You're viewing a single thread.
-
I’m still waiting for justice for Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh — the investigation of which currently rests in the hands of her perpetrators. It seems to me that recognizing American deaths only matters when it benefits US foreign policy.
-
So justice can be sought through slaughtering innocents? Bin Laden thought the same thing.
-
Let’s study the conflict before making such comments.
I am not aware of any conflict in US history where the US did not defend an American journalist dying performing their duty abroad. This is a war crime, and it sets precedent for Americans when they travel or work abroad anywhere in the world.
Hamas is not representative of all Palestinians. Hamas’ attack is a reaction to a 75 year history of tit-for-tat where “Israel” continuously breaks international law including murdering of civilians, the international community condemns them, and the big world powers like the US give them impunity. Like Russia to Ukraine, Israel is an occupying force of the Palestinians — the longest in modern history.
Comparison to Bid Laden is a false equivalence.
-
NO it isn't. Its the truth. The moment you think that justice can be had by slaughtering innocents you are buying into terrorism. It didn't work out for bin Laden in the end, and it won't work out for Hamas.
-
You reacted to me but you didn't listen to me.
Both "sides" have employed justice by "slaughtering innocents" in response to the other side. Both sides think what the other side did was reprehensible and deserving of retaliation. This pattern has been going on for 75 years. It clearly hasn't worked, so maybe we should try something different?
-
It's a both sides do it type argument....
-
And you seem to be suggesting that Israel should now invade - which will mean slaughtering and displacing and injuring innocents as well as Hamas members - because Hamas slaughtered innocents. People have and will die for things Hamas did that they had nothing to do with. This is a "Hamas did it, therefore it's fine or even morally right for Israel to do it" argument.
Which is the sort of revenge-first argument that will inevitably just fuel the same argument going back the other direction, and around we all go again, and innocents keep dying the entire time.
There won't be any stopping the cycle of violence while the root issues that caused it in the first place - the Nakba displacement and slaughter of Palestinians from their homeland, and Israel's subsequent apartheid government and occupation - is acknowledged and addressed.
However and whenever it stops, there will be people who did evil who will go free. Just like there were low-level Nazis and people who helped put the Nazis in power who went consequence-free when WWII ended. It's a legistic impossibility to deliver perfect justice to ever evildoer. If we make that the goal and try anyway, then all we get is more evil-doing, more revenge-seeking, more blood, and no real ultimate justice to show for it.
So, in my opinion, achieving peace, an end to systemic injustices, and compensating victims as much as possible (e.g. making sure the families of those lost on both sides have food, shelter, safety and education), should take predecence far above and beyond making sure everyone who deserves punishment is punished.
Especially since history's previous examples of invading a country to stamp out a terrorist organization (cough cough Afghanistan...) didn't exactly work to end the target organization, let alone the terrorism and violence and so on in yhe region as a whole.
-
My my. Israel has a right to defend itself, and from a citizen's standpoint, a duty. As to your last paragraph of this diatribe, do you see Al Queida around anymore?
-
-
-
-
It's clearly working out for the IOF: No Justification for Israel to Shoot Protesters with Live Ammunition
-
Like this hasn't happened before in history. Jallianwala Bagh Massacre. Yet the Indians did not contemplate killing British infants in their cribs and calling it justified.
-
-
-
-
-