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

    And then I ask myself, would that knowledge have me feel less recriminations to someone in the Klan who bought into their propaganda and lynched a man? And the answer, for me personally, is no.

    That’s where you draw a fictional strawman, one that isn’t you, and claim that you would be far more righteous and not fall for it.

    It’s strange how you would refer to a recent poll, promoted by the IDF but yet fundamentally queried by Palestinian government, yet at the same time the IDF completely disregards (and yet doesn’t offer its own number) for the casualty numbers provided by Palestine. It reeks of cherry picking the numbers that suit your argument.

    Israel have, so far, killed more than 10x the number of people Hamas did in one day. When is enough, enough?

    How many Palestinian civilians need to die before Israel is satisfied?

    • rivermonster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Let me try and clarify, this was an independent poll conducted by the Arab World for Research and Development. An independent Arab polling organization. It wasn’t conducted by Hamas or the IDF or the PA, etc.

      And as I’ve said many times, I don’t evaluate a conflict by whether one side has more casualties. The corollary is that the conflict would be more acceptable if more people died on the other side. Knowing that’s false let’s us know that the logic attempted has derailed. It’s simply ethically and morally bankrupt.

      I also understand using a debate tactic to attack the data when it’s saying something that’s not compatible / supportive of the narrative one is pushing.

      I’m happy to look at a different recent poll, or look at a source of yours why this isn’t the most recent and best numbers we have. I would love it if support for Hamas wasn’t so high and would be really pleased if the October attack was condemned and not celebrated.

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

        You still have avoided answering my key questions.

        Israel refute the Gaza deathtoll lfrom Palestinian sources as false. However, Israel do not publish their own numbers to support their objections.

        How many civilians are acceptable casualties in Gaza, as far as the IDF are concerned??

        The IDF have been tacitly reluctant in answering this question.

        Their avoidance here us only just shy of accountability for their actions, if it even meets that bar.

        • rivermonster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The first one, what’s the question?

          I’m sure any sane person would answer no civilians casualties are acceptable. Which one of many reasons why Hamas must be eradicated, co-locating to intentionally cause the death of civilians. It’s why what Hamas is doing by co-locating is one of the worst war crimes.

          As for reluctance, I think it’s about everyone knows that nobody except Hamas wants civilian casualties. Look even here on worldnews how successful they’ve been with that propaganda.

          And that doesn’t even mention the regular attacks by Iraq, Houthis, Syrians, etc on US troops and civilian shipping lanes.

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

            My questions were pretty clear:

            Israel have, so far, killed more than 10x the number of people Hamas did in one day. When is enough, enough?

            How many Palestinian civilians need to die before Israel is satisfied?

            Israel want to “eradicate” Hamas, but haven’t really defined that objective. It’s a very vague objective, and one that cannot foreseeably be attained. As such it raises the very valid question of how many civilians they consider as acceptable collateral damage to achieve that objective.

            Based on their general public statements, it seems like that number is unforgiveably high.