It seems that there are a lot of Israelis that believe that there are no innocents in Gaza. And one could argue that it’s possible that a significant majority of the population is hateful towards Israelis, considering the history.
If you agree with this argument, can you please explain why and elaborate? And if you don’t, how would you refute it? There is no data that shows that there isn’t a significant majority that’s hateful towards the Israelis.
DISCLAIMER: I’m not stating my opinion as I want to hear an unbiased opinion from you.
That’s what you say to justify genocide. There are children there.
nobody thinks a whole group of civilians deserve to be killed off that isn’t a complete dumbass
You know that a disturbing amount of people actually do right?
everyone is listening to their own narrative. my israeli friends honestly think that muslims are trying to kill them, because some king in the old testament disobeyed god
If there are no innocent ones, how can anyone be a judge of someone else
Let the sinless one throw the first stove
There’s plenty of examples of people of both nationalities living, working, cooperating, or interacting together.
“They’re all guilty” is bullshit.
They are brainwashed supporters of genocide. I read about a guy who left to get his 2 newborn twins registered at the hospital and they got killed along with his wife while he was away.
“No innocents.”? Fuck you. I wouldn’t wish this misery on my absolute most hated enemy.
Wish I could find the quote from whatever Israeli minister about “hamas babies.”
A core principle of modern (western) legal states is that it’s preferable to let 10 guilty people walk free before wrongfully punishing one innocent. I’m aware that we often don’t manage to live up to that, but it is the ideal.
That’s why guilt of the individual (!) has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, it’s why certain evidence may become inadmissible if it’s been acquired illegally, it’s why suspect’s may walk free due to formal errors. We try to make absolutely sure that cutting corners doesn’t lead to wrong conclusions, even if it means that we sometimes have to let criminals go unpunished.
Following that same principle, “it’s possible that there’s a significant majority” isn’t enough. Where’s the proof that there’s not a single inhabitant of Gaza who doesn’t support Hamas?
Also, since when is it a crime punishable by lifelong imprisonment or death to be hateful of someone?
And if you and your entire people were held in an open air prison for as long as you could think back, would you not grow hateful of your jailers?
Last but not least: The logic that “there are no innocents [on the other side of the fence]” applied by Hamas towards the Israelis led to October 7th. If it was flawed then, how is it not flawed now?
Insofar that you add “innocent of absolutely anything and everything that anyone could ever morally doubt, on a philosophical lebel”, definitely no.
Innocent as in not responsible for the crimes of others? Yeah, obviously. Depends though but vastly yes.
The idea of free will is unfalsifiable. So far, there is no evidence that there is anything causing conscious beyond, physical, chemical interactions. This means, that most likely, humans do not have free will. Every action, every thought, is caused by some chemical, or physical thing, and is ultimately predetermined.
The idea of “guilt” is born out of the idea that humans have free will, and are therefore culpable for “bad” or “immoral” actions. But humans do not have free will. Punishing a “guilty” person, is actually just inflicting suffering on the qualia, or the conscious experience of someone, for circumstances completely out of anyone’s control, including themselves.
I believe that all people are innocent. Every act of violence should be evaluated as if it was being done against an innocent person. The only difference between a killer and a saint is that of brain chemistry.
As for Israel specifically, since that is a different question than the nature of innocent, here is my reply:
- Israel funded and supported Hamas to undermine Palestinian authority
- Israel had extensive knowledge on Hamas’ capabilities beforehand, but “accidentally” ignored warning signs
I see a few people blaming Hamas for Oct 7th. I disagree. When a dog bites someone, do you blame the dog or the owner?
This robs Hamas of their heroism. The flood wasn’t just animals escaping their cage, it was a strategic defeat of the most advanced border wall in the world. They overcame incredible odds to break through it into the land that was stolen from them.
And Hamas didn’t break in to randomly kill people. They wanted hostages to exchange for the hostages Israel had. With that in mind, most of the deaths might very well have been inflicted by the IDF under the Hannibal directive to deprive Hamas of hostages.
The flood wasn’t just animals escaping their cage, it was a strategic defeat of the most advanced border wall in the world. They overcame incredible odds to break through it into the land that was stolen from them.
Sure. This claim might even be true. And you’re right, it’s not fair to compare real people, fighting for their lives, to “dogs”.
But it doesn’t undo what Hamas did to innocent* people, nor does it undo the fact that the Israeli government funded, supported, and propped up Hamas while suppressing the actual Palestinian parties.
*lmao I just said I didn’t believe in innocence.
Hamas is an actual Palestinian Party. The people in Gaza support them, regardless of the fact that Israel cynically empowered them to divide Gaza from the West Bank. A guerilla force can not survive without mass support.
The way I see it, the only truly innocent people are those who sincerely do not know right from wrong, and they’re mostly children. The rest of us are each and all responsible for our choices and actions.
There are lots of people who commit crime without realizing that they’re doing something wrong. I know a guy personally who raped his date in college, and didn’t realize it was a rape until decades later. Was he innocent? What about drunk people? What about people who don’t “choose”? What if free will is post-hoc nonsense?
This one is just projection. To believe this statement denies there are plenty of people who are innocent on both sides. We are not talking about those people.
We are talking about the people who hate the other side on both sides, but once again we aren’t talking about both sides here. One side has made the statement popular to dehumanize the other side.
This is what we are talking about. You can’t agree with this statement because it is used as an excuse to kill people. Regardless if the statement has truth to it it is in essence propaganda used to manipulate people.
no, because you cannot hold one person accountable for the actions of a different person unless they directly enabled it.
Ask those people if there are any innocents in Israel. All of that society contributed to a genocide. We could ask the same thingabout the US. I didn’t get thrown in jail from repeated protesting, so I’m just as much to blame.
If you had, you think any good would have come of it?
Me? No. A million of us, back in July? Yeah. We could have a made a dent.
A million huh? At that point there would not be any arrests. But if that was what was necessary, i don’t think it was a possibility to begin with. I generally do not believe that protesting does much unless it is super disruptive to everyday life. People protest every day, exactly where and how the powers aT be allow them to happen. Out of sight out of mind.
This bs reasoning is literally “I dont vote because Im just one in a million and it doesnt make a difference”
Hard no.
The idea that your can judge an entire group of people to be innocent or not is heavily flawed. Even if any groups cultural influence was hypothetically incredibly evil, do people deserve death for being influenced by their surroundings? How do we gauge who has true evil in their heart, and who was harbouring doubts but couldn’t say anything? We literally can’t, and that kind of thinking shouldn’t be used to decide judgement of a person, let alone who lives and who dies. In practical terms things get muddier sure, but we’re way past that point.
At this point I feel like the conclusion of violence is made first, then the justification coming afterwards.
How about there are no innocent billionaires?
That is usually how a genocide is justified to the public. Every member of the ‘undesireabe’ group is guilty of being an undesirable, and can thus be justifyably murdered.
Examples:
All Jewish people are guilty of some conspiracy and/or killing Jesus
All Muslim people are guilty of replacing white christians and/or terrorism
All LGBTQ people are guilty of grooming kids
All Palestinians are guilty of ‘occupying’ Israeli land.
etc.
Every example of this is a tool of propaganda to get the public to go along with unfair treatment up to and including genocide. The fact that they’re all easily refuted doesn’t matter. It goes hand in hand with the view that the group aren’t fully people.
This reasoning is never ok, no matter what group of people it’s used against this time. When you recognize it, call it out for the sham it is.
And if you don’t, how would you refute it? There is no data that shows that there isn’t a significant majority that’s hateful towards the Israelis.
First, you can’t just say “there is no data that shows that there isn’t X”; you need data that shows X. However, you’ll probably find that data fairly easily, because Palestinians hate Israelis’ guts. That gets us to the real problem with this argument: Having an opinion doesn’t make one guilty of anything. Only acts can make one guilty, acts like—for example—voting for Likud and other Israeli pro-war parties knowing they’re running on a campaign of Palestinian extermination. It’s just more projection from fascists (and make no mistake Zionism is a fascist ideology. For reference see: https://zionism.wtf.)
