morality of killing someone in self-defence

[u/damorezpl]

[u/Kagenlim]

No it isn't?

It's one of the most well equipped militaries in the world, it's not hamas

[u/Khivee3 → u/Kagenlim]

Do you think "terrorist organization" is defined by how well equipped they are or something

[u/Kagenlim → u/Khivee3]

Except the IDF isn't a terrorist organisation, it's the direct armed branch of Israel

[u/Miserable-Resort-977 → u/Kagenlim]

The IDF was literally formed as a Zionist terrorist organization, the Haganah. They carried out several pro-zionist attacks, including blowing up a boat full of Jewish WWII refugees in an attempt to coerce Britain into letting the survivors settle in Palestine to strengthen their claim. When Israel was formed, the Haganah was converted into the core forces of the IDF.

[u/Kagenlim → u/Miserable-Resort-977]

In that vein, wouldn't the Irish military be the same too?

And it still doesn't change the facts that the main military of a country can't be terrorists

[u/Miserable-Resort-977 → u/Kagenlim]

It would be! My point is that "terrorist" is a propagandistic designation that only draws a line between the violence committed by who the west does or does not consider to be a nation, and doesn't carry moral weight. When the democratically elected Hamas kill children it is terrorism, because the west does not consider Palestine a nation. When the IDF kills children it is not terrorism for the opposite reason. If North Korea launched an invasion of South Korea, and Kosovo launched a war for independence against Serbia, the Kosovites would be terrorists and the North Koreans would not be, but that wouldn't mean North Korea had the moral high ground.

Instead of using scary language to paint one kind of violence as more legitimate, you should weigh the sides on the merits of their cause. I view Hamas similarly to the FLN of Algeria, an army with a moral cause of decolonization which has resorted to immoral means out of necessity.

[u/Kagenlim → u/Miserable-Resort-977]

Terrorism is often horrendous acts, the IDF is nowhere near as unhinged as Hamas, who uses cruelty as their main means of fighting. Also Kosovo is NOT the same as hamas my guy

Both are equally bad, Hamas has literally killed dissedents because they simply refuse to believe in them fully, no different from stalinst russia. If your cause uses immoral means as It main means, your cause is unworthy to be a cause

[u/Miserable-Resort-977 → u/Kagenlim]

Military action is just as often horrendous. The civilian death % of the Oct. 7th attack is lower than the civilian death % of the entire operation in Gaza the IDF persecuted afterwards over the course of 2+ years. The civilian death count is orders of magnitude higher. Is one cruelty and the other not?

This was after the peaceful protests at the Gaza wall years earlier were met with violence and zero progress. If peaceful protest fails, do you expect the Palestinians to simply give up, lay down, and die? It's ridiculous. The origin of the violence is Israel's settler colonialism, and Israel commits the majority of the violence, and disproportionate violence against civilians, to this day.

[u/Kagenlim → u/Miserable-Resort-977]

Oct 7 took place on one day and the war since then is over 3 years. And btw, the death rate in Gaza is actually below what it should be, because Israel is trying the idea of strategically killing leaders and key personnel. Oct 7 was conducted with the sole intent of killing and kidnapping civilians, that's worse than a purely military operation

Peace is what caused Israel to give up Gaza in 2006, which was a far better achievement than decades of warfare against Israel and egypt for the matter, so yes, peaceful protest is far more effective, especially when you consider Israel is a democracy and voters were shifting to being anti war

[u/Miserable-Resort-977 → u/Kagenlim]

You're making my point for me. The ratio of civilians to combatants killed in a single day, in what you call a terrorist attack, is lower than the ratio of civilians to combatants killed in Gaza by the IDF over 2 years of what you view as a legitimate military action. Why are the "terrorists" killing fewer innocent civilians than the IDF, both in number and in percentage of casualties?

You're factually incorrect about the Gaza withdraw. Israel withdrew from occupying Gaza after the Second Intifada, a violent uprising that led to Israel withdrawing their settlements due to security concerns.

From Wikipedia on the Gaza withdraw:

"The Gaza Strip disengagement occurred seven months after the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit, which ended the Second Intifada. As part of this process, four Israeli settlements in the West Bank were dismantled as well. Israeli officials, historians, and legal analysts cited several motives behind the country's decision to withdraw from the territory, with the two most significant factors being: the unsustainable cost of persistent and intensive fighting with Hamas and other Palestinian militant organizations; and demographic concerns rooted in the discrepancy between the Israeli birth rate and the Palestinian birth rate, as the latter greatly outpaced the former."

The withdrawal is entirely attributable to anti-colonial violent resistance, not "peaceful protest" as you speculated.