Anonymous #1 8w

Yeah except it’s contributing to global climate change and endangering innocent civilians. Not that you guys care about that

-3

Anonymous OP 8w

Name one mitzvah d’roraisa that is being violated

14

Anonymous #1 8w

I dunno like, not stealing or committing murder

-2

Anonymous #1 8w

Don’t take revenge, don’t hold a grudge, etc

-1

Anonymous OP 8w

Milchama is not razach, nor is it ganevah. You don’t understand the aseres hadibros

10

Anonymous OP 8w

Apply only to yisrael, d’oraisa

6

Anonymous OP 8w

Even d’rabanon

3

Anonymous #1 8w

God forbid I not be a religious fanatic and still expect ppl to think starting wildfires is bad

-2

Anonymous #2 8w

I know enough to know wrong when I see it! But not you, apparently

-3

Anonymous OP 8w

I never said it was good or bad. You claimed it was against the teachings of Judaism, do not move the goalposts now

14

Anonymous OP 8w

Buddy, that was not your claim

9

Anonymous #2 8w

Ur right the teachings of Judaism are white supremacy, destruction and murder according to iou guys

-3

Anonymous #3 8w

When I’m in a “mansplaining the teachings of Judaism” competition but my opponent is a communist who has never studied the teachings of Judaism:

9

Anonymous #1 8w

That’s what I would say if I didn’t know the definition of communism and was just using it cuz big word make me sound smart

-3

Anonymous OP 8w

Are you not a communist?

5

Anonymous #1 8w

What abt the things I have said in this thread have anything to do with economics

1

Anonymous OP 8w

Nothing in THIS thread, but I doubt I am wrong about your economic perspective

0

Anonymous #1 8w

You are tho…

-1

Anonymous #1 8w

Love when people who don’t know the first thing about Jewish identity or Judaism exploit it to spread their agenda. All just to get schooled by people who genuinely know what they’re talking about. Thank you.

3

Anonymous #6 8w

You forget to read OPs post or sumn?

1

Anonymous #5 8w

I could not care less what any religious text says, deliberately targeting farmland is a war crime and prosecutable under international law

1

Anonymous #6 8w

Then take it up with OP who brought up religious teachings

1

Anonymous #5 8w

OP asked a question, apparently the answer is anything goes as long as there’s a religious excuse to justify it. I am sick and tired of people hiding behind Jewish identity to justify literal war crimes

-1

Anonymous #6 8w

A question to invite people to explain how something ISN’T something that isn’t true is not a question. It’s a statement that was wrong. I’m confused as to why you thought hundred-years-old international law would somehow line up with thousands-of-years-old Judaism

1

Anonymous #5 8w

It doesn’t, that’s the point. Human history has progressed to a point where it’s actually not at all necessary to partake in total war or deliberately target civilian populations. The fact people feel comfortable not only admitting to war crimes but to openly defend them is an indictment on the Israeli government

0

Anonymous #6 7w

That has nothing to do with what is and isn’t “teachings of Judaism”

1

Anonymous #5 7w

Again, my point exactly. The teachings of Judaism mean nothing in the eyes of international law, hopefully there comes a day where both people like you and the Israeli government learn that

1

Anonymous #6 7w

Then why are you responding on a post that is trying to conflate the two like you agree with him when you don’t?

1

Anonymous #5 7w

Because, like I said, I’m sick and tired of people using Jewish identity to excuse horrific war crimes

6

Anonymous #6 7w

Except no one but you have been discussing that here. You’re talking about oranges on a post about apples

1

Anonymous #5 7w

I was simply calling out what I saw, soz if that upsets you but I’m not just going to let it slide

3

Anonymous #6 7w

You accused #1 and #2 of doing something that only aligns with your argument and nothing to do with what they were actually talking about

1

Anonymous #5 7w

Rather than address the substance of my argument you choose to fight the circumstances of it, you do you

6

Anonymous #6 7w

How are you not picking up on this: You are joining/commenting on a discussion about apples and now complaining when said people don’t address your oranges that no one asked for

1

Anonymous #6 7w

If analogies are too hard for you: You’re commenting on a post (wrongly) claiming that said military action is in direct violation of “nearly every teaching of Judaism” and then insisting that people engage with your irrelevant comments about excusing war crimes

1

Anonymous #5 7w

They were actively defending war crimes by saying “the religious text says this,” my argument directly addresses what they’re doing you just don’t like that I’m doing it here rather than making a separate post about it

5

Anonymous #6 7w

Why do you think they said “the religious text says this”??? Because OP wrongly claimed the actions went *against the religious text* You are taking your own argument are pretending like the responses to OP’s statement were said to yours. They were not. Read what OP actually claimed, then read what they responded to, and you’ll very easily see what is actually being said

1

Anonymous #5 7w

You chose to engage with me, I did not ask for anyone to do that. This is textbook victim mentality over a damn yikyak post if what I’m saying upsets you just don’t look at it

4

Anonymous #6 7w

You accused 2 people of defending war crimes lol, you want to just throw accusations out and not get challenged when you’re publicly wrong? Thats on you for not expecting to be called out for being stupid in public. Be stupid in private if you don’t want blowback

1

Anonymous #5 7w

Believe it or not saying “well it’s not actually against religious law” in response to someone asking how war crimes aren’t a violation of religious law is actually an implicit defense of said war crimes. I genuinely don’t understand how anyone can see that and think that’s okay

5

Anonymous #6 7w

It’s literally not lol. It’s defending the truth. If you want to criticize things that are quite easy to criticize, why would you not do it truthfully?

1

Anonymous #6 7w

If you punched a gay person and I called you Islamophobic for it, why would telling me I’m incorrect be a defense of punching gay people?

1

Anonymous #5 7w

I would like to believe people can realize warfare is not and should not be conducted according to centuries old religious law, I’m simply denying the premise that religious law excuses war crimes

3

Anonymous #5 7w

Do you genuinely fail to see how even just providing excuses, regardless of your personal opinions, is an implicit defense of abhorrent actions?

6

Anonymous #6 7w

Again, you’re missing the point everyone but you was talking about. That no one said it excuses it. All it does is say OP is wrong for claiming the war crime violates religious law

1

Anonymous #6 7w

It’s not an excuse of anything to tell someone they’re flat out wrong about what is and isn’t a violation of Jewish law

1

Anonymous #5 7w

OP’s post is misguided at best but the sentiment behind it is religion should not be used to justify illegal actions. It would be one thing to call this out randomly but there is an entire military that abides by Jewish law over international law and this is causing undue pain and suffering; the presumption (especially from what I’ve seen in this community) is that Jewish law supersedes international law, a presumption I reject on its face

5

Anonymous #6 7w

No, OPs premise is that the teachings of Judaism were violated by specific actions. Which they were not. The rest you added yourself

1

Anonymous #5 7w

Again, that would be one thing if it weren’t for the IDF following Jewish law over international law. The same rebuttals that 1 and 2 gave are the same defenses the Israelis use to justify their actions, so by extension they are, at best, unintentionally defending them

5

Anonymous #6 7w

Once again, defending the truth is not a defense of anything but the truth. It could very well be that they do support this specific action as well, but not a single thing that’s been said here is indicative of that. Literally the only thing they said was a rebuttal to OPs extremely specific claim.

1