Calls are growing for the UN Security Council to be reformed after the US became the only member to use its veto power to block a Gaza ceasefire resolution, a move welcomed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The UN chief says he will keep pushing for peace.

  • Linechecker@monero.town
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    So, which is less acceptable:

    Hamas, a military threat to Israel who hides behind children.

    Or

    Israel, a country with a military who is responding to military threats in a way a military would.

    BTW, my original post is asking questions, but you Lemmy Users just keep making it seem I’m pro Israel just for asking.

    • kurwa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      1 year ago

      But is Israels actions appropriate? Indiscriminate bombing across all of Gaza? Collective punishment? If they really wanted to A) save hostages and B) take out those responsible, they could do a surgical strike with special forces. Raining hellfire upon innocent people just because their might be hamas there is absolutely disgusting.

        • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          As you laid out your question, probably (cynically), hamas. The world has been happy to tolerate some incredibly awful governments - especially if you start looking at African dictators.

          • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            If you look at Nelson Mandela and the ANC in South Africa you’ll find they did the same thing as Hamas to get rid of the Apartheid.

            When asking nicely didn’t work they started asking less nicely.

    • Jaded@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Both are unacceptable but clearly Israel is more so. In a hostage situation, you don’t bomb the neighborhood. I’d also like to point out that nobody is really defending Hamas, which is more acceptable is missing the point entirely.

      Israel has serious military advantage, they can basically force a cease fire at any time. They aren’t under threat and tbh, probably let the events that started all this happen for causus belli.

      The article talks about a mostly symbolic UN vote that was vetoed by the US at the request of Israel. They don’t want a ceasefire, they don’t want their hostages back, they don’t want a solution.

      They just want to keep bombing.

      • Linechecker@monero.town
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ll agree israel is worse in hindsight, but Hamas kicked this off with this sneak attack that has led to this situation, so I’d say that is worse. Hamas was so successful in causing an Israeli intelligence disaster, which I feel like caused their military to lash out. All militaries do is destroy, they are not nation builders. Surgical special force operations can take a long time to plan and wouldn’t work since there were so many hostages and they kept moving them around.

        • Shyfer@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          What about the decades before this where Israel had been killing people, imprisoning without charges, and forcing them off their land? When that’s added for context, Israel is the one who kicked this off.

        • ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Stop trying to wash Bibi’s ass and depose him already. You are going to get Israel destroyed if you don’t.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          All militaries do is destroy

          This is a fundamental misunderstanding of violence generally. The purpose of destructive capability is deterrence, and hence the protection of things. This is really crucial to get in order to understand anything about violence at all.

          This is why a mother cat bares her fangs when she’s cornered. She’s not attempting to destroy, but rather to prove that she can destroy, in order to deter an attack.

          Weapons, by existing and being visible, send signals that make violence less likely to occur.

          When weapons are being used actively to destroy, it’s because their initial purpose failed.