3
What's the deal with Isreal vs. Palestine side taking in the West? (lemmy.world)
submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I feel like I've been kind of in the loop for most of the headlines regarding this confrontation. Yet somehow I can't find it within myself to actually care about either side. It seems like both are lead by genocidal parties, hell bent on indoctrinating their populace into hating the other side. Yet at the same time people are able to discern which state is the good one. And some going so far as to believe that one state might even be right over the other.

So far from what I've read and heard, it seems that overall Isreal is just more successful militarily and is encroaching on Palestinian land, and is exhibiting control over some of it. Is that the reason why one might support Palestine? Is it the fact that Isreal has more direct power in the region and thus can easily execute its will a problematic issue for some? From what I can see, both sides have caused massive civilian casualties and neither side wants a two state solution, so neither of those reasons can be a contributing factor to side picking, right? That being said, I can't find a reason for supporting Isreal, so does Palestine win out by default? But what of the people that support Isreal, do they do that purely because they're an American ally? Is any of this side taking have anything to do with the insertion of Jews into the region? What is expected to be done outside of a two state solution or genocide by those taking sides?

I have a lot of questions, and I obviously don't expect all of them to be answered in a single post. So maybe focusing on the elements you're highly informed on would be helpful and then I can kind of piece together the details. Thank you in advance!

all 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Okay there are more than 2 sides.

Personally I am on the side of civilians whether they are Israeli or Palestinian or Druze or Bedouin. I am also on the side of the doctors, nurses, and humanitarian aid workers. These are who I consider the Good Guys. "Look for the helpers." - Mr Rodgers.

But to cover your question, there's two separate issues here:

  • the claims of the belligerents

  • feelings about what is happening now in the Israel Gaza war

The past claims of the belligerents

I'm not going to go into this, but but it goes back to history and it's where the side-taking on the sides of the belligerents mostly comes from, because different people have different interpretations. Legally speaking Palestine is occupied by Israel (West Bank) and blockaded by Israel (Gaza). No one can get in or out, it's effectively controlled by Israel.

What is happening now

What is happening now is a "war" between the IDF and Hamas. People like me, who are rooting for civilians are upset about:

  • proportionality (so far about 33,000 Palestinian deaths vs 1,400 Israeli deaths)

  • mortality (currently over 1.5% of the population of Gaza have been killed)

  • civilian mortality - high numbers of children being killed (according to aid agencies, one is killed or injured every 10 minutes)

  • high numbers of humanitarian workers and medical staff being killed

  • inappropriate weapon choices (hundreds of 2,000lb bombs are being dropped, for reference the US used just one in its war against Isis.

  • widespread infrastructure destruction, particularly of hospitals and other important buildings

  • mounting evidence of starvation in the civilian population due to blockade of aid

Personally I am against anyone treating a civilian population like this for any reason, and I believe it amounts to war crimes. I was against the killing of civilians in Myanmar, Rwanda, East Timor, and I am against it now.

Side note: The median age in Gaza is 18, meaning literally half the people in it are still children.

Edit: I haven't given any sources cos lazy. I am happy to give them to OP or anyone in good faith (there are probably a bunch on the post history of my main which is [email protected]). However, I do not speak sealionese.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Ok, from what I can tell, most of what people care about regarding the current conflict doesn't really involve around belligerents. So I think we can safely put that on the back burner. At least for the current wave of side taking. My one question after reading most of the comments is this, how many of Israel's violent actions against civilians directly target civilians vs targeting Hamas and have civilians stuck in the crossfire? Because I've heard of Hamas using civilian areas as staging grounds as an attempt to ward off enemy fire. Is Israel going and killing civilians outside of these instances?

Slightly unrelated question, are many people taking sides in the general occupation of Palistinian land, or is this newest wave side taking mostly focused on the civilians in Gaza vs Israeli force.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

To answer the first question, sorry I keep breaking it into smaller components but again, separating it out makes it clearer. If we look at:

  • what the IDF intentions are

  • what their actions are

  • what the effects of their actions are

What people think kind of depends on how well we think it matches up and whether we think the first one is actually an okay justification for the third one.  Like when is it okay shoot when you can see there's someone in the crossfire.

What their intentions are

The IDF and mainstream Israeli politicians publically stated intention is to "destroy Hamas" in order to protect the safety of Israeli citizens both in Israel and in the part of Palestine that Israel is occupying. Hamas is a broad term encompassing both militant (eg militant) and civil (eg Health Dept) organization. Some politicians have gone a lot further and said their intention is to remove most Palestinians from Gaza. Some have said that no civilians are innocent, but these are minority viewpoints.

What their actions are

This is where it gets tricky, and some of it is contested. What is common ground is that  they have chosen to use an unusually large number of bombs in a built up environment full of civilians, using huge bunker buster bombs, and drone bombing of targets suggested by AI. It also involves a ground offensive, and there appear to be "kill zones." The IDF has set itself numbers for "acceptable" number of civilians per kill, which may be high, and also permits itself to bomb hospitals and schools. Here is an article which covers some of the AI concerns. They also keep tight control of humanitarian aid and limit what enters. There are allegations that are disputed, of widespread deliberate killing of wounded and civilians and children. We may find forensic evidence in the mass graves. The IDF dispute it.

The effects of their actions

  • I've covered this already above, but what stands out is the unusually high number of civilians and medics being killed, compared to other modern wars that involved urban warfare. To put the total mortality into perspective, during the Bosnian Genocide 3% of the population were killed over a 2-year period. 1.5% of the Gaza population have been killed in 6 months. The mortality statistics we have are for known deaths, those still buried in rubble are extra.

  • Using satellite images of before and after, analysts estimate 57-60% of buildings in Gaza are destroyed, rising to 75% in Gaza City. We also know the hospitals were bombed.

  • During the current war monitoring of humanitarian aid entering Gaza has drastically reduced the amount going in. (Before this war, Gaza did not function self-sufficiently.  A significant part of the population (many were refugees) relied on humanitarian aid.

  • NGOs on the ground report that the current numbers of starving people will meet the technical threshold for it to be designated famine, by May.

For many of those who are on the side of civilians, there is no possible justification for killing this many people to get to each millitant. International law (eg Geneva Conventions) specifies how to treat civilian populations, and many international experts think that these rules are being breached. Moreover, the blocking of humanitarian aid is problematic, whatever the rationale.

Most of us live in civilisations where we do not find it acceptable to kill innocent people as way to also kill guilty people.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Ah, I see. Given those numbers it's pretty clear that Isreal is pretty much going scorched earth when it comes to Gaza. Good to know, thank you. I had just assumed the damages to infrastructure weren't as extensive as they were.

Edit: I also hadn't known about the active blocking of humanitarian aid, so that alongside some of those numbers really speaks volumes.

Edit 2: also no need to apologize, I mean I'm the one asking all the questions and you're graciously taking your time to answer them. The fact that you're splitting them makes sense to me. You've overall been very helpful and I can imagine that anyone that stumbles across this entire thread will likely also leave equally as informed as I have after reading most of it.

Alright, some of the side taking makes sense to me now.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

I think it was really cool that you asked questions instead of just being content with assumptions.

Btw, here's an article describing how epidemiologists have been able to independently verify the mortality rate. It's from a while ago so the numbers are lower but you can still get a sense of it.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

There's sort of 3 sides to the issue.

  • A pro Israel side, which includes people that believe all of Palestinian land should also be only theirs as well as people that maybe don't care about the land but care that Hamas is defeated and/or the Israeli hostages are saved
  • Pro Hamas side: people that believe that Israel should be destroyed and Israelis killed, partly because of the damage that they have done to Palestinians
  • Pro Palestinian side: Don't want innocent Palestinians being bombed, starved or shot by Israel. Some also want a 2 state solutions implemented.

I don't hear any real Pro Hamas people (since Hamas is very must a terrorist group), other than circumstantial ("Hamas is literally the only option Palestinians have aside the other side that is literally killing them"). Hamas basically wants to destroy Israel, which is what led to the October 7th attacks in which about 1,000 Israelis were killed. They felt that peace with Israel was not helping their goals, as Israel bombing Palestinians would help recruit more Hamas soldier with which to use to help destroy Israel.

The UN and many countries feel that despite Israel having the right to defend its citizens and attempt to infiltrate and destroy terrorists(Hamas), Israel is executing this plan in such a way that is unnecessarily killing thousands of innocent Palestinians(both through weapons but also starvation), about half of which are children.

A lot of the misinformation in regards to this topic are: "If you don't support Israel you're antisemitic", "You're either supporting Israel or you're supporting Hamas", "Palestinians overwhelming support Hamas", "Israelis completely support what their government is doing"

I'm too lazy to source the above so obviously assume I'm lying/wrong (same with anybody else not posting any sources). You should read actual articles from reliable new sources, but hopefully the above gives you some information to understand what those articles are talking about.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

people that believe that Israel should be destroyed and Israelis killed, partly because of the damage that they have done to Palestinians

Nobody important seriously believes this. Not even Hamas. Well "Israel should be destroyed" is a popular position, because that's calling for an end to Israeli Apartheid. "Push them into the sea" rhetoric died in the 90s.

“Israelis completely support what their government is doing”

They do though. Specifically 80% of Israelis and 88% of Israeli Jews.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

Mate, i have seen enough justification for 7/10 by calling every Israeli a legitimate target. And Hamas themselves called for the eradication of jews in their founding manifesto. Nowadays, that language isnt used on the new manifesto, but Hamas leaders (who just happened to sit comfortably in Qatar and Iran) have called for repetitions of 7/10, again, considering every israeli a valid target.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

Mate, i have seen enough justification for 7/10 by calling every Israeli a legitimate target

That's why I said nobody important.

Nowadays, that language isnt used on the new manifesto,

Uh yes exactly. Hamas radically changed their approach to the conflict in 2006, and then in 2017 updated their charter to reflect that.

Hamas leaders (who just happened to sit comfortably in Qatar and Iran) have called for repetitions of 7/10,

Yes.

again, considering every israeli a valid target.

No. They've actively denied that Hamas fighters were responsible for any civilian casualties, and claimed that any such cases are accidents. Now that's obviously not true, but they definitely didn't consider every Israeli a valid target.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Considering that most of the casualties were civilian, thats like believing the IDF when they say they dont consider every civilian a target. It is reqlly hard to believe any Hamas leader in that regard, once you see who was killed and how.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

Considering that most of the casualties were civilian

66%, even including counting crossfire, the involvement of other less trained forces (including random Gazans who happened to enter through the hole Hamas opened) and Israeli friendly fire (the latter is not insignificant; there were multiple proven cases of Israel choosing to kill Hamas fighters along with hostages instead of letting them return to Gaza). Not denying the atrocities that Hamas actually committed, but given these factors 66% isn't indicative of any deliberate targeting.

It is reqlly hard to believe any Hamas leader in that regard, once you see who was killed and how.

What I'm trying to say is: Hamas's official stance is that Israeli civilians aren't valid targets. If they do consider all Israeli civilians targets (which considering how pragmatic Hamas generally is as an organization would make absolutely no sense) they're definitely not saying it out loud. They said they'll repeat 7/10 against Israel, the political entity, not that they'd keep killing civilians, is what I'm saying.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

I mean they kidnapped civilians and refuse to release them. This is an extreme form of violence against innocent people, even if you accept the claim that the killing of civilians was unintentional which I find extremely dubious.

A charitable interpretation is that they have an extremely callous disregard for civilian lives in their campaign. Uncharitably, we could make an argument that their behavior indicates a clear desire to kill Israeli civilians. Either way, their claims here are total nonsense and I think actually make their malice towards Israeli citizens more, not less clear. They know what happened on Oct 7th and lying about it demonstrates that they have no desire to avoid the atrocities committed in the future.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

I mean they kidnapped civilians and refuse to release them.

This is a textbook case of don't blame the player, blame the game. Whatever little of Gaza's dignity Hamas will be able to preserve after the war will depend on the hostages. While it sucks for them it'd suck worse if after this is all over Israel starts "resettling" Gaza or continues their starvation campaign.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I don’t think Likud and IDF leaders care too much about the wellbeing of the hostages, and their behavior pretty clearly reflects that.

What they do care about is international pressure, especially from the US. So if Hamas wants to maximize their bargaining power they should be seeking to undermine the public narratives around the necessity of the war. One possible way to do this would be the release of the hostages, which is constantly brought up as a justification for continued attacks on Gaza.

It would also be, you know, ethical but I guess we are past pretending they care about that.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I don’t think Likud and IDF leaders care too much about the wellbeing of the hostages, and their behavior pretty clearly reflects that.

They don't, but the Israeli public does. This will matter if a Gaza remains after the war ends.

So if Hamas wants to maximize their bargaining power they should be seeking to undermine the public narratives around the necessity of the war.

Honestly, nobody who doesn't already support Palestine will change their position because they released the 30 or so hostages that are still alive. It'll just be called a move for clout, which won't be too far from the truth. Also during post-war negotiation what's important won't be clout with the international community; that's more of a long-term thing. What they will need then is negotiating power with Israel. Maybe it'll be different if the international community actually takes an active role in negotiations, but we both know that's not happening.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

I can spot a bad faith question when I see one, and your comments confirm it.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

This whole thing is a major political problem that has been brewing pretty much since World War II. I'm by far not an expert so I might get some details wrong but I'll try.

During the war, millions of Jews fled from the Nazis and the Allies were wondering what to do with all those refugees. One option was British-occupied Palestine. The reasoning was that it geographically coincided with ancient Isreael, the Jewish homeland. The problem is that it had been inhabited by Muslims for over 1300 years so obviously the Arab population wasn't too happy about giving up the region their families had lived in for generations just because some western colonial power had decided to give it to some refugees.

The plan was to split Palestine into two states - Palestine and Israel - with Jerusalem as a neutral zone under control of the United Nations. Because of the unstable situation - including terrorist attacks against the British administration - this was never fully implemented. The state of Isreael was officially founded in 1948 but there ~~was never any formal agreement on who controls which parts of the region. The Arabs got driven from their homes and only kept the West Bank and the Gaza Strip but were obviously never happy about that.~~ (Edit: please see correction by @[email protected] below. The situation is even more complicated) While the general population would probably be okay with just being left in peace, there are radical groups like Hamas who want to take back what was taken from them by the British and Israel.

On the other hand, nobody who lives in Israel today was involved 80 years ago when the British decided on their plan. These people were born in Israel and have lived there all their lives. So in a way, both sides just want to keep their homes. There have been several proposals for how we could solve this, including an official two states solution that would regulate the borders (obviously not favored by Palestine), a single state solution (forcing two groups who have been fighting each other for 80 years could be tricky) and reverting everything the British decided and kicking out the Jewish population (obviously not favored by Israel). There just is no good solution and so the situation in the area is heating up more and more. From their own perspectives, both sides have good reasons for what they're doing though the way they're doing it is obviously not acceptable.

(Edit: corrected 1400 to 1300. Math is hard)

[-] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

People like taking sides, because it fits into any narrative.

You have Jews vs Muslims, White(not really) vs Brown, Western values vs Middle Eastern.

The progressives love Palestine because they are brown, Muslim and anti West/US and some because anti White.

The Nazis love Palestine because they are anti Jew. (although some Progressives seem pretty antisemitic nowadays too.)

The Conservatives love Israel because they are fighting Muslims and the middle east.

Moderates side more with Israel because the values align more than the theocratic Muslim ones and Israel is a good door into middle eastern affairs. But that requires Americans to think about stuff outside of the US, that's not black and white, so there are not a lot.

The thing is, most of these categories aren't actually that black and white.

Israel has taken in a lot of Arab Jews who fled persecution in their home countries. They are also allied with Arab nations like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and probably more. So the "white" part is not true.

The religions are mostly true, although there are Muslim-majority countries allied with Israel, so its not as clear cut. (Iran is kinda using Palestinians as an attack vector against Israel, and Jordan helped with shooting down Iranian drones)

The west vs middle east part is also a bit weird, since Arab nations are on Israel's side. It's more of a inter-middle-east conflict and the west is supporting Israels side.

[-] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago

The Nazis love Palestine because they are anti Jew. (although some Progressives seem pretty antisemitic nowadays too.)

Reactions by the far left on this issue seem to support horseshoe theory

[-] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

If your genuine opinion on a genocide is that the side being subject to the genocide is "as genocidal" as the side perpetrating it, then you're too far gone to be worth convincing.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

Except that you can’t deny that Arab countries have consistently, and for a long time, been both directly invested in the destruction of Israel, and in ensuring that Palestinians believe they too have a chance of ‘winning’.

The only objective difference between the ‘win’ condition of Palestine, the complete eradication of Israel, and the inverse desire by Israel to completely remove Palestine is that Israel actually possesses the funding and has a sufficient excuse to see it through.

Unless you keep that in mind, I see no possibility of solving the conflict in a lasting way.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Why would anyone accept the creation of a state inside of an already populated region? Now the circonstances are different Israel is already established state and most current Israelis are born there. So we have the choice between a one state solution or a real two state solution not a two state solution that benefits Israel the most. A two state solution where Palestine doesn't have a right to defend itself will never work. There is always a chance for Palestine to win in long term. Algeria got it's independence after over 100 years and i believe the longest colonization in history was 1000 years.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

I'd spend my life trying to wipe out a country that was founded by evicting nearly a million people from their homes with no right to return, declaring the religion of the colonizers as God's "chosen people" whilst openly planning to occupy nearly all of its neighbours with the ultimate goal of demolishing every Muslim landmark in your territory to replace them with said Colonizer's religion.

[-] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago

Hard to tell which side you're referring to, Oct 7 was an act of genocide and Jordanian forces fighting on behalf of Palestinians committed genocide against Jews in Jerusalem, but Israel gets accused of it, I believe inaccurately, a lot.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Israel is clearly perpetrating a genocide right now.
I am not saying Hamas wouldnt do the same if they had the opportunity to, but Israel is doing it right now.

[-] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago

Read the genocide statute linked above, genocide just requires an attempt to destroy a protected group in whole or in part, combined with some specific acts, has nothing to do with effectiveness or number of deaths.

Hamas openly intends to destroy Jews/Israel (which, as national, ethnic, and religious groups are protected) as per their charter. Israel claims they are attempting to destroy Hamas, which is not a protected group.

Call it a massacre, call it terrible, call it any number of negative terms, but it's not genocide.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Just listen to Itamar Ben-Gvir's opinions on palastinians. He does not care about the distinction between Hamas and Palestinians, they are the same to him.

[-] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago

Oh yeah he's a real piece of shit, loves Jewish terrorists, but he isn't conducting the war nor does his opinion represent Israel at large.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Their charter has been amended. I’m not going to say I know what Hamas is thinking but saying they openly intend to destroy the Jews is false.

Their actions speak to either a deliberate desire to do so, or a callous disregard for the lives of innocent Jews in their military campaign. But the same is true for Likud and the IDF. There is absolutely no way to claim Hamas is engaged in genocide and IDF is not. Not to mention that Oct 7th was a one off event while the mass-murder of Palestinians is ongoing to this day.

[-] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago

Hamas' genocidal intentions are not ambiguous. It's all nicely summed up in this article,

In order to make such a case about Israel, one would have to prove that their intentions are different than what they state, and all evidence indicates that while they may have more tolerance for collateral damage than they had in the past, they still go to great lengths to choose legal targets and minimize civilian casualties, doing things no other nation does to protect civilians. Meanwhile, Hamas obviously and intentionally targets civilians, as displayed on Oct 7.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

Oct 7 was an attack. It was violent. We still don't know the casualties caused by hamas. Israeli government has admitted that some of their response killed Israeli citizens. They refuse to cooperate with the UN investigation into the Oct 7 attacks. There's also been some credible reporting refuting the scale of rape on Oct 7. I'm not trying to minimize an individuals trauma, but the Israeli government's rationale for bombing Gaza has been the scale of rape.
In short, we know there was a horrific attack on Oct 7.

Genocide is the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.

The Oct 7 attack was about taking hostages. It was not about destroying Israel and its citizens.

Now the bombing of Gaza.... If you can't see that it's genocidal, try living in Gaza as a Palestinian in 2024. Seriously. Just move there. I'm so fucking tired at seeing these ghoulish fucking hot takes. 'Actual genocidal acts accompanied by actual genocidal language with actual genocidal social media posts but perpetrated by the team I'm cheering for isn't genocide because the other side is racist'
Of all my Jewish family and friends, it's only the people that had parents or were directly impacted by the Holocaust that still support Israel. All of the others acknowledge that that trauma explains their support for that flavor of Zionism. I can't fathom why someone that is far removed from those events can support this particular genocide. Especially considering some Holocaust victims have spoken out about how fascist the Israeli government is. Does that not make you question anything? Or do you just take everything that's been spoonfed to you with a smile and a thankyou?
Omfg your references are about things that happened 100s of years ago! The islamization of Jerusalem happened over a period of over 700 years, and stopped over 100 years ago! People are being bombed right now! You're justifying a genocide over something that stopped over 100 years ago!
What the actual fuck.

[-] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago

  • Some collateral damage probably occurred on Oct 7, but I fail to see why this is relevant to the discussion. Said deaths could not have occurred without Hamas' bloody attack on civilians and the chaos it caused.

  • I believe the accusations of rape despite criticism of the NY Times article, even the UN, which is often critical and skeptical of Israel, agrees it happened. And even without this specific claim there was enough barbarity, cruelty, kidnapping, abuse, murder, and genocidal violence (Content warning: NSFL, very disturbing footage) on display that day that I don't think it would move the ethical needle much on Hamas.

  • According to international law genocide is:

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

  • Killing members of the group;
  • Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  • Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  • Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  • Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Emphasis mine. Note that political groups like Hamas are not included among the protected classes, and that's what Israel has been clear they intend to destroy. Not Palestine/Palestinians, who are protected as a national group just as Israelis are. Meanwhile, Hamas has been clear about their own genocidal intentions. This is why I believe Oct 7 was an act of genocide, as defined above, and Israel's war on Hamas is not.

  • The Oct 7 attack was not just about taking civilian hostages, it was an attempt by Hamas to create a permanent state of war, and part of their strategy to destroy Israel/Jews as established via their original charter and statements from their leader, (citation above.)

  • I'm sure it's terrible to live in Gaza but that does not change the definition of genocide. Nor does your dislike of people who point out inaccurate definitions.

  • 1948-1967 isn't, "100's of years ago!"

[-] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

I am by no means highly informed, but so far, I didn't see a few things I think should be mentioned.

Both Israel's government and Hamas are definitely bad guys who found stirring hate towards each other a convenient way of staying in power. After all, If you have the stongest rhetoric towards someone who wants to kill people of your country, of course those people will vote for you and you can get away with things you otherwise couldn't.

There's also another side which I haven't seen explicitly mentioned and should be considered: surrounding islamic countries (who are surely not a homogeneous group). They are in a good position to help palestinian civilians, but don't do very much for various reasons I know relatively little about.

this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
3 points (100.0% liked)

Out of the loop

10787 readers
3 users here now

A community that helps people stay up to date with things going on.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]