[steinvakt2]

> Hamas could've surrendered against a superior enemy and and returned hostages, to protect its own citizens.

And then Israel would keep occupying more and more land, control their water, electricity, treat Palestinian people like sub-humans, occasionally shoot some children in the head, take palestinian hostages/prisoners without legal right (occasionally tortue and rape them).

What do you do then? Protest peacefully?

[Aloisius]

> What do you do then? Protest peacefully?

Actually attempting to attack legitimate military targets seems like a bare minimum we should demand of pretty much everyone.

[GuB-42]

> What do you do then? Protest peacefully?

Yes.

What has violence solved here? Thousands of people have died, and Palestinians are not treated better. I am no sure what peaceful protests would have done, but "nothing" is still way better than what we have now.

[steinvakt2]

You should apply that logic to Israel, since they are by far the most violent.

[GuB-42]

The logic should apply to both, there are no good guys here, just two armies of savages fighting each other and people getting killed, including innocents that just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I pointed out Palestine because Israel is in a dominant position, so it is unlikely that they would want to protest, peacefully or not. But it would be nice to see more "peace-and-love" movements like in the 60s that opposed the Vietnam war, among other things.

[steinvakt2]

I think that's a naive and ignorant position considering what has been going on since 1948 (violence from both sides, yes, but effectively an apartheid-state with more and more illegal occupations).