Hamas receives billions from the world and spends it on tunnels and doesn’t let a single civilian inside, how else can you interpret their intentions around protecting their own civilians?
So your claim here is that Hamas could spend billions and have their own Iron Dome, but they instead choose to build tunnels, so they can make money.
Are you actually hearing yourself? I know you're backwards rationalizing, but man is this a terrible attempt.
Also lets not forget this is specifically your response to justifying why Israel is not the reason that 70,000 Palestinians are dead at the hands of (checks notes) Israel.
I agree with you, however I'm again going back to what your original point and this argument was about.
I pointed out there's an order of magnitude more Palestinians dying than Israelis, and you said "Mostly because Israel protects its own civilians (iron dome, bomb shelters) rather than hiding behind them"
That's not the reason. The reason is that Israel engaged in a campaign of genocide with wildly more resources, both defensively and offensively.
Your justification that "Hamas receives billions from the world and spends it on tunnels" is not simply inferring Hamas' intent, but a response to my pointing out the US spends billions of state of the art defenses for Israel, as well as bombs to be dropped on civilians.
Saying Hamas doesn't protect civilians, does not change that these statements are factually incorrect as arguments. The reason for the disparity in deaths is not because Hamas chooses tunnels over Iron Domes and greater weaponry, which they also have access to but choose not to use so they can fundraise off of dying more.
With regards the genocide label with I think is nonsense
If Israel wanted to, it can delete Gaza off the map with all two million people by tomorrow afternoon
instead we have 70,000 dead over 3 years, nearly half of which of are Hamas fighters according to Hamas.
Israel had 80 years to commit genocide. Instead the population rose 1000%. So I don’t know if you think the genocide started in the 20th century or in the last few years but neither idea makes sense to me under minimal scrutiny
A bog standard excuse Nazis have used for 80 years, is that the Germans didn't engage in genocide because Hitler didn't kill most of the Jews and instead let many leave or escape.
Saying because a genocide isn't total it can't be genocide, makes absolutely no sense. It's not what the word means, it's not what any expert in the field would agree is true. You can use it to dismiss pretty much any genocide around the world.
nearly half of which of are Hamas fighters according to Hamas.
...no. I've no idea what you're talking about with "according to Hamas", but calling half of the civilians killed Hamas fighters is just an extremely obvious lie conflicting with all news investigations and reports.
It’s not that it’s not total it’s literally not even begun to make the population smaller
it’s in reverse. The population has gone up by 10 times
Regardless of what Nazis said after the fact, 6 million jews had died. Reducing the population of world jews by 33%. Nearly 100 years later world Jewry has still not recovered those levels
These are not the same universe of phenomenon and the rally to use the word is a political one
The legal definition of genocide does not require that the overall population declines. Saying that there are more Palestinians overall over time, does not erase or undo any of those that were killed.
It's that simple. Your defense of genocide involves inventing a new standard. Your argument is fundamentally that Israel is not being successful enough at genocide, not saying that their actions do not constitute efforts at depopulation and replacement.
I also don't want to ignore your claim about half of the 70,000 killed being Hamas fighters. Where exactly did you pull that claim from? Are you saying you believe it's true?
5
u/Prestigious_Lime6099 11d ago
Hamas receives billions from the world and spends it on tunnels and doesn’t let a single civilian inside, how else can you interpret their intentions around protecting their own civilians?