• roofuskit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    edit-2
    15 days ago

    One is defensive and one is a genocide over land. Not really a hard choice for sane people.

      • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        53
        ·
        15 days ago

        So basically, your perspective is that a system that protects Israeli civilians is immoral because every single Israeli is immoral? Yeah, that seems very sane. /s

        • Deceptichum@quokk.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          15 days ago

          Defense of a state that is actively engaging in genocide is a problem.

          The Iron Dome stops attacks on military targets, blame Israel for hiding behind civilians as it launches its missiles and drones from US provided safety.

    • hark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 days ago

      It could be argued that Israel is free to unleash their campaign of genocide because the people in Israel do not experience the horrors themselves. There is no pressure to reach an agreement. Bringing the hostages back has been the only rallying cry by Israelis, but other than that, actually ending the genocide doesn’t have much support.

      It’s similar to how so many consumer goods are produced through the use of slavery. That distance and lack of visibility mean there is little pressure from consumers to stop those practices.