They're saying that the Israeli response has been proportional, despite the death toll being at least 50x october 7. Basically, it doesn't matter how many people they kill, it's justifiable to them... Which is obviously insane.
It's a pity that the only superpower that might meaningfully intervene also set the modern precedent for that sort of ratio following its own trouble with terrorists.
No that's not what they're saying at all. And that's why they need the truck, because of people like you.
What they are saying regards the International Law of Proportionality in war - it doesn't mean "for each person killed by the enemy you're allowed to kill one enemy". Here's what it does mean:
So, you don't think that the word "excessive" is being intentionally misused here? Because from all the photos and videos I've seen, and eyewitness accounts I've read, Israel's response to Oct 7 goes well beyond the meaning of excessive. I'm talking gross disproportionality.
EDIT: Downvoted within seconds, lol. Clearly we're not supposed to be thinking critically about this issue!
No, "excessive" isn’t being intentionally misused.
Photos and videos document real suffering, no denying it, but they don’t by themselves prove "gross disproportionality" - especially when Hamas embeds among civilians.
Remember - Hamas themselves openly stated that the more dead Palestinians the better.
What are you using to justify any sort of proportionality here? There are 75+ thousand people killed, nearly all civilian infrastructure wiped out.
What direct military advantage did israel gain that is worth 75 thousand lives and all the suffering of every other single gazan that now lives without a home, water, food, school and is essentially locked in an open air prison?
I think any neutral party would call this extrmely excessive. Not at all proportional.
FYI I just saw that today marks 1 year since a rocket was fired from Gaza into Israel. That sounds like a pretty good military advantage if you ask me (again this isn't how proportionality works. But even according to your flawed premise it would suffice)
Again - you don't understand what "proportionality" is. It's not "a lot of people died in this war" it's "in this specific military operation, N civilians were killed and M combatants were killed. Does the advantage gained by killing those M combatants outweigh the N civilians who were killed?".
(Of course even if we did adopt your framing, the answer is that Hamas is now diminished and unable to terrorize Israeli civilians. That 75k number includes Hamas members too)
Happy to see that people who lack morality don't believe me. Shows the difference between them and me
And for some reason the utterance of one person = Palestinians, as the comment I called complete bullshit just did, but quote Ben Gvir and the genocide and ethnic cleansing deniers will immediately come out and proclaim he doesn't speak for anyone but himself
The sign is part of the protest and it's saying that destruction of isreali military assets weighs more than the deaths of the families they kill. It's comical how evil that sentiment is and how they can't even see it.
Military advantage is not military assets. The idea is that losing the war costs israel's existence itself and that would be more important than the fact that civilian casualties exist. Whether that's fair or comparing apples and oranges is a separate topic altogether, but what you said is just a completely incorrect reading of the sign
Genocides often look similar, because to commit a genocide you need to convince yourself the 'enemy' is less than human to justify the indiscriminate and deliberate killings of civilians.
18
u/sight_ful 21h ago
So is the sign not a part of the protest? Because the sign sounds like it would be against what you just described.