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

    I think you got your history messed up. The roommate has always been there and the landlord at that time intended for both of you to live side by side, but you refused, and brought your neighbours to attack your roommate but your roomate emerged victorious. Your neighbour then took part of your room before your roommate took them back. Some times later, your roommate gave it back to you, but you keep threatening to eliminate your roommate. So your roommate had no choice but to prevent you from killing them.

    If you see history as it is, you’ll get a new perspective on how events unfold. Undeniably hamas is a terrorists organization who hides behind innocent civilians, and israel is exaggerated in their response, but I can see from their point of view because I see history as it is. This is a war between israel and hamas, and like any other war, unfortunately there are casualties among the civilians (which is very difficult to prevent as long as hamas hides behind them).

    • goetzit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sure, all religious groups in the area have had ties and claims to Jerusalem for Millenia, but the actual nation of Israel was founded in 1948.

      If you found a nation on a contested holy site and try to push all the other religious groups out, you will have a huge amount of radical and violent resistance, i’m not really going to support you either.

      If the situation was reversed, and the middle east was dominated by jews instead or muslims, and Israel was instead a (somewhat) recently-founded muslim nation surrounded by jewish ones, I wouldn’t feel too bad for the muslim nation that decided to set up shop there and make it your holy capital or something.

      Its awful, and the whole religious side of things makes this a never-ending war with no real “moral victor”, but its just hard for me to pretend I don’t see the ridiculousness in all of this. A radical militant group kills/kidnaps 2000 isrealis and the response is to kill 15,000+ palestinians with not just tacit approval but full-blown military support from the largest world powers. We are not even talking about “an eye for an eye making the whole world blind”, we’re talking about trading an eye for a whole human body.

      Should Israel have responded? Absolutely. I’m not going to say it should have even been a peaceful response. But what’s happening now is a clear over-correction, a clear attempt to both weaken the Palestinian state as a whole and the Palestinian people themselves. It will breed more violence, and you will inadvertently create groups more radical than hamas, who will point to this and say “they did not go far enough”. The Palestinian people need to reject hamas on their own, and this isn’t going to cause that.

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

        And palestine was never a nation before 1988.

        How do you kill cancer cells? By ruining your own body with strong drugs. You got weakened immune system and become sterilized (cannot produce offsprings). That’s how dangerous hamas and it’s ideology is to israel’s existence.

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

          Do you maybe think that your shitty analogy to cancer is not the best way to decide what to do with people? Are you saying we should sterilize Palestinians? What the fuck, why do I even bother…

          • keropoktasen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Are you stupid or what? The analogy meant to say that there are unintended consequences for every action. Curing cancer have unintended effect as such.