I guess because they aren’t bringing the terror here?
But Israel/IDF has indeed been found to probably have committed genocide. By agencies and systems in the UN. At this point it’s kinda pedantic if it’s called terrorism or not, because it’s genocide.
Edit: It’s totally reasonable to call for more action on top of this. Stopping arms exports is just a drop in the bucket compared to the horrors that are happening half a world away. But at least it’s a start, however small.
I guess should have said “mostly suspended” - but wow, that’s quite a glaring loophole.
In particular, there’s no reporting requirements - so it’s not even possible to tell how much of what got moved under the loophole, so we don’t know if it was just a $60 drop in the bucket or if say the vast majority of arms exports are moving via the loophole now.
Shit like this is why the leaders in Arab communities are refusing to even meet with Trudeau. It’s become abundantly clear that a lot of progressives in our Parliament are only progressives when it’s politically convenient to be.
That might be a tad harsh - I’m sure that now progressive lawmakers have been made aware of the loophole by the news article that they are working on laws to fix it (previously they may have assumed that companies would just act in good faith in doing the right thing here, or failing that, that the US wouldn’t send arms over to a country found to have plausibly committed genocide).
Alas, that process is quite slow, so I am currently putting my hopes on the lawsuit mentioned in your article. Hopefully the courts will decide to apply the brakes until a legislative fix can be made.
I wouldn’t give them the benefit of the doubt personally. The only political leader who has actually said anything substantitive regarding Israel’s actions was Singh. If you’re a political figure and you can’t even publicly condemn another countries war crimes and say that we won’t stand for it, then to me you’re complicit.
But Israel/IDF has indeed been found to probably have committed genocide. By agencies and systems in the UN. At this point it’s kinda pedantic if it’s called terrorism or not, because it’s genocide.>
This is false. The former chair of the ICJ herself clarified the ruling. They only ruled that it is plausible that the rights of the Palestinian people under the Geneva Convention are at risk, which is a fancy way of saying the ICJ has jurisdiction to hear the case.
And those horrors you refer to were all brought about by Iranian terror proxies who declared war on Israel. Unfortunately civilians suffer the most in war.
This is false. The former chair of the ICJ herself clarified the ruling.
Citation needed.
They only ruled that … the ICJ has jurisdiction to hear the case.
That, ironically, is quite plausible. That sounds exactly like the sort of thing a court would say.
They only ruled that it is plausible that the rights of the Palestinian people under the Geneva Convention are at risk,
Meaning that they might not actually be at risk, just that it plausibly looks like so and so a deeper look is needed to indeed confirm that this is the case?
They only ruled that it is plausible that the rights of the Palestinian people under the Geneva Convention are at risk, which is a fancy way of saying the ICJ has jurisdiction to hear the case.
This seems a little too fancy. Why not just plainly say that “we find the ICJ has jurisdiction to hear the case because these allegations fall under our jurisdiction?” I wouldn’t normally associate “Geneva violations” language with “court has jurisdiction” verbiage.
Anyways, assuming for the case of argument that all of the above is indeed correct and accurate (happy to give you the benefit of the doubt while you pull out the relevant source or citation) - it seems to me that even then the ICJ saw that there was a risk of irreparable harm to Palestinians, and it also found that Israel’s interpretation of “wholly unfounded” and “morally repugnant” “false claims” was lacking or at least uncertain and unclear enough to warrant further investigation (instead of dismissing it outright). I.e. not a frivolous court case.
And those horrors you refer to were all brought about by Iranian terror proxies who declared war on Israel.
While this might not have happened this year if Hamas hadn’t done what it did last year, that doesn’t absolve accountability on behalf of the IDF.
In fact, thinking this through leads to a ridiculous result. If Iran is directly accountable for when the IDF violates laws and human rights, that means Iran is responsible when the IDF violates laws and human rights. Which in turn means that Iran needs to stop the IDF from violating laws and human rights… Which means making Iran powerful enough to stop the IDF. Which leads to the concept of arming Iran militarily until it’s strong enough to plausibly defeat the IDF. Which I suspect would lead to Israelis suffering significantly more human rights violations themselves. (Which I think we can all agree is really bad).
No, the IDF has to be held accountable for the actions that the IDF takes.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919
“Ms Donoghue explained that the court decided the Palestinians had a “plausible right” to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court.”
But the IDF is accountable for its own actions, and some of these seem to break both international and Israeli law>
Yes, that is true. But no military can perpetrate a war without killing civilians. It’s impossible. International law only requires that they take reasonable steps to minimize civilian casualties. The fact that civilians have been killed in Gaza is not evidence of genocide, nor does it establish that Israel is morally wrong in their actions.
The one thing that people can’t seem to grasp about Israel, because they are so blinded by their hatred and ideological brainwashing, is that Israelis don’t want war. That will become clear in time, when the Iranian regime is eventually dealt with, the Abraham Accords move forward, and we enter a new era of peace in the Middle East. And maybe then, just maybe, all the Western anti-Zionists will say, “Hmm, I guess Israel wasn’t the bad guy after all.”
Nice, thank you for the reference - the BBC article is really helpful.
But the IDF is accountable for its own actions, and some of these seem to break both international and Israeli law
Yes, that is true.
And unfortunate. Thanks for acknowledging this simple reality, that the IDF broke the law.
no military can perpetrate a war without killing civilians
Yeah, so no country should ask its military to perpetrate a war. And by that I mean no country should be starting a war. (As per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perpetrate - perpetrate means to produce or bring about.) In fact I feel a major reason why Israel got away with so much nearer in time to Oct 2023 was because it was correctly and widely seen as the victim, rather than the perpetrator.
The fact that civilians have been killed in Gaza is not evidence of genocide,
Agree that the bar is higher. Will watch the SA case at the ICJ with interest.
nor does it establish that Israel is morally wrong in their actions.
I mean, strictly speaking, breaking the law doesn’t establish that either. Otherwise, Martin Luther King would have been morally wrong for his civil disobedience in participating in sit-in protests against racism? So just because - as we both agree - the IDF broke the law, it does not follow that they’re morally in the wrong?
Logically that’s correct. But that just means we need to turn to another basis for arguing that some of the actions taken are morally wrong. Perhaps along the lines of failing to “take reasonable steps to minimize civilian casualties.”
Thanks for acknowledging this simple reality, that the IDF broke the law.>
I have no idea if any of their actions have broken the law. I was acknowledging that they are accountable for their behavior.
Yeah, so no country should ask its military to perpetrate a war. And by that I mean no country should be starting a war>
It’s figure of speech. In this context I was using it as a synonym for “carry out.” But if you’re implying that Israel started this war, that just has no basis in reality.
Yeah, so no country should ask its military to perpetrate a war. And by that I mean no country should be starting a war
It’s figure of speech. In this context I was using it as a synonym for “carry out.”
Ok, clear on your meaning now.
But if you’re implying that Israel started this war, that just has no basis in reality.
No, got confused from the ambiguity above. I think we are agreed, that Hamas clearly started it first. The question in my mind now is, in retaliating against Hamas in self defense, if the IDF is going too fast and too hard - with the result that they’re failing to minimize civilian casualties to the fullest extend possible.
I don’t disagree that some soldiers engage in reprehensible behavior. That’s pretty standard in war. But that wasn’t what I have in mind when people say things like “Israel is committing war crimes.” That has a much different connotation to it.
Oh, and I realized later that I chose the wrong word. I actually meant to say ‘prosecute’ rather than ‘perpetrate’. My bad.
The question in my mind now is, in retaliating against Hamas in self defense, if the IDF is going too fast and too hard - with the result that they’re failing to minimize civilian casualties to the fullest extend possible.>
That is absolutely a valid question. But most people don’t pose it as a question. They think they are experts on warfare and can make a judgment about the morality of the war based on photos of destroyed buildings or abstract death toll numbers. And let’s face it, most people who are critical of the war are staunchly anti-Israel and don’t think Israel should have responded at all. Many people also don’t understand the big picture. They think this war is just, as you suggest, retaliation for 10/7. But it isn’t. If it were, it would have been more like 2014 - quick, a couple thousand dead, move on.
The attack on 10/7 made Israel realize that it can no longer tolerate genocidal enemies on its borders. The approach to Hamas and Hezbollah had always been containment - Israel can tolerate the occasional rocket attack or one-off terror attack, as long as that’s it. But 10/7 was a wake-up call and Israel has decided they can’t be tolerated anymore. But even more than that, it’s about moving towards a new Middle East. Sinwar decided to pull off this attack when he did because he wanted to put a stop to the Abraham Accords. His hope was that the rest of the Islamist world would join in and fully destroy Israel, but if they didn’t do that at least the moderate Muslim countries would see how evil Israel is and abandon the Accords to side with their radical brothers. Israel sees an opportunity here to seriously weaken the Iranian regime, which will allow the Accords to proceed. I truly believe we are seeing history being made right now. This war will ultimately usher in a new era of peace in the Middle East.
But that wasn’t what I have in mind when people say things like “Israel is committing war crimes.” That has a much different connotation to it.
It does have a different connotation to it - as if the gov’t of Israel was officially allowing and condoning such “reprehensible behavior” as you put it. However, even if it’s against official policy, if the majority of troops are ignoring the laws of their own country’s gov’t and rules of their own country’s military to commit this “reprehensible behavior”, then a lot of folks will think that country should be accountable. But this can easily morph to the former statement if one isn’t careful about nuance.
I actually meant to say ‘prosecute’ rather than ‘perpetrate’. My bad.
Ah, no worries. Though that word is potentially even more confusing - you must mean in the sense of “pursue until finished” as per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prosecute but it also has the meaning of bringing legal action about. Which would imply that the war is legal, which could be stretched further to imply that it’s just. Of course, I’d hesitate to go that far on either point (legal or just).
They think this war is just, as you suggest, retaliation for 10/7. But it isn’t. If it were, it would have been more like 2014 - quick, a couple thousand dead, move on.
I thought the same, actually. I could go as far as agreeing that a simple retaliation is legal and just, but since this is not that…
Many people also don’t understand the big picture.
Clearly I’m still not getting it.
That’s pretty standard in war.
That’s kind of the problem, though, isn’t it?
They think they are experts on warfare and can make a judgment about the morality of the war
Well though, if not the people, then who can make these judgement? Who is empowered to decide this?
Sinwar decided to pull off this attack when he did because he wanted to put a stop to the Abraham Accords.
Agreed. The evidence I’ve seen so far agrees with this.
Israel sees an opportunity here to seriously weaken the Iranian regime, which will allow the Accords to proceed.
I support the Accords. But I still worry about innocent civilians - such as Gazans and Palestinians who just want to sit this one out and live their lives, or the hostages taken on 10/7. And if the beef was just with Iran, why are these folks getting caught in the middle? (Of course it’s not just Iran, Hamas is based in Gaza, but if one can easily confuse the Iranian regime with Hamas, then perhaps it’s easier to confuse Hamas with people from Gaza more generally, which leads to innocent civilians being wrongly treated like hostile military opponents.)
Israel has decided they can’t be tolerated anymore.
And no doubt Israel will win this, but I worry about the human sacrifice required from the innocent.
Israel is the one routinely targeting civilian areas in both Palestine and Lebanon. This isn’t a war, this an ethnic cleansing with war being used as the pretext.
No, they are not targeting civilian areas. They are targeting weapons caches, rocket/missile launchers, and Hamas/Hezbollah operatives that are unfortunately located in civilian areas.
Then why are so many civilians dying from their attacks? Why does Israel have a similar population density, but you don’t see anywhere near the amount of civilian casualties when they are attacked? And before you say, no it isn’t because of the Iron Dome. Plenty of the attacks have gotten through. It’s just more often military targets and not civilian ones.
Hamas deliberately puts their civilians in harm’s way. That’s why they have dug 500km of tunnels underneath cities. That’s why they operate out of hospitals and schools. They want civilians to die and the more the better.
Israel, on the other hand, has spent billions to protect its citizens. And not just the Iron Dome either. There is a law in Israel that all new buildings and homes must be built with safe rooms and bomb shelters. They have a highly advanced early warning system so that civilians know to find shelter and exactly how much time they have to do so. Most of the rockets and missiles that have gotten through have been allowed to fall in open areas where they won’t do damage.
Israel, on the other hand, has spent billions to protect its citizens.
You just literally pointed out the distinction. Israel is privileged enough to have these kinds of systems. Palestine is not. And why is Palestine so poor, might you ask? What has happened to them for over 70 years where they can barely even defend themselves?
You really are completely oblivious. Is this what happens when you become brainwashed by Marxist crap?
First of all, do you know how much money Hamas has received in foreign aid to help the people of Gaza? Billions. And that doesn’t include the support they get from Iran in the form of weapons and money. How the hell do you think they could afford to build a tunnel network larger than the London Underground? It has nothing to do with privilege, it’s about how a civilized society chooses to spend its money compared to how a genocidal Islamist terror organization decides to spend its money. Have you not seen the palaces that Hamas leaders have in Qatar? Did you know that Arafat died a billionaire?
Second, Israel built a thriving successful nation from nothing through hard work, innovation, and a shared commitment to building a future for the Jewish people. They fought off genocidal enemies and survived and thrived against all odds. If you could put aside your hateful ideology for a minute you might appreciate it for the incredible success story it is.
First of all, do you know how much money Hamas has received in foreign aid to help the people of Gaza?
I’m going to ask you to cite your sources here.
Second, Israel built a thriving successful nation from nothing through hard work, innovation, and a shared commitment to building a future for the Jewish people.
Yes, it totally had nothing to do with the tens of billions it receives in foreign aid, the extensive military support it also gets, and the land and resources they stole from the Palestinians. A lot of "hard work"there. Clearly.
I guess because they aren’t bringing the terror here?
But Israel/IDF has indeed been found to probably have committed genocide. By agencies and systems in the UN. At this point it’s kinda pedantic if it’s called terrorism or not, because it’s genocide.
And it wouldn’t be quite accurate to say that Canada didn’t do anything about this. There was suspension of arms sales after all, https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/joly-suspensions-analysis-1.7320990
Edit: It’s totally reasonable to call for more action on top of this. Stopping arms exports is just a drop in the bucket compared to the horrors that are happening half a world away. But at least it’s a start, however small.
Except that’s not actually the case.
I guess should have said “mostly suspended” - but wow, that’s quite a glaring loophole.
In particular, there’s no reporting requirements - so it’s not even possible to tell how much of what got moved under the loophole, so we don’t know if it was just a $60 drop in the bucket or if say the vast majority of arms exports are moving via the loophole now.
Shit like this is why the leaders in Arab communities are refusing to even meet with Trudeau. It’s become abundantly clear that a lot of progressives in our Parliament are only progressives when it’s politically convenient to be.
That might be a tad harsh - I’m sure that now progressive lawmakers have been made aware of the loophole by the news article that they are working on laws to fix it (previously they may have assumed that companies would just act in good faith in doing the right thing here, or failing that, that the US wouldn’t send arms over to a country found to have plausibly committed genocide).
Alas, that process is quite slow, so I am currently putting my hopes on the lawsuit mentioned in your article. Hopefully the courts will decide to apply the brakes until a legislative fix can be made.
I hope I’m not being too optimistic here.
I wouldn’t give them the benefit of the doubt personally. The only political leader who has actually said anything substantitive regarding Israel’s actions was Singh. If you’re a political figure and you can’t even publicly condemn another countries war crimes and say that we won’t stand for it, then to me you’re complicit.
This is false. The former chair of the ICJ herself clarified the ruling. They only ruled that it is plausible that the rights of the Palestinian people under the Geneva Convention are at risk, which is a fancy way of saying the ICJ has jurisdiction to hear the case.
And those horrors you refer to were all brought about by Iranian terror proxies who declared war on Israel. Unfortunately civilians suffer the most in war.
Citation needed.
That, ironically, is quite plausible. That sounds exactly like the sort of thing a court would say.
Meaning that they might not actually be at risk, just that it plausibly looks like so and so a deeper look is needed to indeed confirm that this is the case?
This seems a little too fancy. Why not just plainly say that “we find the ICJ has jurisdiction to hear the case because these allegations fall under our jurisdiction?” I wouldn’t normally associate “Geneva violations” language with “court has jurisdiction” verbiage.
Anyways, assuming for the case of argument that all of the above is indeed correct and accurate (happy to give you the benefit of the doubt while you pull out the relevant source or citation) - it seems to me that even then the ICJ saw that there was a risk of irreparable harm to Palestinians, and it also found that Israel’s interpretation of “wholly unfounded” and “morally repugnant” “false claims” was lacking or at least uncertain and unclear enough to warrant further investigation (instead of dismissing it outright). I.e. not a frivolous court case.
I mean, true in the sense that it sounded like there was almost a grand peace deal that would have made the Palestine Authority and Israel both happy, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/09/israel-gaza-war-biden-netanyahu-peace-negotiations/679581/ until Hamas ruined it with their terrorist attack.
But the IDF is accountable for its own actions, and some of these seem to break both international and Israeli law. E.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/14/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-military-human-shields.html
While this might not have happened this year if Hamas hadn’t done what it did last year, that doesn’t absolve accountability on behalf of the IDF.
In fact, thinking this through leads to a ridiculous result. If Iran is directly accountable for when the IDF violates laws and human rights, that means Iran is responsible when the IDF violates laws and human rights. Which in turn means that Iran needs to stop the IDF from violating laws and human rights… Which means making Iran powerful enough to stop the IDF. Which leads to the concept of arming Iran militarily until it’s strong enough to plausibly defeat the IDF. Which I suspect would lead to Israelis suffering significantly more human rights violations themselves. (Which I think we can all agree is really bad).
No, the IDF has to be held accountable for the actions that the IDF takes.
On this, I think we’re in complete agreement.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919 “Ms Donoghue explained that the court decided the Palestinians had a “plausible right” to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court.”
The one thing that people can’t seem to grasp about Israel, because they are so blinded by their hatred and ideological brainwashing, is that Israelis don’t want war. That will become clear in time, when the Iranian regime is eventually dealt with, the Abraham Accords move forward, and we enter a new era of peace in the Middle East. And maybe then, just maybe, all the Western anti-Zionists will say, “Hmm, I guess Israel wasn’t the bad guy after all.”
Nice, thank you for the reference - the BBC article is really helpful.
And unfortunate. Thanks for acknowledging this simple reality, that the IDF broke the law.
Yeah, so no country should ask its military to perpetrate a war. And by that I mean no country should be starting a war. (As per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perpetrate - perpetrate means to produce or bring about.) In fact I feel a major reason why Israel got away with so much nearer in time to Oct 2023 was because it was correctly and widely seen as the victim, rather than the perpetrator.
Agree that the bar is higher. Will watch the SA case at the ICJ with interest.
I mean, strictly speaking, breaking the law doesn’t establish that either. Otherwise, Martin Luther King would have been morally wrong for his civil disobedience in participating in sit-in protests against racism? So just because - as we both agree - the IDF broke the law, it does not follow that they’re morally in the wrong?
Logically that’s correct. But that just means we need to turn to another basis for arguing that some of the actions taken are morally wrong. Perhaps along the lines of failing to “take reasonable steps to minimize civilian casualties.”
When I see the headlines from articles like https://time.com/7016741/israel-protests-netanyahu-six-hostages-deaths/ - yes, I can easily believe that.
Well, thank you for at least acknowledging that.
In that case, allow me to provide some sources on this matter,
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-10-15/ty-article/.premium/idf-soldiers-attacked-military-police-at-gunpoint-for-arresting-comrades-at-sde-teiman/00000192-904d-d2db-ab97-dddd31dd0000
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-08-04/ty-article/.premium/prosecution-seeks-extended-custody-of-five-israeli-soldiers-suspected-of-sde-teiman-abuse/00000191-1caf-db97-a7df-fcffecc00000
https://thehill.com/policy/international/4630363-us-israeli-military-violated-human-rights/ (though this last one is about accusations that predate the current conflict)
Ok, clear on your meaning now.
No, got confused from the ambiguity above. I think we are agreed, that Hamas clearly started it first. The question in my mind now is, in retaliating against Hamas in self defense, if the IDF is going too fast and too hard - with the result that they’re failing to minimize civilian casualties to the fullest extend possible.
I don’t disagree that some soldiers engage in reprehensible behavior. That’s pretty standard in war. But that wasn’t what I have in mind when people say things like “Israel is committing war crimes.” That has a much different connotation to it.
Oh, and I realized later that I chose the wrong word. I actually meant to say ‘prosecute’ rather than ‘perpetrate’. My bad.
The attack on 10/7 made Israel realize that it can no longer tolerate genocidal enemies on its borders. The approach to Hamas and Hezbollah had always been containment - Israel can tolerate the occasional rocket attack or one-off terror attack, as long as that’s it. But 10/7 was a wake-up call and Israel has decided they can’t be tolerated anymore. But even more than that, it’s about moving towards a new Middle East. Sinwar decided to pull off this attack when he did because he wanted to put a stop to the Abraham Accords. His hope was that the rest of the Islamist world would join in and fully destroy Israel, but if they didn’t do that at least the moderate Muslim countries would see how evil Israel is and abandon the Accords to side with their radical brothers. Israel sees an opportunity here to seriously weaken the Iranian regime, which will allow the Accords to proceed. I truly believe we are seeing history being made right now. This war will ultimately usher in a new era of peace in the Middle East.
It does have a different connotation to it - as if the gov’t of Israel was officially allowing and condoning such “reprehensible behavior” as you put it. However, even if it’s against official policy, if the majority of troops are ignoring the laws of their own country’s gov’t and rules of their own country’s military to commit this “reprehensible behavior”, then a lot of folks will think that country should be accountable. But this can easily morph to the former statement if one isn’t careful about nuance.
Ah, no worries. Though that word is potentially even more confusing - you must mean in the sense of “pursue until finished” as per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prosecute but it also has the meaning of bringing legal action about. Which would imply that the war is legal, which could be stretched further to imply that it’s just. Of course, I’d hesitate to go that far on either point (legal or just).
I thought the same, actually. I could go as far as agreeing that a simple retaliation is legal and just, but since this is not that…
Clearly I’m still not getting it.
That’s kind of the problem, though, isn’t it?
Well though, if not the people, then who can make these judgement? Who is empowered to decide this?
Agreed. The evidence I’ve seen so far agrees with this.
I support the Accords. But I still worry about innocent civilians - such as Gazans and Palestinians who just want to sit this one out and live their lives, or the hostages taken on 10/7. And if the beef was just with Iran, why are these folks getting caught in the middle? (Of course it’s not just Iran, Hamas is based in Gaza, but if one can easily confuse the Iranian regime with Hamas, then perhaps it’s easier to confuse Hamas with people from Gaza more generally, which leads to innocent civilians being wrongly treated like hostile military opponents.)
And no doubt Israel will win this, but I worry about the human sacrifice required from the innocent.
Israel is the one routinely targeting civilian areas in both Palestine and Lebanon. This isn’t a war, this an ethnic cleansing with war being used as the pretext.
No, they are not targeting civilian areas. They are targeting weapons caches, rocket/missile launchers, and Hamas/Hezbollah operatives that are unfortunately located in civilian areas.
This isn’t even close to ethnic cleansing.
Then why are so many civilians dying from their attacks? Why does Israel have a similar population density, but you don’t see anywhere near the amount of civilian casualties when they are attacked? And before you say, no it isn’t because of the Iron Dome. Plenty of the attacks have gotten through. It’s just more often military targets and not civilian ones.
Are you serious?
Hamas deliberately puts their civilians in harm’s way. That’s why they have dug 500km of tunnels underneath cities. That’s why they operate out of hospitals and schools. They want civilians to die and the more the better.
Israel, on the other hand, has spent billions to protect its citizens. And not just the Iron Dome either. There is a law in Israel that all new buildings and homes must be built with safe rooms and bomb shelters. They have a highly advanced early warning system so that civilians know to find shelter and exactly how much time they have to do so. Most of the rockets and missiles that have gotten through have been allowed to fall in open areas where they won’t do damage.
You just literally pointed out the distinction. Israel is privileged enough to have these kinds of systems. Palestine is not. And why is Palestine so poor, might you ask? What has happened to them for over 70 years where they can barely even defend themselves?
Also, the Hamas using the hospital as a base accusation has long been debunked.
You really are completely oblivious. Is this what happens when you become brainwashed by Marxist crap?
First of all, do you know how much money Hamas has received in foreign aid to help the people of Gaza? Billions. And that doesn’t include the support they get from Iran in the form of weapons and money. How the hell do you think they could afford to build a tunnel network larger than the London Underground? It has nothing to do with privilege, it’s about how a civilized society chooses to spend its money compared to how a genocidal Islamist terror organization decides to spend its money. Have you not seen the palaces that Hamas leaders have in Qatar? Did you know that Arafat died a billionaire?
Second, Israel built a thriving successful nation from nothing through hard work, innovation, and a shared commitment to building a future for the Jewish people. They fought off genocidal enemies and survived and thrived against all odds. If you could put aside your hateful ideology for a minute you might appreciate it for the incredible success story it is.
I’m going to ask you to cite your sources here.
Yes, it totally had nothing to do with the tens of billions it receives in foreign aid, the extensive military support it also gets, and the land and resources they stole from the Palestinians. A lot of "hard work"there. Clearly.