The gruesome business of collecting the remains of the dead following Hamas's assault on Israel reveals the terrorists used unusual levels of violence and changed their approach depending on factors like how much time they had.
I see a lot of people debating whether Hamas beheaded babies, and I just want to point out a few things:
It doesn’t really materially matter. The key facts here are: Hamas murdered children, and Israel has and is in the process of murdering children. Whether a baby dies by machete or airstrike, we need to find a clear voice with which to demand an end to the current hostilities and then an end to the apartheid regime and occupation.
I really want to emphasize that I admire the skepticism people are showing, and agree that the critical lens is appropriate. At the same time, I hope people don’t waste time arguing whether this one specific fact is true or not. Because again, if it’s true, it doesn’t mean that Israel has license to kill children. And if it’s false, it doesn’t exonerate Hamas for killing children.
And to take it a step further, the murder of adults is just as bad as children as far as the decision making process is concerned. I agree that a baby is defenseless and morally there is an argument that it is more cruel to harm them directly, but what purpose does that distinction serve here? If we find out that 0 babies died by decapitation does that mean the violence against soft targets by Hamas is more tolerable? Or that Hamas looks less barbaric? There is a time and place where that granularity is important, like sentencing, but mainstream media is definitely not able to handle something that is so convenient to sensationalize. Essentially it becomes an emotionally charged statement that desensitizes us from the other significant acts of violence, and makes overlooking atrocities that much easier.
Oh it’s the same fucking dude. Why are we posting this uncritically?
I see a lot of people debating whether Hamas beheaded babies, and I just want to point out a few things:
It doesn’t really materially matter. The key facts here are: Hamas murdered children, and Israel has and is in the process of murdering children. Whether a baby dies by machete or airstrike, we need to find a clear voice with which to demand an end to the current hostilities and then an end to the apartheid regime and occupation.
I really want to emphasize that I admire the skepticism people are showing, and agree that the critical lens is appropriate. At the same time, I hope people don’t waste time arguing whether this one specific fact is true or not. Because again, if it’s true, it doesn’t mean that Israel has license to kill children. And if it’s false, it doesn’t exonerate Hamas for killing children.
And to take it a step further, the murder of adults is just as bad as children as far as the decision making process is concerned. I agree that a baby is defenseless and morally there is an argument that it is more cruel to harm them directly, but what purpose does that distinction serve here? If we find out that 0 babies died by decapitation does that mean the violence against soft targets by Hamas is more tolerable? Or that Hamas looks less barbaric? There is a time and place where that granularity is important, like sentencing, but mainstream media is definitely not able to handle something that is so convenient to sensationalize. Essentially it becomes an emotionally charged statement that desensitizes us from the other significant acts of violence, and makes overlooking atrocities that much easier.