← Back to context

Comment by dijit

18 hours ago

The reaction is worse in what sense, exactly? Raw numbers? Then you're back to the same argument as above, where October 7th (again, the third deadliest terrorist attack since records began in 1970) somehow doesn't count.

Nobody serious disputes that Gazan civilians are suffering enormously. The argument isn't about that. It's about whether Hamas represents them, and the answer is: less and less, given that Hamas hasn't held an election since 2006, has siphoned aid money into tunnels and rockets for two decades [1], and on October 7th sent men with garden tools to decapitate Thai agricultural workers [2] and film themselves doing it.

You can condemn Israel's conduct (and there's plenty to condemn) without pretending the people who started this particular escalation were freedom fighters having a bad day.

[1] https://www.csis.org/analysis/hamass-october-7-attack-visual...

[2] https://www.nationthailand.com/world/middle-east-africa/4003...

I think wholesale genocide of an entire population by the Israeli state is worse. The plan is obviously drive the Palestinians onto the sea (metaphorically) and make the place uninhabitable.

Israel (and I want to be clear, I am referring to Israel the state) has blood on their hands. This went way beyond a "self defense" thing - flattening the entire country, indiscriminate killing of civilians and children, murdering paramedics and bombing ambulances, destroying schools hospitals apartment buildings etc. By a modern democratic state with the most accurate smart weapons available. It's simply unbelievable to me that they are getting away with it.

  • >I think wholesale genocide of an entire population by the Israeli state is worse

    would be worse, but wasn't contemplated nor attempted so contributes no weight to the balance.

    "from the river to the sea" on the other hand is a statement of genocidal intent.

  • Most of what you say I don't disagree with. Israel's conduct since October 8th (the civilian death toll, the aid blockade, the flattening of hospitals) is legitimate to call out. The ICJ found the genocide claim plausible enough to issue binding provisional measures, which Israel then ignored [1]. That's not nothing.

    But "wholesale genocide" and "the plan is obviously to drive them into the sea" are stronger claims than the evidence supports right now, and that matters a lot because the moment you overreach, everyone who wants to dismiss Palestinian suffering has a rhetorical exit. The ICJ's own careful language exists for a reason.

    None of that touches the original argument anyway: that October 7th was not a "small blip." Israel's conduct after October 8th doesn't retroactively change what happened on October 7th. Both things are true simultaneously. That's the whole point I'm making.

    [1] https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/02/26/israel-not-complying-wor...

    • No, I think I have to respectfully disagree: in the continuum of the Palestine-Israel conflict, this was a small blip. Israel has been killing civilians indiscriminately for years/decades, annexing territory, bulldozing homes etc.

      What was different this time was that it was Israel who was the victim, not the Palestinians. And the only way that Israel knows how to respond to these kinds of things is to kill and to destroy.

      3 replies →

  • You do realize that there were live Israeli hostages Hamas held up until the last ceasefire?

> Nobody serious disputes that Gazan civilians are suffering enormously. The argument isn't about that.

Why isn’t it?

  • Because it's a different argument to the one being made, and addressing seventeen things at once is how threads become unreadable.

    But since you're asking: go up four comments and you'll find it already addressed there in some detail. Keep up.

"Nobody serious disputes that Gazan civilians are suffering enormously."

This is blatantly untrue. There are people who are saying there's no such thing as a "Gazan civilian".

  • Come off it, that's a technicality and everyone knows the meaning.

    An uncharitable person would easily debunk this by making claims about the idea that 'because of israel they can't have a state to be civilian of' and then the topic gets super muddy because that's technically not true and we go around and around and around.

    • The Israeli government has been dehumanising the Gazan population in rhetoric for decades. Claiming that no one would deny their suffering is straight up false. It's not a technicality, it's a deliberate technique.

      It's one of the things that could be stopped to prevent us going "around and around and around."