• Hegar@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    It’s not inaccurate, just a little hyperbolic. I would say greater than 10:1 rather than a hundred fold. That’s comparing the mismatch of civilian killings and assuming that at some level of mismatch democrat leadership would care.

    It seems pretty accurate to suggest that democratic leadership looked at Palestinian civilian deaths on the one hand, and our foreign policy interests in the region and domestic politics on the other and made a choice.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I knew from the start they were going to hit at least the 8-10k range, because anything less would make Israelis feel like not enough Palestinians had died to balance out their 1200-1400. If they had a magic gun that could execute every perpetrator and every one involved in the planning, they’d use it and then go kill some more people to run the numbers up to an “appropriate” level. Or maybe Netanyahu wouldn’t use the gun because they’re more important to him as a justification for the ethnic cleansing than for anything related to justice or prevention.

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      It seems pretty accurate to suggest that democratic leadership looked at Palestinian civilian deaths on the one hand, and our foreign policy interests in the region and domestic politics on the other and made a choice.

      Yeah, but that’s not what the other person is saying. That’s what you filled in being more reasonable.