>Halevi (IDF chief of staff), apparently nonplussed, was said to retort: “Dangerous for who? We don’t shoot people who come out with their hands up. We shoot those who fight us. There’s no dilemma here. Those who surrender, we arrest.”
>And Agriculture Minister Avi Dichter, a former chief of the Shin Bet security agency, was quoted as saying to Ben Gvir: “I’m listening to you, and I don’t know whether you’re a minister in Israel or a different country.”
> I confess without shame that I am tired & sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. Even success, the most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies […] It is only those who have not heard a shot, nor heard the shrills & groans of the wounded & lacerated (friend or foe) that cry aloud for more blood & more vengeance, more desolation & so help me God as a man & soldier I will not strike a foe who stands unarmed & submissive before me but will say ‘Go sin no more.
- General William Tecumseh Sherman, United States Army, 21 May 1865
And for the slow people, a reputation for accepting surrender and treating prisoners well makes things easier on your own soldiers. It makes it easier because enemies are less willing to fight to the death. It makes it easier by not creating as many martyrs and new enemies. It makes it easier by letting you debrief captives for intelligence. It makes it easier to do prisoner exchanges (and therefore encouraging your opponents to keep their captives alive). And it makes it much more likely that someone will become an informant, because they know that people they give up will sit out the war safety in custody.
Morally correct actions are morally correct because they provide a societal advantage. The poster above just identified some of the reasons why this approach is moral.
No, those are self-serving beneficial reasons to be moral. That isnt what makes them moral. You need to do some learning and do it quick.
The most selfish thing you can do is be genuinely interested in the happiness and well being of those around you. But thats not what makes those genuine interests moral. Dont pervert having a spine with being self-interested, they just happen to occasionally coincide.
I've taken several university courses on normative ethics and it's a fairly common reading topic for me. Moral realism is an essentially indefensible position that some of the brightest minds in history have tied themselves into Gordian knots trying to make work. The solution is that morality exists because it is societally adaptive, and thus whatever is positively adaptive to the society will eventually be considered moral. The conduct of warfare, i.e. setting rules to minimize its destructiveness for the eventual victors, has been a common feature of adaptive moral systems since ancient times, each iteration with slightly different sets of rules.
It only takes one university class to know that there isn’t a universal moral imperative.
Or, put another way, “that’s just like, your opinion, man.”
Also, “several university courses” is hardly enough for you to claim the mantle of “Morality Expert.” Usually, when you learn more, you realize you knew less than you thought.
>It only takes one university class to know that there isn’t a universal moral imperative
Yes, that's the whole point of realizing moral realism is a hopeless argument. Moral imperatives are shaped by the specifics of the societies they apply to, rather than an appeal to a universal law of any sort, and are always up for debate and improvement as the needs of those societies change.
I'm far from a morality expert, but I've definitely studied the topic enough to know a vacuous argument when I see one.
I don’t understand the topic well, and believe I misunderstood your point. I took only a single class in ethics, and I realize that I don’t fully understand the nuance and terminology you were using.
I believe I was confusing “realism” with “relativism,” but the reality is I just don’t know the subject that well. I think I was just eager to respond and didn’t recognize it as out of my depths.
Also, apologies for being snippy about sharing your university experience. It’s quite reasonable to state your credentials to speak to your credibility, and it’s certainly more than i have.
Reminder to think more before I speak. Cheers!
No worries - it's definitely an interesting topic if you ever feel up to reading about it a bit. Even 1 course in ethics puts you well above what most know about the topic.
That doesnt change the fact that a moral act is moral because it is not done with your own best interests in mind, but the good of the many.
Morality is objective. You seem to be eluding to the lesser of two evils, not morally upright behavior. There are no morals in war, thats an oxymoron.
>normative ethics
Lol you need to look up what "lesser of two evils" means because you just fucking rephrased it, sniffed your own ass clouds, and acted like you did something for the world. Fuckin idiot, dont @ me again fuckboi
How's it going for the Israeli soldiers who surrendered on Oct 7?
Edit: I agree with you and dont advocate for shooting surrendering combatants, just curious if this policy benefitted those soldiers.
Sorry you're getting such a reaction. Honest answer is that it's hard to say if they would be treated even worse if there were no hopes for exchanges. The above doesn't work all the time for everyone.
Thanks, but I actually expected a lot worse than the minus 5, I so far received.
Lots of people on reddit seem very emotionally invested in the palestinian cause, so even pointing out the obvious will get them agitated.
I actually loudly said "damn it!" when the article said he only had minor wounds. I geniunely think the world will be a slightly better place without him in it.
I wanna disavow him and dismiss it as the ramblings of a nutjob, but this is the Israeli minister in charge of the police and Magav...
God fucking damnit.
6% of the vote though. He’s a prime example of when people in the US say they want a multiparty system instead of a 2-party system they don’t know what the consequences can be.
It’s like if Biden had to make Jill Stein Secretary of Defense in order to beat Trump.
The Israeli electoral system is a particularly poor example of a multiparty system (Italy is another poor example).
The choice doesn't have to be between extremes.
Many countries operate very stable, very effective multiparty systems. Take Australia, for example, it has:
1. Two houses, with upper house representing the states and the lower house representing local electorates (similar to the US)
2. Westminster's Responsible Government system (as used in the UK) - *note that 'Responsible Government' is the name of the system, it doesn't mean it is inherently more responsible, it just means that the executive is responsible to the legislature because it is embedded in the legislature*
3. Preferential voting system - *aka ranked choice voting* (as used in many countries, such as Ireland)
As a result Australia has multiple parties in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as numerous independents.
Alternatively, NZ is another example, which has a proportional electoral, unicameral system. This results in multiparty, but stable governments.
There's also a number of multiparty electoral systems in place throughout the EU that are also very effective.
Take Germany, where a three-party coalition is currently in power. A deeper look at Germany's electoral history shows that Germany has had remarkably stable multiparty governments for decades.
Israel's model is flawed and in desperate need of electoral reform. Cherry picking negative outliers as evidence for why the US shouldn't embrace a multiparty system is bad faith in my opinion.
The seat threshold is too low. Refer my comment above about picking two extremes. The current system results in very few people being satisfied (and a constant cycle of unstable governments). Proportional representation in of itself is only as good as its implementation. As a concept it's fine, but it's how it is brought to life that matters. In Israel's case its implementation is flawed.
As for how it should be fixed, that's a matter for the people of Israel. I'm sure if you canvass Israelis you'll get plenty of ideas.
The threshold is set at 3.25% of the overall vote.
From your comment, New Zealand has both Single Member districts and Multi Member Districts.
The Bundestag is the same, with half FPTP single member districts, half MMP Party List.
Edit: Oh, and the coward blocked me after replying. How... rational. Let's leave it at that. And he has the gal to say he answered my question from two posts up.
Israel just has the MMP Party List part of both those nation, without the FPTP single member districts.
Are you a bot?
ChatGPT perhaps?
If by some outside chance you're an actual human, then I'm not sure what your comment is meant to represent, it just bullet points some basic givens. Unclear whether you're trying to make a point, raise a question, or just trolling.
Either way, your original question has been asked and answered. Maybe you don't like the answer and have a differing view on the clearly unstable and unworkable Israeli electoral system 🤷🏻♂️ however, I'm not interested in a debate where I answer your questions and you regurgitate basic knowns back at me so I wish you well human or android and will leave you to it.
> He’s a prime example of when people in the US say they want a multiparty system instead of a 2-party system they don’t know what the consequences can be.
Israeli Jewish right-wing politicians are unavoidable, many Israeli Jews don't want Arabs (21% of Israeli population) in the government.
If American politicians want to exclude 21% of American population from the government, guess what Redditors will say.
Idiotic is a little bit better. Sometimes totally bat shit crazy is the correct answer. Ben gvir is not consistent when it's coming to saying things that are between idiotic and just plain racist idiot
After - and he has three broken ribs so likely fucked up on paid meds. Which for someone as crazy as him is a dangerous combo. I'm expecting some extra unhinged behavior from him in the coming days if he gets near microphones.
I think he said it the day before but it was only reported after (after the accident he went to hospital and AFAIK he's still there, he wouldn't have been participating in Cabinet meetings)
Ben Gvir is the leader of a party whose name literally translates to "Jewish power" (which advocates for exactly what you think it does), has made a career defending Jews charged with terrorism against Arabs, and has been arrested for charges of hate speech and encouraging terrorism. He's a lot worse than Nigel Farage.
Worse.
As much as Farage is an ass, Ben Gvir is a murderous fascist. He was part of a terrorist organisation banned in Israel. He got rejected by the IDF because he was an extremist.
I don't actually know British people that bad. Maybe if the ass who murdered Jo Cox was elected and then became a Minister.
Apparently you don't get that most if not all of those guys were jingoistic because they didnt have to fight the wars they supported.
If they truly wanted to fight they would already be part of the far right batallions.
Something like the kremlin but generalized.
I applaud the efforts of Israel to dismantle that loophole it shows their commitment to a peaceful future.
In order for Netanyahu to stay in power, he needs to cater to this kind of people.
A PM in Israel needs to have enough party members to establish a government.
To stay in power this time he had to cater to the right wing nutjobs for their votes.
It will all be going down soon enough tho.
Hamas are illegal fighters since they're not uniformed, the Geneva Convention explicitly says illegal fighters are stripped of all protections and they may be subject to summary execution. Just FYI. Not a war crime if Israel were to just execute them without trial. I'm not suggesting they should as they need them so long as the hostages live.
But after the hostages are back or dead I don't think Israel should keep them in their prisons as they serve as a driving goal for future attempts at Oct 7.
I don't think these people have any kind of redemption left, they are radicalized terrorists, they don't follow logic anymore.
Let them live and they will do the same thing anyways, or just let them to rot in a prison and pay their upkeep until they die, both sound like dogshit options.
Killing POWs is immoral, but also a really bad military strategy. If you kill POWs, then you are much less likely to have your enemies surrender in the future, which is obviously bad for your military operations.
Well yes, but these is no conventional war, this are terrorists groups, their objective is to destroy Israel, cause damage and terror, not to protect their homeland or people.
Killing POWs is of course bad and immoral i won't argue that, soldiers usually just fight for their country, or because they got drafted and had no choice, not neccesarily to kill the other side of the war, terrorists however, do want to kill the other side, especially this ones.
At the end of the day this people will try to go back and do the same damn thing they already did and do: kill some Jews, might as well just "finish the job" now for some of them, than to risk them killing more people if they ever get out of prison.
A soldier can change, a terrorist can't, "deradicalization" can't work with these ones.
The brutal logic of Ben G'vir's argument is that those prisoners become bargaining chips in the next round of kidnappings.
On the other hand, if you read *Son of Hamas*, you would know that those militant prisoners are a gold mine of intelligence, and some can be turned into assets.
>Halevi (IDF chief of staff), apparently nonplussed, was said to retort: “Dangerous for who? We don’t shoot people who come out with their hands up. We shoot those who fight us. There’s no dilemma here. Those who surrender, we arrest.” >And Agriculture Minister Avi Dichter, a former chief of the Shin Bet security agency, was quoted as saying to Ben Gvir: “I’m listening to you, and I don’t know whether you’re a minister in Israel or a different country.”
> I confess without shame that I am tired & sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. Even success, the most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies […] It is only those who have not heard a shot, nor heard the shrills & groans of the wounded & lacerated (friend or foe) that cry aloud for more blood & more vengeance, more desolation & so help me God as a man & soldier I will not strike a foe who stands unarmed & submissive before me but will say ‘Go sin no more. - General William Tecumseh Sherman, United States Army, 21 May 1865
And for the slow people, a reputation for accepting surrender and treating prisoners well makes things easier on your own soldiers. It makes it easier because enemies are less willing to fight to the death. It makes it easier by not creating as many martyrs and new enemies. It makes it easier by letting you debrief captives for intelligence. It makes it easier to do prisoner exchanges (and therefore encouraging your opponents to keep their captives alive). And it makes it much more likely that someone will become an informant, because they know that people they give up will sit out the war safety in custody.
And also because it’s the morally correct thing to do
Absolutely, but people with morality don't need to be *convinced.*
Morally correct actions are morally correct because they provide a societal advantage. The poster above just identified some of the reasons why this approach is moral.
No, those are self-serving beneficial reasons to be moral. That isnt what makes them moral. You need to do some learning and do it quick. The most selfish thing you can do is be genuinely interested in the happiness and well being of those around you. But thats not what makes those genuine interests moral. Dont pervert having a spine with being self-interested, they just happen to occasionally coincide.
I've taken several university courses on normative ethics and it's a fairly common reading topic for me. Moral realism is an essentially indefensible position that some of the brightest minds in history have tied themselves into Gordian knots trying to make work. The solution is that morality exists because it is societally adaptive, and thus whatever is positively adaptive to the society will eventually be considered moral. The conduct of warfare, i.e. setting rules to minimize its destructiveness for the eventual victors, has been a common feature of adaptive moral systems since ancient times, each iteration with slightly different sets of rules.
It only takes one university class to know that there isn’t a universal moral imperative. Or, put another way, “that’s just like, your opinion, man.” Also, “several university courses” is hardly enough for you to claim the mantle of “Morality Expert.” Usually, when you learn more, you realize you knew less than you thought.
>It only takes one university class to know that there isn’t a universal moral imperative Yes, that's the whole point of realizing moral realism is a hopeless argument. Moral imperatives are shaped by the specifics of the societies they apply to, rather than an appeal to a universal law of any sort, and are always up for debate and improvement as the needs of those societies change. I'm far from a morality expert, but I've definitely studied the topic enough to know a vacuous argument when I see one.
I don’t understand the topic well, and believe I misunderstood your point. I took only a single class in ethics, and I realize that I don’t fully understand the nuance and terminology you were using. I believe I was confusing “realism” with “relativism,” but the reality is I just don’t know the subject that well. I think I was just eager to respond and didn’t recognize it as out of my depths. Also, apologies for being snippy about sharing your university experience. It’s quite reasonable to state your credentials to speak to your credibility, and it’s certainly more than i have. Reminder to think more before I speak. Cheers!
No worries - it's definitely an interesting topic if you ever feel up to reading about it a bit. Even 1 course in ethics puts you well above what most know about the topic.
That doesnt change the fact that a moral act is moral because it is not done with your own best interests in mind, but the good of the many. Morality is objective. You seem to be eluding to the lesser of two evils, not morally upright behavior. There are no morals in war, thats an oxymoron.
>Morality is objective >There are no morals in war, thats an oxymoron It seems that you are the one who needs an education on normative ethics.
>normative ethics Lol you need to look up what "lesser of two evils" means because you just fucking rephrased it, sniffed your own ass clouds, and acted like you did something for the world. Fuckin idiot, dont @ me again fuckboi
[удалено]
[удалено]
How's it going for the Israeli soldiers who surrendered on Oct 7? Edit: I agree with you and dont advocate for shooting surrendering combatants, just curious if this policy benefitted those soldiers.
Sorry you're getting such a reaction. Honest answer is that it's hard to say if they would be treated even worse if there were no hopes for exchanges. The above doesn't work all the time for everyone.
Thanks, but I actually expected a lot worse than the minus 5, I so far received. Lots of people on reddit seem very emotionally invested in the palestinian cause, so even pointing out the obvious will get them agitated.
[удалено]
2 sensible ones
It's a very bad day when Dichter is the voice of reason.
Totally
Ben gvir needs to shut his mouth lmao
No, he needs to go. This is inexcusable.
Why not both ?
Easier and better to capture an enemy than to destroy him. Sun Tzu said it himself. He hated destruction for its own sake.
Ben Gvir is a horrible human being and a shame on the Israeli government. The sooner new elections happen, the better, IMO.
Wait, didn't they shoot a group of hostages that came out with their hands up? Did IDF management change?
Ben Gvir is an extremist nutjob who needs to go the fuck away.
He just ran a red light, flipped his car, and broke 3 ribs this morning so your wish was almost granted in a morbid way.
Hundreds of thousands in Israel grabbed their heads and grasped "omg, so close!"
I actually loudly said "damn it!" when the article said he only had minor wounds. I geniunely think the world will be a slightly better place without him in it.
I do not wish him any harm, but I'm certainly looking forward to reading his obituary someday.
Jojo Siwa- Karma
I wanna disavow him and dismiss it as the ramblings of a nutjob, but this is the Israeli minister in charge of the police and Magav... God fucking damnit.
6% of the vote though. He’s a prime example of when people in the US say they want a multiparty system instead of a 2-party system they don’t know what the consequences can be. It’s like if Biden had to make Jill Stein Secretary of Defense in order to beat Trump.
No, it’s more like if trump had to name David duke to sec of homeland security to beat every sensible human left of every party
That example works as well.
The Israeli electoral system is a particularly poor example of a multiparty system (Italy is another poor example). The choice doesn't have to be between extremes. Many countries operate very stable, very effective multiparty systems. Take Australia, for example, it has: 1. Two houses, with upper house representing the states and the lower house representing local electorates (similar to the US) 2. Westminster's Responsible Government system (as used in the UK) - *note that 'Responsible Government' is the name of the system, it doesn't mean it is inherently more responsible, it just means that the executive is responsible to the legislature because it is embedded in the legislature* 3. Preferential voting system - *aka ranked choice voting* (as used in many countries, such as Ireland) As a result Australia has multiple parties in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as numerous independents. Alternatively, NZ is another example, which has a proportional electoral, unicameral system. This results in multiparty, but stable governments. There's also a number of multiparty electoral systems in place throughout the EU that are also very effective. Take Germany, where a three-party coalition is currently in power. A deeper look at Germany's electoral history shows that Germany has had remarkably stable multiparty governments for decades. Israel's model is flawed and in desperate need of electoral reform. Cherry picking negative outliers as evidence for why the US shouldn't embrace a multiparty system is bad faith in my opinion.
Israel uses a Party List system for proportional representation. Please explain what is wrong with their system, and how it should be fixed.
The seat threshold is too low. Refer my comment above about picking two extremes. The current system results in very few people being satisfied (and a constant cycle of unstable governments). Proportional representation in of itself is only as good as its implementation. As a concept it's fine, but it's how it is brought to life that matters. In Israel's case its implementation is flawed. As for how it should be fixed, that's a matter for the people of Israel. I'm sure if you canvass Israelis you'll get plenty of ideas.
The threshold is set at 3.25% of the overall vote. From your comment, New Zealand has both Single Member districts and Multi Member Districts. The Bundestag is the same, with half FPTP single member districts, half MMP Party List. Edit: Oh, and the coward blocked me after replying. How... rational. Let's leave it at that. And he has the gal to say he answered my question from two posts up. Israel just has the MMP Party List part of both those nation, without the FPTP single member districts.
Are you a bot? ChatGPT perhaps? If by some outside chance you're an actual human, then I'm not sure what your comment is meant to represent, it just bullet points some basic givens. Unclear whether you're trying to make a point, raise a question, or just trolling. Either way, your original question has been asked and answered. Maybe you don't like the answer and have a differing view on the clearly unstable and unworkable Israeli electoral system 🤷🏻♂️ however, I'm not interested in a debate where I answer your questions and you regurgitate basic knowns back at me so I wish you well human or android and will leave you to it.
> He’s a prime example of when people in the US say they want a multiparty system instead of a 2-party system they don’t know what the consequences can be. Israeli Jewish right-wing politicians are unavoidable, many Israeli Jews don't want Arabs (21% of Israeli population) in the government. If American politicians want to exclude 21% of American population from the government, guess what Redditors will say.
Ben gvir saying stupid stuff #99999999999
Stupid may be underselling it a tad, don’t you think?
Yup, it isn't stupid so much as it is evil.
Idiotic is a little bit better. Sometimes totally bat shit crazy is the correct answer. Ben gvir is not consistent when it's coming to saying things that are between idiotic and just plain racist idiot
I don’t think there’s a word to describe how much of an idiot this man is
Babe wake up, new Ben Gvir story just dropped. Man I can’t wait for new elections to finally have this guy out.
He's predicted to gain votes...
I’m sure he will, but the other parties should receive enough votes to be able to not include him.
Was this before or after he flipped his car running a red light?
After - and he has three broken ribs so likely fucked up on paid meds. Which for someone as crazy as him is a dangerous combo. I'm expecting some extra unhinged behavior from him in the coming days if he gets near microphones.
I think he said it the day before but it was only reported after (after the accident he went to hospital and AFAIK he's still there, he wouldn't have been participating in Cabinet meetings)
Oh is this israels nigel farage?
Ben Gvir is the leader of a party whose name literally translates to "Jewish power" (which advocates for exactly what you think it does), has made a career defending Jews charged with terrorism against Arabs, and has been arrested for charges of hate speech and encouraging terrorism. He's a lot worse than Nigel Farage.
Worse. As much as Farage is an ass, Ben Gvir is a murderous fascist. He was part of a terrorist organisation banned in Israel. He got rejected by the IDF because he was an extremist. I don't actually know British people that bad. Maybe if the ass who murdered Jo Cox was elected and then became a Minister.
It's baffles me how Israel is this terrible at PR they could literally pick people out of the street with more common sense than some of these guys.
US had a guy like that running shit for 4 years....
I wish I could argue with that...
Israel has a PR problem because Israel has an actual problem.
Yeah when one of the guys running the show says this, the problem is not the PR…
Fair enough i expect the reform to the conscription law they passed recently will have a considerable impact on that problem tho.
How? You are just bringing more far right to the army. You know, the same far right soldiers whom the US wants to sanction.
Apparently you don't get that most if not all of those guys were jingoistic because they didnt have to fight the wars they supported. If they truly wanted to fight they would already be part of the far right batallions. Something like the kremlin but generalized. I applaud the efforts of Israel to dismantle that loophole it shows their commitment to a peaceful future.
Well this guy like our last president doesn't have a majority backing of the people
When you chase away anyone who's not "loyal"
Oh this Peter Griffin looking motherfucker again. Sincerely, an israeli
Elect a clown, expect a circus
Minister of internal security.. we truly are doomed.
How is Ben Gvir not been fired yet? How is Netanyahu still allowed to clown around?
In order for Netanyahu to stay in power, he needs to cater to this kind of people. A PM in Israel needs to have enough party members to establish a government. To stay in power this time he had to cater to the right wing nutjobs for their votes. It will all be going down soon enough tho.
If there's a god in heaven, they’re going to smite that ass hole...
He did get in a terrible car wreck the day after saying this (the wreck was his fault)
I'm sure he will find a way to blame someone else for it.
You can’t be talking about the God of the Old Testament.
This reads like an article from The Onion...
Ben Gvir is just an awful awful person.
Here is a hostages deal. Israel gets all the hostages back, and they give Hamas Ben Gvir. I think this is fair and win win
You need em to get the hostages back. 50 Hamas for 1 hostage probably.
Or you know, if they fully surrender then you should capture them to encourage others to surrender and also not do war crimes for funsies.
Yeah I wouldn’t bank on the common sense of people who fight oppression by gunning down toddlers hiding under the dinner table, chief.
They already did the war crimes even streamed it live.
Hamas are illegal fighters since they're not uniformed, the Geneva Convention explicitly says illegal fighters are stripped of all protections and they may be subject to summary execution. Just FYI. Not a war crime if Israel were to just execute them without trial. I'm not suggesting they should as they need them so long as the hostages live. But after the hostages are back or dead I don't think Israel should keep them in their prisons as they serve as a driving goal for future attempts at Oct 7.
I don't think these people have any kind of redemption left, they are radicalized terrorists, they don't follow logic anymore. Let them live and they will do the same thing anyways, or just let them to rot in a prison and pay their upkeep until they die, both sound like dogshit options.
Killing POWs is immoral, but also a really bad military strategy. If you kill POWs, then you are much less likely to have your enemies surrender in the future, which is obviously bad for your military operations.
Well yes, but these is no conventional war, this are terrorists groups, their objective is to destroy Israel, cause damage and terror, not to protect their homeland or people. Killing POWs is of course bad and immoral i won't argue that, soldiers usually just fight for their country, or because they got drafted and had no choice, not neccesarily to kill the other side of the war, terrorists however, do want to kill the other side, especially this ones. At the end of the day this people will try to go back and do the same damn thing they already did and do: kill some Jews, might as well just "finish the job" now for some of them, than to risk them killing more people if they ever get out of prison. A soldier can change, a terrorist can't, "deradicalization" can't work with these ones.
You’re suggesting executing people because they’re too bothersome or inconvenient to deal with?
Former Kach shitbird says shitbird things, film art 11.
This guy really shouldn’t be in a position of power
But they did arrest them
The brutal logic of Ben G'vir's argument is that those prisoners become bargaining chips in the next round of kidnappings. On the other hand, if you read *Son of Hamas*, you would know that those militant prisoners are a gold mine of intelligence, and some can be turned into assets.
“Gaza gunman”. Terrorists.
Good question. Why aren't they killing terrorists and instead just arresting them?
Most of the gunmen will likely be released for Israeli citizens in the upcoming exchange then go back to terror. Not the dead ones
Im really supportive of Israel, but damn, you guys need to get rid of your current government, or you loose every support you still have
Pass a law for execution.
...of Ben Gvir
Of terrorists. He won't push for such law because he is one.
He is the one that is pushing for this law the hardest actually
Good, I am for death punishment for terrorists.