Apparently, "From The River To The Sea Palestine Will Be Free" is genocidal and anyone who chants desires to kill every Jew in Israel (or so I'm told)
But when Israeli leaders advocate for using nuclear weapons against Gaza, or draft plans and white papers considering the forceful displacement of Gazans into Sinai, or use "From The River To The Sea" as a Likud party campaign slogan repeated by their Prime Minister.... this should simply all be dismissed as: "little anecdotes from a Mayor here or an extremist politician there"
Interesting.
"Well sure. Israel is very powerful, and a developed, wealthy nation, vs Hamas who are less well armed.".... which just proves the extreme power imbalance here, and that Israel is the oppressor in this ongoing conflict.
9/11 did not alter the fact that the US is irrefutably the oppressor when it invades and occupies foreign countries. Terrorist attacks do not alter the fact that it is the most powerful (and oppressive) military power in the world.
Likewise, terrorist attacks against Israel do not change the power dynamic at all. The ruling class of Israel has nearly unlimited potential (thanks to the backing of the ruling class in the US) to impose whatever will they wish upon whoever they desire.
In the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, Israel is ironically the Goliath. Why am I supposed to cry for Goliath? Isn't he the bad guy?
"at least somewhat restrained"... is this a joke? The rate of death in Gaza now exceeds that of any other conflict in the 21st century: https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/daily-death-rate-gaza-higher-any-other-major-21st-century-conflict-oxfam
Using civilian deaths in WW2 at the hands of the Allies is a comical way to justify wanton indiscriminate attacks on civilians. The US utilized extremely cruel and unnecessary aerial firebombing techniques against defenseless Japanese civilians, and dropped 2 nuclear weapons. So... saying that the US/Allies killed lots of people, so Israel should be able to as well is... not a great argument.
Criticizing aerial bombardment of dense civilian population centers is not the same as 'siding with' Nazis or Hamas. By this reasoning, every peace and anti-war activist is on the side of Hamas or the Nazis. Perhaps every general who shot down an ill-advised proposal too.
Curtis LeMay (the architect of the Japanese Firebombing attacks) advocated for the use of nuclear weapons against North Korea. Luckily, President Truman opposed and rejected this idea (I guess authorizing 2 nuclear strikes against Japan was enough for him).
Did President Truman 'side with' the North Koreans that day because he criticized a harebrained proposal by his military that might very well have triggered WW3?
Criticizing the cruel Israeli response and disproportionate use of force in no way implies that someone 'supports' or 'sides' with the also-cruel Hamas.
