London set for massive pro-Palestinian protest demanding Gaza ceasefire

I don't think that things are black and white here. But I have to agree a little.

Israel did become a nationalistic autocracy and has deeply corrupt leadership. Still, not doing anything when they were attacked on the scale Hamas recently did, would be just stupid.

The problem is that they should have kept the civilian casualties to minimum. Ideally under the amount of Israelis that died tho deflate grudges over time and show some degree of good will.

Then again Hamas has never shown such incentive. And differentiating between Palestine civilians and Hamas collaborators or members is not an easy binary task.

The problem is that they should have kept the civilian casualties to minimum

If they're not trying to keep civilian casualties at a minimum, then why are so few Gazans dead considering the amount of ordinance at play?

We know why so few Israelis are dead, considering comparable amounts of firepower, but Gaza does not have the Iron Dome.

I'd their bombing was indiscriminate, surely they'd have killed more people, yeah? Do you think they're just really inept, or do you think perhaps they might actually be trying not to kill civilians, and that's just hard given the geography of the theater?
- I absolutely agree that they can (looking only at military capability) wipe the floor with Palestine with indiscriminate bombardment in a few days.
  
  But saying that not using that ability means they do enough to avoid civilian casualties is a pretty big jump in logic.
  
  Military ability isn't everything, geopolitics and market dependance exist. if they actually did that immediately, the response from international community wouldn't be as mild as it's now. So they actually can't.
  
  What I am saying is that there's a full gradient of effort when it comes to avoiding or encouraging civilian casualties (and not giving a damn about them is in the middle).
  
  The voices of Israeli ruling politicians before and after the start of this year's conflict doesn't exactly inspire a confidence that enough is being done to prevent them. Some used strategies even increase them unnecessarily with doubtful military gains.
  
  Or perhaps people should consider that Hamas is using casualties among Palestinians to win the war against Israel. Because right now it seems like it is working pretty well.
  
  Additionally, Gaza has 5855 people per square kilometre. I don't know if people even realise this.
  
  So bombing the shit out of the place is ok? Deaths are ok?
  
  These people are in a pressure cooker, so increase the pressure, push them south and bomb the evac routes, don't let fuel into hospitals or enough food in to Gaza.
  
  Hamas are assholes, but when you start to justify civilian deaths, you're no longer the good guy, yourself. They killed x, so we kill y.
  
  This is looking increasingly like an annexation (especially of the north). Hamas aren't in the West Bank, it's run by Fatah, but Israel still rules it with an iron fist and keeps popping up more settlements. Moral actions under international law isn't something that concerns them.
  
  Where did I say that? I am not for Israel bombing Gaza. But the way how people argument for Gaza and the way the seem to ignore the problems connected to Hamas and Palestine in general is dangerous, in my opinion.
  
  Hamas aren't just "assholes". This kind of rhetoric is horrific.
  
  Are you aware of this history?
  
  https://lemm.ee/comment/5396325
  
  Israel is responsible for what Hamas became... You kill a one guy, and they replace with worse...
  
  But saying that not using that ability means they do enough to avoid civilian casualties is a pretty big jump in logic
  
  The word "enough" is not found anywhere in my posts, because I think they could, an should, do more.
  
  "It isn't genocide" and "civilian casualties are a tragic feature of every war" are not blanket support of the status quo.
  
  I believe Israel believes they have done everything possible. They are undeniably going above and beyond to act with restraint. I still believe they could do more, especially by putting up a military hard point in the south for aid. I think this would be costly, and dangerous, but is both morally correct and something that would help pave the way for instilling peace after this war.

You mean Hamas attack on Israeli citizens right? Just to clarify

You mean you ignore the atrocities, apartheid and land theft that built up to this? The palestinians just naturally and gave up their homes and rights for a few generations?
- You really shouldn't argue this, since it always goes both ways in every single scenario.
  
  When have Palestinians invaded Israeli land? Israelis are still creating illegal settlements right now.
  
  But more importantly, this genocide is not a two way street. There are terrorist attacks but that pales in comparison to an all out genocide. When have Palestinians leveled whole neighborhoods or dropped chemical weapons on people? Israelis are determined to kill or at least displace the millions of remaining Palestinians and it's disingenuous to say that's the same thing the Palestinians are doing.
  
  When have Palestinians invaded Israeli land?
  
  During the many times the Arab League declared war. They lost though, which is why they've been limited to Gaza and West bank.
  
  But more importantly, this genocide is not a two way street. There are terrorist attacks but that pales in comparison to an all out genocide. When have Palestinians leveled whole neighborhoods or dropped chemical weapons on people? Israelis are determined to kill or at least displace the millions of remaining Palestinians and it’s disingenuous to say that’s the same thing the Palestinians are doing.
  
  It very much is. The situation in Palestine and Israel has always been very back and forth, with terrorist attacks from both sides, military strikes into each other's territories, the deaths of innocent civilians, such and such. No one is a saint here, except for those caught in the crossfire.
  
  The Arab league time point conveniently ignores the prior land incursions into Palestine. It is like a climate change denier arguing based upon a limited or specific time bound period. Not t9 mention that Israel has consistently mentioned pushing the Palestinians into the sea. An extremist Right Wing party in charge is exactly what we see leading to the inhumane mass murders. No different to Bosnia
  
  And ignoring the Arab League point is also conveniently ignoring Russia, France and Britain occupying Palestine, as well as the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and WW1. Though, I'm not going to insult you for that, since that's against the rules.
  
  I agree. The point we start is with the post war determination of "A people without a land and a land without a people". We collectively created the issue. Israel will never return to its original boundaries, but we are responsible for their expansion to date and we are currently supporting them in their current assaults.
  
  I think Israel should stop their settlement expansions into the west bank. But the land lost by Palestine and the Arab League during the wars should remain as Israel's--such is war.
  
  'We'?
  
  Bro, it was Iraq Lebanon Syria Yemen and friends who literally drove their Jews to Israel as refuges of genocides.
  
  If you don't consider them Palastinians that's fine.
  
  Palastinians regularly invade Israel with rockets and have also done so with suicide bombings and shooting and knifing etc. and sadly on the 7th with something much more horrible than anything of earlier levels.
  
  Yes, some Israelis are creating illegal settlements, but they're not condoned by Israel and are taken down.
  
  Yes, some Israelis are creating illegal settlements, but they’re not condoned by Israel and are taken down.
  
  What the fuck? What the action fuck? Just... Look things up before commenting, man.
  
  I live in Israel. It's entirely possible you and I don't agree on what an illegal settlement is. But you are welcome to provide the reading material you mentioned...
  
  Settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law. Also even taking the Israeli definition, outposts are only sometimes removed, are sometimes retroactively legalized and many are provided security by the IDF.
  
  I have no religious affiliation or interest. What increasingly caused concern was the map of Israel 50 years ago vs the size today. Also, the incessant extremist approach of settlers bulldozing palestinian homes with support of superior force with no recourse for the dispossessed. I have never been in that position, but if my neighbour turned up with guns, knocked down my house and took my land, there would be an expectation of consequence
  
  If you're referring to the massacres being a consequence (and not justifying, I hope), know that Gaza and Hamas separate themselves from the West Bank, which is where the settlements are occurring.
  
  However, Hamas has launched attacks for Israeli injustive against Palestinians outside Gaza before. See the crisis in 2021.
  
  There aren't settlements in Gaza.
  
  Israel literally offered Palestine 99% of the west bank, all of Gaza, and half of Jerusalem, and Palestinian leadership turned it down because the deal included Israel existing.
  
  Did they?
  
  Yes
  
  I'll cite it for you if genuinely curious but it'll be tomorrow cuz I'm omw to a Halloween party
  
  I was wrong it was 97% not 99%.
  
  In 2000, US President Bill Clinton convened a peace summit between Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. In May of that year, according to Nathan Thrall, Israel had offered Palestinians 66% of the West Bank, with 17% annexed to Israel, and a further 17% not annexed but under Israeli control, and no compensating swap of Israeli territory.[40] The Israeli prime minister offered the Palestinian leader between 91%[note 1] and 95%[41][42] (sources differ on the exact percentage) of the West Bank and the entire Gaza Strip if 69 Jewish settlements (which comprise 85% of the West Bank's Jewish settlers) be ceded to Israel. East Jerusalem would have fallen for the most part[43] under Israeli sovereignty, with the exception of most suburbs with heavy non-Jewish populations surrounded by areas annexed to Israel.[44] The issue of the Palestinian right of return would be solved through significant monetary reparations.[45]
  
  Proposed in the fall of 2000 following the collapse of the Camp David talks, The Clinton Parameters included a plan on which the Palestinian State was to include 94-96% of the West Bank, and around 80% of the settlers were to become under Israeli sovereignty, and in exchange for that, Israel would concede some territory (so called 'Territory Exchange' or 'Land Swap') within the Green Line (1967 borders). The swap would consist of 1–3% of Israeli territory, such that the final borders of the West Bank part of the Palestinian state would include 97% of the land of the original borders.[49]
  
  Flash forward a few years to Obama and this is where shit falls apart. First, Netanyahu sets the table pretty decently and talks resume
  
  In June 2009, reacting to US President Barack Obama's Cairo Address,[40] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared for the first time[57] conditional support for a future Palestinian state[58] but insisted that the Palestinians would need to make reciprocal gestures and accept several principles: recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people; demilitarization of a future Palestinian state, along with additional security guarantees, including defensible borders for Israel;[59] Palestinians would also have to accept that Jerusalem would remain the united capital of Israel, and renounce their claim to a right of return.
  
  But surprise! Hamas and Hezbollah
  
  Hamas and Hezbollah, however threatened violence, especially if either side seemed likely to compromise in order to reach an agreement
  
  Israel existing is nearly always the thing that stops talks, and always because of extremist pressure upon the Palestinian government. The other time they fell apart was when noted shitbird Ariel Sharon tanked them.
- So what's beautiful about this is that even if I were to agree with you about whether or not Israel is an apartheid state, and if there is theft of land or not - and make no mistake those things are serious and evil when true - then they are still very far from genocide, I believe the intent of that comment by "mindless murdering", which is the clear open objective and stance of Hamas.
  
  then they are still very far from genocide,
  
  No it's not. There are actual pogroms going on in the West Bank right now.
  
  Can you link references?
  
  https://www.972mag.com/settler-attacks-west-bank-gaza-war/
  
  This is not a genocide. Some of these are horrible incidents of innocents hurt, and justice must be served for any settler or rogue soldier involved.
  
  But this is far from genocide and certainly isolated instances.
  
  If you call this genocide, you kill the meaning of that word.
  
  But this is far from genocide and certainly isolated instances.
  
  How so? This has been a consistent trend going as far back as 1967 and many times has been actually encouraged by the government. Hell, the first settlement in the West Bank was created by falsely confiscating land for "military use" even though it was meant for settlement.
  
  Look, if the government's policy ranges from turning a blind eye to it to actively encouraging it, while assisting it either way through IDF security and not responding to Palestinians when they call the police, it stops being isolated incidents and starts becoming a systematic effort. And what do we call a systematic effort to vacate people from their lands in large numbers to create Lebensraum?
  
  Yes, genocide.
  
  No, what we call genocide is:
  
  The deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
  
  Genocide isn't only killing, though the intent to destroy a particular group is important.
- You can't commit apartheid outside of your country. That's not what "apartheid" means. Arabs in Israel have full citizenship and proportionate representation in government.

This is not war it is the genocide that has been planned for a long time

What's your opinion on why Israel is so bad at actually achieving genocide?

I mean take a look at this shit. Does this look like failing to you?
- Yes