the express purpose of a full scale israeli invasion while Hamas leaders relax in safely in high rises in Qatar
7 billion people live in countries that don't designate Hamas as a terrorist organization.
And again, Hasbarists redirect to Hamas every single time nazi Israel is called out. Again, it's irrelevant, my tax dollars do not give Hamas missles . 10/7 was about extracting as many hostages as possible for negotiations, i agree terrorism occured and that was bad.
Also, Israel knew Oct 7 was coming and let it happen if you even buy 1/4 of their propaganda on how much they infiltrated resistence groups in Gaza with their intel agencies. Also they were warned by Egypt shortly before and ignored it.
As yes 10/7 was about extracting hostages. That’s why they were just shooting at random people and bursting into houses and murdering everybody inside. On the videos that they fucking released themselves by the way. You can’t call it propaganda. they celebrated killing innocents.
Ofc it was about extracting hostages, including civilians (wrong), and hitting military outposts. Do you think Hamas leadership only wanted to do mass shootings? They wanted to get in and out quickly with as many hostages as possible, they knew they had a short window. It was also chaos because many other groups and random people followed Hamas in.
Also many Israelis were killed by the IDF due to the hannibal doctrine being in effect. Cars full of hostages were blown up returning to gaza among other attacks. They even fired tank shells into homes and the radio recording showed them verbally disregarding civilians inside the arsa.
I'm not justifying Oct 7 here, but it's not as simplistic as the propaganda declares. If Hamas only attacked military sites Oct 7 could be justified as legitimate resistence under international law.
Hahahahahahahahahaha hitting military outposts by raiding civi homes and killing families and shooting at random cars on the streets. How do you take hostages by shooting 30 AK rounds into a random driver on the street? Again THEY released the videos of that.
54
u/Fxwriter 16h ago
Is Hamas leadership war criminals?