How the hell did we get to the point that saying "maybe you should stop indiscriminately bombing the hell out of civilians" was at all controversial?
This is such a good question
That's obviously a misrepresentation of the opposing point of view, whether you agree with it or not. It's more like "Imposing a ceasefire prevents Israel from retaliating against Hamas killing 1200 civilians".
Arguably, after these many thousands of deaths, we can call the "retaliation" part of the equation satisfied.
What is this medieval Europe? So the argument against a ceasefire is to just keep bombing, killing, rounding up people, destroying buildings and basically bombing everything to nothing is the answer.
It's not just for Israel ... it's a showcase for the world ... if Israel can get away with conducting a war in whatever way they please, what is to stop others from doing the same? Without rule of international law equally applied to everyone ... what's to stop others from starting the same thing?
If the war and killing and bombing just continues unabated ... then we are no better than our ancestors a thousand years ago. We may have progressed technologically but we've hardly evolved from our war like, fearful, and short sighted ancient mentality.
CBC youtube link
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=nztec51yLv0
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
The statement made through this vote feels close to my views on the issue.
