Since the mid 2000s how many Acres of land has Israel grabbed in the Gaza strip?
Israeli isn't intentionally killing babies. They're not going village to village and killing the elderly, infirm and infants. Hamas did that. They intentionally and indiscriminately killed children. The deaths were not collateral damage.
If Hamas attacked a bridge near the border that was dual purpose (like most bridges are). And on it at the time was a kid on a bike or in a back of a car who perished. We wouldn't call Hamas baby murderers. That would be collateral dage. When Hamas storms a civilian house, confirms the lack of military presence and then proceeds to execute the occupants. That's clearly worse.
They're dying because, in part, Hamas has told them to not leave hot areas for designated safe zones and because Hamas refuses to create military and government installations that aren't dual purpose with civilian purposes (like schools and hospitals).
I'm sure at the end of this conflict, we'll find out that there were misfires and some ominous bombinga by Israel and those who did it will get court martialed; but the overwhelming number of strikes are at valid military targets.
Counter genocide is still genocide. There has never been a genocide that has been unpopular amongst the people committing it.
The disagreement is that censorship can be good at all. Censorship, even with the best of intentions has always been a net negative for a society. And there's no standard for censorship that can withstand simple historical analysis rigor. Censorship is always a powerful group limiting the speech of the populace.
I disagree. He asked a question that gets to the heart of the question, given that the definition of what is "harmful" has changed over the years and will continue to change into the future; does OP support the censorship of the things it would have censored and the things it may censor in the future? It's a valid question and it core to the disagreement.
If OP doesn't care about the dangers of censorship that's fine, but they shouldn't act like you can allow censorship without the problems it has historically and will in the future cause.
Having read the rest of the thread I would like you to answer @Rivalarrival@infosec.pub 's questions.
Bombing civilian targets, collective punishment, stealing land and earlier a slow moving genocide.
I'm Gaza, Hamas hosts it's government in Civilian facilities in order to use them as human shields. That makes them military targets according the the Geneva convention. The blockade is extreme but Israel didn't start this war and it's clear that Hamas has found a way to smuggle military supplies in with civilian freight. And Israel has given back 100% of the land in the Gaza strip. The strip has the 1967 borders. Israeli authorities evicted every jew from the region, some forcibly by gunpoint to secure peace.
If these attacks were coming from the West Bank, maybe we could "both sides" this shit. But they're coming from Gaza which has had every logical prerequisite for peace for decades and chosen not to go down the path of peace.
: to damage or injure physically or mentally : to cause harm
You don't think the definition of mental harm has changed over the last few hundred years?
That's not the case in Gaza. Gaza has the 1967 borders and they've been respected since the mid 2000s when Israel forcibly evicted all Jewish residents beyond the borders in an attempt to engineer peace.
There is not land based justification for what Gazans are doing.