Some people, communicating via satellite phones, have described the attack as the “heaviest bombardment yet,” according to independent journalist Sharif Kouddous.
“People can’t call ambulances or civil defense. We are being bombed in an unprecedented manner,” said an unidentified journalist at a Gaza hospital, according to a translation by The Nation’s Palestinian correspondent, Mohammed El-Kurd. “The sky around us just lights up [with explosions], and no one knows what’s going on.”
As anyone else. But as a species we don’t seem to get it that violence achieves nothing.
But is that actually true? A lot can be gained from killing your enemies and taking their stuff.
I’m not saying it’s right in any way, but the motivation should be as clear as any motivation ever has been.
Violence is the most direct and effective method of control, of obtaining and maintaining power.
And that is why nation states have a monopoly on it
and it’s also why the propaganda machine always pushes the “violence is not the answer” narrative
So your logic is stop Israel’s “violence”, but let Palestinians continue with their “resistance”?
Just BROADLY speaking, the pro Palestinian take right now is that Israel should be removed and Palestine given all of the territory.
Like, that’s the take. They don’t just want an end to the violence - Israel wants that too. Hamas has been dedicated to the destruction of Jews and Israel for basically forever.
So it’s asymmetrical.
The pro Israel take is “destroy Hamas so that these attacks stop and there can be peace.” But it’s important to note that up until the October 7 attack Israel only wanted peace. This new policy is a reaction to an unprecedented attack.
It’s also why parity is a key component of citizens’ enjoying respect.
sweet loot drops, for one.
You know if the leader of Hamas dropped 4x legendary skins, 2X xp multiplier and $30 worth of in game currency a teenager would have them dead by morning.
That era ended after WWII, that’s not how it works anymore… Anything worthwhile gets destroyed and polluted if you fight with modern arms
We’ve gotten more advanced - now, you can make billions through the act of war itself! If you position yourself correctly through investments, you too can drink from the firehouse of money aimed at the military industrial complex whenever war occurs
Achieved for whom? We’ve been following this advice since, well, forever. And yes, the elite might gain some material or political advantage from winning a war, but it’s a losing game for most.
When’s the last time a soldier forced his way into your home and told you to bring him food or he’d kill you?
deleted by creator
Sure, and look how many rights the most violent places on Earth enjoy.
Big mouth for violence until you or your loved ones happen to be under the path of a bomb.
Because if you play the violence game, you will always find someone more ruthless and/or well equipped than you are.
deleted by creator
Oh, I’m sure America will topple, sooner or later. Who knows? In one or two Trumps, perhaps. Or maybe it will take 50 years, or a century or two, until civilization itself collapses because of unchecked climate change. History teaches us that all empires fail, and there’s no reason to believe that history will stop at the U.S. of A.
And obviously there’s no denying that violence has always been a driving factor in history. But saying that it doesn’t mean saying that it is desirable. Sure violence brought us here, but, unless you’re a psycho billionnaire, you will have to admit that this is far from a perfect world.
I’m not saying violence is completely avoidable (I stand with Ukrainians’ right to defend their country in any way) but maybe it could be that we can try applying it less and less.
Well there’s violence and there’s the capacity for violence. The most effective thing is the capacity for violence. The actual violence isn’t useful; except as a means to prove one’s capacity.
The best is to achieve that without having to actually hurt anyone.
Yeah, tell that to Gandhi
deleted by creator
Nope, they are not
Unless you consider voting full engage civilian violence
Rights are not won by voting.
deleted by creator
All of the civil rights in my country were slowly incorporated by democratic means through the last century.
Edit, this includes paid vacations, paid maternity leaves for both mother and father, female vote, abolishing slavery, public health, free secular public education (12 years obligatory + university), unemployment insurance, universal income*, abortion
Edit2: that doesn’t mean that all rights are won without violence and my country had a lot of violence, but it was about who was holding the power. Rights were voted through the decades almost independently of who was in power.
deleted by creator
Argentina
I think the majority of us get it. There are a few who are making decisions that don’t understand.
They understand, it’s just that minimising violence is not their objective.
Reread the replies to my comment and tell me again that most of us get it. Most people are ok with violence as long as they benefit from it.