As I understand it (and wow, the press coverage is incomplete in so many ways), Hamas has a very large number of, approximately, these things:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qassam_rocket
And they fire them, on an ongoing basis, from civilian sites, at Israel. And Israel could, arguably, feel that it defending itself, contemporaneously, from ongoing attacks, thus satisfying #1 and #2. And, while the defense might not be proportionate per se, it’s not that easy to see how, from a purely tactical perspective, Israel is supposed to defend itself more proportionately. Certainly firing an equal number of rockets back at random civilian sites would make no sense. Although Israel could probably find a way for their soldiers to treat people in a much less dehumanizing way.
(And I think this situation is horrible. And I suspect it’s intentional on Hamas’s part — see my other comment.)
There really is no self-defense purpose in my mind to what Israel is doing. It's more self-avenging as others mentioned.
You can argue it's a preventative operation to prevent future attack by taking out Hamas, but the approach they're taking does not indicate that since it's completely counter-productive and Israel must know that. When you level entire neighborhoods, and kill thousands of women and children, and make hundreds of thousands of them homeless, do you really expect those people to start liking Israel now? If killing is the solution to this conflict, it would have been solved a long time ago.
If I lost a loved one at the hands of Israel in such malicious and careless manner, I'm never going to not consider Israel as nothing but an enemy.
> If I lost a loved one at the hands of Israel in such malicious and careless manner, I'm never going to not consider Israel as nothing but an enemy.
You could rewrite this as: If I lost a loved one at the hands of Hamas/Israel in such malicious and careless manner, I'm never going to not consider Hamas/Israel as nothing but an enemy.
And so this cycle looks like it will never end.
That is: human rights for all (Israelis and Palestinians) and reparations made to those who have been forcibly displaced and killed ever since this conflict began.
right now, the IDF only perpetuates injustice against palestinians. So the only alternative for them is Hamas. for all the deserved hate Hamas gets, what alternative do palestinian have? the IDF being impartial and enacting justice equally instead of allowing settlers to attack palestinians with impunity would go a long way towards pulling the teerh out of hamas.
Perhaps some sort of program for Palestinians could be put into place to give them a similar right of return?
> You can argue it's a preventative operation to prevent future attack by taking out Hamas, but the approach they're taking does not indicate that since it's completely counter-productive and Israel must know that.
dang has asked us to engage in thoughtful, curious conversation, and absolutes like you’re using seem unhelpful to this end.
What is a “self-defense purpose?” I genuinely believe that Israel has such a purpose, and I think I argued it reasonably well. I didn’t say Israel’s actions were productive or wise, but the self-defense purpose exists.
If Israel’s military command thinks of Gazans as machines or beasts, then it could see itself as doing the right thing. I personally believe that, especially when there is some form of conflict, one needs to remember that people are human, with human feelings and motivations, and consider those feelings and motivations, and Israel might act differently if its military command did so.
And this leads to:
> If I lost a loved one at the hands of Israel in such malicious and careless manner, I'm never going to not consider Israel as nothing but an enemy.
I think this exact feeling is a large part of the problem on both sides. Both sides have killed loved ones on the other side in ways that seem intentional, callous and pointless. (Remember what started the current war, and what Israel is doing as part of this war!) So, if people on both sides share this type of permanent hatred, then they will have a hard time ever finding peace. (And neither Israel nor Gaza are monoliths. Their people, their governments, their deceased ancestors, etc are separate. The actions of some IDF members, the orders from command, the actions of the government, and the actions of the average people are all different. And similarly for Gaza.)
Back to your response :
Is it the case that Hamas kept on going full on rockets after all the terrorists they sent were killed ? I am asking because they were already launching rockets before and Israel did not invade Gaza and instead relied on the Iron Dome and somewhat targeted strikes. I think it matters because it would make the difference between defense and vengeance.
Some people are asking what I think Israel should have done. It's a hard path but I think they should have remained in the role of blatant victim and appeal to the international community to pressure for the release of hostages. Now you can argue that the other side is crazy and justify a hard stance in the eyes of the world. The dead are already dead and engaging in pointless counterinsurgency wars will make you look bad while achieving nothing but maybe endangering the life of hostages. But hey maybe I am deluded who knows.
The reality is, there is no good solution. Because Israel has engineered it that way, not Palestine, not Hamas.
> Israel's explicit, public goal is the annihilation of Palestine
This is categorically false.
“I am the only one who will prevent a Palestinian state in Gaza and [the West Bank] after the war” - Netanyahu
If the people of the only democracy in the middle east didn't believe this, they'd not have elected Likud to power for 2 decades and counting.
The Right of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel)
a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.
b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace.
No it is not. Israel got its own people out of the Gaza strip years ago and hasn't let them back in since. Israel supplies Gaza with water and electricity because Hamas prefers to spend its resources on building tunnel networks and rockets instead of power stations and water treatment works. It is also militarily superior and has nuclear weapons. If they actually decided to "annihilate" Gaza it would be a smoking pile of glass tomorrow, as the military capability is there.
> an enemy that lives next door and is indistinguishable from the citizenry
The IDF wear uniforms and are easily identifiable.
> Doing nothing is not an option
They have lots of options, including making peace with Israel. Step 1 would be to replace the government committed to its destruction, with one that is willing to talk instead of launch rockets. But the Palestinians seem to support the existing strategy.
How’s that working out for the Palestinians in the West Bank?
Settler violence is also a pretty big deal there, it ranges from vandalism, theft, murder and terrorism. This often goes unpunished and sometimes the IDF even helps settlers steal houses and land from West Bank Palestinians. Note that settlers may even include very conservative Floridians who just moved to “Israel” and feel entitled to a house owned and occupied by a Palestinian family.
I think the answer to that is very clear.
As a Palestinian these may be your only choices, neither are good. But one is obviously better in the short term.
However there is another party to this dilemma, the occupier them selves. They also have a choice not to engage in genocidal violence upon resistance or oppress and colonize upon non-resistance. They have a choice to acknowledge and recognize the sovereignty, to decolonize, to integrate and grant equal rights, etc.
The dilemma problem is a damned of you do and damned if you don’t kind. It doesn’t matter what you pick. Your oppressor is the one that needs to pick a different path.
They just got ground invaded by an army they can't fight, so, no.
If you look up the actual offers and the negotiations around them, you'll see none of them even abided by international law, so they would have been illegal anyway.
I wonder why the "enemy" lives so close? How did they come there?
the real solution is first remove terrorists organizations that control the Palestinians to enable a path to cooperation and than, a two state solution but terrorists won't give up without a fight. it is what it is and no western "let's talk about it" approach can resolve.
Israel tried to do in Gaza what they did in the West Bank. Carve it up, control key resources, create settlements through terrorism and encroach daily on Palestinian territory.
Their settler-colonial crimes are well documented in the West Bank but Israel didn't have enough people and resources at the time to carry crimes both in the West Bank and Gaza.
Gaza has farms and wide open spaces. It is about twice the size of Manhattan. Check Google Maps and confirm both of these yourself.
Finally, Jewish people cannot colonise an area they’ve been for 3000 years. Using the expression, settler colonial is an easy way to stop taking your arguments seriously.
Is that land area enough to feed their population?
Jews can't colonize an area where they're literally kicking people out of their homes?
Good question. We do know Hamas has very little interest in meeting the needs of Gaza's population - there are no wells, aid money is taken for weapons and for the personal wealth of it's billionaire leaders instead of it's populace. We'll never know if Hamas can feed Gazans because it puts very little effort into doing so.
Land in Israel was purchased from Ottomans and Arabs before 1948, and gained after winning wars declared by Arab states after 1948.
Are you trying to say that not a single Palesitinan has been displaced? The nakba is largely why we have these problems today, and it's still going on.
> The nakba is largely why we have these problems today
Not quite, the displacement happened, but that's a symptom of the cause: the wars declared by Arab states after 1948 mentioned in the comment you're replying to.
Likewise Poland and France still own land gained from Germany after WW2.
So it's just fine if they stole some land and kicked the people out? They should just be happy with losing everything they have. Is Israel still at war with the west bank? As they're still doing the same thing, and under such circumstances you say it's ok.
Egypt’s reasons vary. One stated reason was that they fear that Palestinian refugees will attack Israel from Egyptian soil and threaten the 40 year peace between the nations. Another reason is that Egypt had its own problem with extremists and accused Hamas of backing them. A third reason which we really shouldn’t overlook is that Egypt and Israel want to improve their economic relationship and increase bilateral trade to $700 million a year. Fourth, Egypt also brings up the concepts of displacement and right of return but that’s a level way beyond my understanding so I’ll insert it as a fact but cannot speak to it in any way.
International law is such that Israel would have a lot of difficulty keeping Rafah Rafah (for lack of a better word to describe that clusterfuck of a border) if Egypt was interested in fighting for its integrity. They’re not. Jordan has also always refused Palestinian refugees.
Finally, Israel has made many overtures for peace. Those overtures have destroyed political careers and resulted in at least one assassination. Despite the overtures, the attacks still continued.
I’m not willing to engage unless you can tell me about some of these Israeli attempts at peace. Show me that you have some understanding of the other side and we can talk. But otherwise, I get very bored without balance.
Every overture of peace from Israel has contained poisoned pills. Lasting peace cannot be made in this manner, see Treaty of Versailles. Everyone except Israel has now accepted the 1967 borders, even Hamas. The two state solution is impossible unless Israel gives up what it has taken in the West Bank, just look at the pockmarks on a map. Did you really bring up the assassination that the current right wing government in Israel called for publicly and don't think there's a problem with Israels leadership?
I'm afraid to say that I missed the latest Hasbara episodes so I guess you won't respond.
> I'm afraid to say that I missed the latest Hasbara episodes so I guess you won't respond.
The sad thing is the parent got flagged and you're the one breaking the HN guidelines.
In response to someone that basically said "say something nice about Israel or I wont talk to you".
I’m not sure what that means.
I’m a person. I have ancestors who were likely [0] forced out of at least four identifiable countries. Many if not most Americans are in a similar position.
Does this mean that my descendants could “colonize” places where my ancestors never lived but could not “colonize” places where they did not live?
If I moved, permanently, to Antarctica, Israel, Gaza, the West Bank, New York, England, Russia, Ukraine, Mars, or Argentina, would I be colonizing, “returning”, etc? Does the answer really depend on where my ancestors lived 50 or 100 or 3000 years ago?
I do think there’s something to be said for someone moving to where their recent ancestors live or lived, but this gets complicated very very quickly, especially when political borders move in the mean time.
I once visited the house in a foreign country where some of ancestors lived in the 1930s, from which they were quite aggressively removed. I’m pretty sure that if I moved back there by force, I would be doing something very very wrong.
[0] I say “likely” because some degree of extrapolation is needed as to what happened tens of generations ago. And the number is likely much larger than 4.
I think you have a typo there (both options are where your ancestors didn't live).
Assuming you meant:
> Does this mean that my descendants could “colonize” places where my ancestors never lived but could not “colonize” places where they did live?
Then yes.
The first case - moving to a new country and sending people from your own country to live there - is colonisation - see https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/englis...
In the second case, particularly if your community has been there for a few thousand years, you're just buying a house.
> Jewish people cannot colonize an area they’ve been for 3000 years.
As I understand it, Palestine used to be a majority Jewish area. Their creation myth states that they migrated there from Egypt to escape slavery and oppression. However Jewish people never mass migrated from Palestine like they mass migrated from Egypt. Some Palestinians simply gradually converted religion with during varying colonization, first to Christianity during Roman and Byzantine colonization, then to Islam during Arab and Ottoman colonization and today, most Palestinians are Muslim while Christian minority exists. Prior to 1948 there were even still Jewish Palestinians. Jesus Christ him self was even a Palestinian Jew.
While this is happening, some Jews—instead of converted—migrated from Palestine to Europe, where they were persecuted for centuries. While in Europe, they still managed to intermarry and doubtless some Europeans even converted to Judaism. These immigrants became part of Europe and European heritage, and after so many generations they became European Jews.
This is why I—and others—consider Zionism to be a specific case of the more general European colonial enterprise. Zionists are mostly European or European descendants who migrated to lands that wasn’t theirs, made it theirs, and displaced the indigenous population from it.
In my opinion this is the worst possible case of colonialism.
There was no Palestinian identity prior to 1960. One can easily confirm this for themselves - nobody "met a Palestinian man" prior to this time in any recorded media. People are free to identify however they like, but all people living in this areas were simply Jews, Arabs, or other groups.
Talk about Palestinians prior to this time is part of the same conspiracy theory as the nakba and Jews being from Europe.
> While this is happening, some Jews—instead of converted—migrated from Palestine to Europe, where they were persecuted for centuries.
Kind of? After the Bar Kochba revolt, the Romans pushed the Jews out and renamed Israel (then split into Israel and Judea) into Syria Palestinea, after the Philistines (who were Greek).
> I—and others—consider Zionism to be a specific case of the more general European colonial enterprise.
You're wrong. You can't colonise your own country. Islam converting some Jews when the arabs colonised the area in the seventh century doesn't change that.
Which also begs the question - why is arab colonisation acceptable but 'European' (but actually not Eupopean, as Jews are from Israel) colonisation not acceptable?
How so? When I search for the history of the Palestinian identity I can easily find something called Dux Palestinae on Roman maps from 400 CE on both banks of the Jordan river[1], a map of Palestine in 1482 version of Claudius Ptolemy's Cosmographia [1], a British issued passport and coins from the 1920s[1], a letter from Albert Einstein to the editors of The New York Times about happenings in Palestine and Palestine Jewish communities[2], etc.
The problem with looking for a Palestinian identity prior to 1960s is (a) there are historic artifacts, written records, etc. of one existing as early as the 1920s[*], and (b) the notion of the nation state didn’t exist (or was rather rare) prior to world war 1, and not every nation was given a state when nation states proliferated. So just because the nation state of Palestine didn’t exist before the 1920s, that doesn’t mean we can’t talk about the Palestinian people before that period, even if they never called them selves such on written records[†]. Talking about national identity in modern terms prior to the proliferation of nation states is kind of nonsensical.
---
* The same applies to the Nakba, however I choice not to engage in a debate about conspiracy theories which deny the history of very real horrors experienced by very real people, of whom many are still alive.
† This reminds me of a Monty Python sketch from The Holy Grail when King Arthur refers to him self as the “King of the Britons” to the peasantry, to which the peasantry promptly reply: “The king of the who?” and “Who are the Britons?”[3]
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_name_Palestine
2: https://archive.org/details/AlbertEinsteinLetterToTheNewYork...
3: http://montypython.50webs.com/scripts/Holy_Grail/Scene3.htm
> How so? When I search for the history of the Palestinian identity I can easily find something called Dux Palestinae on Roman maps from 400 CE on both banks of the Jordan river[1]...
It doesn't seem like you've read the comment you're replying to again. I'm leaving this conversation.
We’re looking for ideas that end in less violence and where the leaders involved aren’t assassinated.
By who? Your phrasing suggests it was a part of Hamas' terrorism campaign.
Central to the conflict is the Israeli refusal to accept responsibility for the current state of affairs, or to recognize any conception of proportionality. "We f*cked up, and we have not treated Palestinian life as equal to Israeli life," would go a long way towards reconciliation, but Israel will never admit wrongdoing even in the face of actually having committed wrongdoing.
When arabs conquered on colonized those lands they were anything but peaceful. For that islamic era to occure, hundreds of thousands had to die.
That boat already sailed long ago when the populace is brainwashed into hatred of Israel and Jews from school age. You can find footage of interviews with Gazan children talking about how they hope to murder Jews when they grow up because it will make their family proud.
There is no bloodless solution to this problem. And why should the otherwise peaceful Jews sit and wait for their blood to be spilled by an ever growing population of genocidal anti Semites?
They have offered peace to the Gazans 4 times now? Each time receiving saliva in their face for their efforts. The Gazans don't even want a two state solution, only the extermination of all Jews.
They've said, numerous times, that they will do it - invade Israel again and again, killing as many Israelis as they can. (Leaders have also said they will kill Jews anywhere in the world, btw.)
If Israel doesn't take out Hamas, it is entirely unclear if it will be able to prevent them from carrying out more attacks in the future.
I'm curious, is your claim that one of the current leaders of Hamas said this? If so I'd love to read the quote.
> If Israel doesn't take out Hamas, it is entirely unclear if it will be able to prevent them from carrying out more attacks in the future.
One counterargument is that taking out Hamas, if they succeed (I'm not bullish), is likely to just result in another possibly more radical group rising to power. Doubly so when we've seen something like 20,000 casualties in the last two months, overwhelmingly civilian, which is very obviously going to breed another generation that is full of hatred and vengeance.
Anyway, moving on I frankly think it should be possible for Israel to prevent another October 7 even in a universe where Hamas is still in power. They have enormous technological and economic superiority as well as the full backing of the US government. It seems like dysfunctional organizational dynamics are a problem here, because Israel had all the intel it could possibly have needed to see this attack coming and stop it, but it didn't. So personally I think looking internally rather than externally is the most likely way to secure the safety of the Israeli populace into the future.
For the most inflammatory statements by leaders you can look at https://www.memri.org/, whose translation choices are sometimes disputed, and who is accused of being some sort of CIA-backed saboteur for choosing the worst statements without enough context, but I think can give you an idea.
I'm no fan of Hamas. Although speaking personally, I will never condemn any attacks of theirs on Israeli military installations or IDF tanks/soldiers. But any civilian killed intentionally is a war crime. I was really saddened to hear about the attack in Jerusalem where two Hamas gunmen killed a couple of civilians. To me that stuff is totally unjustifiable.
I wish Hamas would give up dreams of reclaiming the originally stolen Palestinian land; it's not right that the land was taken but for better or for worse Israel is here to stay. I would like to see them fight a defensive war, with any offensive operations (i.e. crossing into Israel) focused only on military targets. In reality that's unlikely to ever happen, but if Hamas just did that then they would have the indisputable moral highground, instead of the current reality where in absolute numbers they commit way less evil than Israel but are clearly full of darkness themselves.
You seem to view Hamas as just an extreme pro-Palestinian faction that's gone too far, but actually they're a terrorism group in every sense of the word, not tomorrow's leaders. (See video of Hamas throwing Fatah members off a rooftop one by one to their deaths, as one of numerous examples, besides that USA, EU, UK, Canada ... all class it was a terrorist organisation)
the same way the French resisted against the Nazis or the algerians against the French occupation.
I don't hear french resistance being called terrorists despite sabotage operations, assassinations of nazi personnel and executing collaborators.
they carried a successful military raid, captured hostages and exchanged them for Palestinian hostages.
I completely reject the classification of Hamas as a terrorist group by countries that won't even join the international criminal court to protect their war criminals.
I have more trust in those organizations as well as former IDF soldiers (who overcame the brainwashing, grew a conscience and spoke up) than the repeated lies in the zionist controlled media (40 babies? who lies about stuff like that?).
You can read more about resistance under international law and how it's defined by the U.N charter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_resist#:~:text=Based%....
Again, I will take that definition over the definition of a resistance movement by a military occupation.
So you support rape and beheading infants? You're a disgusting person.
Why dang thought it was a good idea to allow this discussion is completely beyond me. Obviously, there's no good that can come of it when there's literal support of rape and murder here. Maybe this site should stick to hacker news (i.e. technical topics) and avoid politics and religion.
Proof that this claim is not true is the occupation of West Bank which has submitted itself to Israeli rule without violent opposition. I am sure that you have heard the long list of grievances of its population against the Israeli occupation a million times by now, so I will spare you from going much into it here (military law for Palestinians, imprisonment of children, night raids just to show force and keep IDF soldiers trained etc).
Additionally, using the "terrorism" label is fairly meaningless when the label is assigned by one's enemy that keeps the land under occupation. An enemy that has an overwhelming technological, economical and military advantage that makes a direct confrontation impossible. While Israeli airplanes and drones are leveling residential buildings from distance, they are calling shooting of primitive rockets and guerrilla-style warfare terrorism. Every occupying power in the history of humanity, ever since the word "terrorism" has been introduced into our vocabulary, has called every resistance group terrorists. Also, the countries that you named that have publicly proclaimed Hamas a terrorist groups are all close NATO allies that mostly follow the lead of USA, which in turn strongly supports Israel's position.
We can all agree that Oct 7 attack of Hamas was horrible and that attrocities were committed during which a little under 400 soldiers and a little over 800 civillians were murdered. But if you will call that terrorism, then you have to be logically consistent and call the subsequent revenge-bombing of Gaza (in order to punish Gazans and Hamas alike for striking) what it is, given the death toll, siege conditions, genocidal rhetoric of Israel's leadership, and the devastation inflicted even just in the first few weeks, before the ground offensive even began. About 4000 children were dead before the ground invasion. Children. Children are not Hamas fighters who invaded Israel. Call Hamas whatever you want, but be consistent and just when applying labels.
At the end of the day, Hamas is deliberately putting civilian lives in the line of fire, and are wholly to blame for this. Chastising Israel for deaths caused by this strategy is as good as legitimizing attacks from civilian territories, and will only increase this in the future.
This is considering that Israel had done a degree due diligence in harm mitigation (roof knocking, evacuations). Contrast this with Hamas, which deliberately attacks civilian areas.
West Bank is the best example of how Israel treats Palestinian civilians when there is no armed conflict. Hamas cannot be used as an excuse in that territory. To remove the reason for violent resistance to exist, there needs to be a viable alternative provided that would take away the reason to keep fighting. When Gazans look at the West Bank, they do not see a viable alternative but a life of enslavement, and that gives Hamas an easy way to recruit from a brutally oppressed population that feels that they have nothing to lose anyway.
Has Israel, being the overwhelmingly dominant force in the territory that holds all the cards, made an effort to provide that alternative? The evidence presented in [1] seems to suggest the contrary — that Netanyahu explicitly supported Hamas in order to keep violent resistance active and prevent Palestine uniting behind the peaceful faction of PA that he would then be forced to negotiate a two-state solution with. He, and those like him who do not wish to see the conflict end (for reasons that I imagine are related to the end-goal of establishing Greater Israel?), have actively decided to keep the violent resistance ongoing.
> According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up...
Hamas agrees to 1967 borders, fwiw: https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-said-set-to-recognize-19...
> indisputable moral highground
No side in this conflict has that. When they reach peace is when both sides would have found that elusive highground.
> clearly full of darkness
Yes, they are. They've been abandoned [1]. Note though, Hamas is not designated as a terror organization by most of the global south; and al-Qassam, its militant wing, doesn't take orders from Hamas.
[1] In fact, other studies show that Palestinians feel profoundly, existentially, alone: https://archive.is/rLq02
I saw a video of this today, the quote was from 2019 though (and he was condemned for it and walked it back), so maybe this shouldn't be taken "too seriously" (it was on my mind cause I saw it today, mostly):
> In July 2019, Hamad urged members of the Palestinian diaspora to kill "Jews everywhere". His comments were characterized as incitement to genocide by Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America[18] and the Simon Wiesenthal Center.[19] His rhetoric was widely condemned by other Palestinians and he later stated that he supports the Hamas policy of "limiting its resistance to the Zionist occupation that usurps Palestine’s land and defiles its holy sites".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathi_Hamad
> One counterargument is that taking out Hamas, if they succeed (I'm not bullish), is likely to just result in another possibly more radical group rising to power. Doubly so when we've seen something like 20,000 casualties in the last two months, overwhelmingly civilian, which is very obviously going to breed another generation that is full of hatred and vengeance.
Firstly, I'm not sure what you mean by "overwhelmingly civilian". Hamas doesn't publish numbers of militants vs. civilians, as far as I know the only good source for that figure is the IDF, which says more or less a 2:1 ratio (civilian:militant). Is that "overwhelmingly" civilian?
Secondly, what's the alternative? Leave Hamas in power, trying to do this again and again? It's true that Israel doesn't have many good options here, it's all variations of bad, but taking out Hamas is a decent way to gain a lot of security. (And is better for the long-term peace process, IMO, and better for Gazans.)
> [...] I frankly think it should be possible for Israel to prevent another October 7 even in a universe where Hamas is still in power.
I thought so too, but after talking a lot about this I think you're wrong. Hamas aren't idiots - they're a smart, increasingly well-funded enemy. Israel has a lot of capabilities, but Hamas is right on the border. They are fully capable of waiting a few years and then launching another attack using other means. They are fully capable of eroding Israel's ability to defend the border by sending "peaceful civilians" to the border, putting Israel in a position of either shooting at civilians or accepting many thousands of people on the border (similar happened in 2018).
Their rockets are getting better, their intel gathering is getting better, etc. It is incredibly naive (and arrogant!) to think you can forever outwit an enemy. Guerilla armies have beaten larger forces many times.
Not to mention, the more defense you throw at them, the more economically costly this is for you,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_2023_Israel%...
Thanks so much for the quote. Very interesting context. Also as an aside the fact that the name is "Hamad" makes my brain keep reading it as Hamas because my subconscious is trained to consider the nearest keyboard key when evaluating typos :P
I haven't heard of this Hamad guy, in the past couple months I've been reading about current and future Hamas leadership but I still have plenty of gaps.
I find the life stories of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Yassin and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Deif really fascinating. The former because it's so obvious why he became radicalized (his whole village was ethnically cleansed by the IDF), and the latter because the idea of someone who's limbless and wheelchair-bound and spends his remaining days sitting in dark tunnels plotting vengeance upon Israel is a really haunting image.
> Firstly, I'm not sure what you mean by "overwhelmingly civilian". Hamas doesn't publish numbers of militants vs. civilians, as far as I know the only good source for that figure is the IDF, which says more or less a 2:1 ratio (civilian:militant). Is that "overwhelmingly" civilian?
Simply put, yes, killing two civilians for every one combatant is overwhelmingly civilian, although I don't believe that 2:1 ratio for a moment. And I'm struggling to see how anyone who's not ideologically possessed could believe such numbers. Even if we do the classic imperialist playbook tactic of considering every male >= age 16 as a combatant, the number of children and women killed alone probably approaches half of all casualties if not already north of that.
I don't consider the IDF a "good source" at all, like all government organizations they lie constantly although I suspect they lie more than most :P But in context I take your usage of "good source" to mean "those actually providing hard data".
> Hamas aren't idiots - they're a smart, increasingly well-funded enemy. Israel has a lot of capabilities, but Hamas is right on the border. They are fully capable of waiting a few years and then launching another attack using other means
Their means are limited. They could maybe get creative and fly some drones over the border and drop some grenades or something, but I don't see the potential for a mass casualty event like happened in October 7, if Israel is actually watching its border properly and not ignoring obvious warnings of impending attack as has been frequently reported regarding Oct 7.
To be clear though, I agree that Hamas are smart and are evolving their tactics. Apparently Deif is to blame/praise for the latter. Ignoring the morality, the attack of Oct 7 was quite brilliant and integrated a number of different attack vectors, so I'm with you there.
Where Hamas really shines, like many insurgent groups, is fighting on their home turf. If you're curious you can go watch the Hamas propaganda combat videos (Asa Winstanley on Twitter has them all if you click on the Media tab), and it's a really interesting look at what insurgent warfare looks like on the ground. It's really hard to fight an enemy that can pop out of tunnel exits disguised to look like a vehicle or a house or a bunch of bushes, quickly fire a locally-manufactured Yassin RPG, or place a point-blank IED on a tank, and then disappear back into the tunnels.
This is why I don't see how Israel will actually succeed in destroying Hamas. They will certainly kill many Hamas militants, and probably score some kills on some upper leadership, but I don't see them taking down the entire leadership network nor eroding popular support for Hamas (I've seen no data but I expect that support for Hamas is as high as it's ever been since that's always what happens in war, doubly so when your land is the one being counter-invaded)
> Not to mention, the more defense you throw at them, the more economically costly this is for you,
This is just not a concern. The money US gives Israel every year vastly eclipses the amount they would need to spend on actually defending themselves properly.
Well, Gaza's MOH put out the 17k number, without breaking it down into militants vs civilians. How many militants do you think have actually been killed? If you are assuming that the IDF is targeting civilians, I guess it makes sense, but if you start from the assumption that they are trying to kill militants, then several thousand militants killed is reasonable.
> I don't consider the IDF a "good source" at all, like all government organizations they lie constantly although I suspect they lie more than most :P
So this is an ideological point, but worth going into. I don't think anyone should implicitly trust any source. But the IDF is part of a democracy - they have checks and balances in the form of government oversight, more importantly Israel has a free press that can check up on claims. Not to mention, hundreds of thousands of Israelis serve in the army and, Israel being a democracy, can speak up and report any abuses that happen or lies that get told.
Given that context, the IDF for sure can still lie, but most likely they will eventually be found out.
I want to contrast this with other sources of numbers - e.g. Hamas can lie with impunity, because no one is checking up on them and they can (and do) execute people for saying the wrong thing. We know they've lied about numbers, e.g. the hospital bombing that they claimed was an Israeli attack that killed 500 people, only everyone now agrees that it wasn't Israel, and didn't kill so many people.
(Though also worth stressing that the total figures given by Gaza MOH are more or less in line with what the IDF is saying, except for not breaking it down by civilian vs. militant.)
> This is why I don't see how Israel will actually succeed in destroying Hamas
Maybe. You could definitely be right. Though there are outcomes here that don't depend on total destruction of Hamas. E.g. Hamas surrendering.
I feel like people forget what winning a war actually looks like. Most wars in history were actually won, when one side did so much damage to the other side that they realized it wasn't worth continuing to fight, and surrendered.
Most of the wars that e.g. the US has engaged in were just not that important to US's security, in the long run - so they had no real need to win. So most wars didn't really end, they "fizzled out".
This war is different. Israel looks at it as a matter of survival. That's a very different dynamic.
> Their means are limited. They could maybe get creative and fly some drones over the border and drop some grenades or something, but I don't see the potential for a mass casualty event like happened in October 7, if Israel is actually watching its border properly and not ignoring obvious warnings of impending attack as has been frequently reported regarding Oct 7.
Do you think the army can be on high alert for five years? Ten? Defend against possible other creative paths that we have no idea about? If I were Hamas I could think of dozens of other things to try at this point.
Also, it's not like Israel was purposefully ignoring obvious threats, this is an "in hindsight" perspective. There's a cost to addressing each potential threat, both monetarily, but also in lives lost. And Israel (rightly) doesn't have any confidence that 4 years from now, whatever actions it takes will be considered legitimate, even if there is evidence it's a new Hamas plot.
> This is just not a concern. The money US gives Israel every year vastly eclipses the amount they would need to spend on actually defending themselves properly.
I don't think that's true. The US's aid is about 10% of the IDF's budget, a figure I'm not sure takes into account the current war btw. But the economic cost of e.g. having 50k more people serving in the army is also the opportunity cost of them not working in industry in this time, etc.
2008 war: The ministry reported 1,440 Palestinians killed; the UN reported 1,385.
2014 war: The ministry reported 2,310 Palestinians killed; the UN reported 2,251.
2021 war: The ministry reported 260 Palestinians killed; the UN reported 256.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/gaza-death-toll-records-1.7010...
I'd say Hamas numbers have been reliable based on past conflicts. So, I don't know why you're dismissing them.
>> Given that context, the IDF for sure can still lie, but most likely they will eventually be found out.
Tell me more about the accountability and the cost of those lies and crimes by the IDF. How many IDF soldiers rot in prison for the crimes they committed and the crimes that have been documented by HRW? It's zero.
Even when the crimes are fully recorded, they get a handful of months and a commuted sentence.
However I’d like to talk a little about the murder of Shireen Abu Akleh. At first the IDF claimed she was shot by Palestinian resistance, then they claimed she was shot on accident, and finally—in light of overwhelming evidence—they admitted to have targeted her. The soldier that shot her has not been named, let alone punished. There has been no legal action taken against anybody within the Israel army, no checks, not balanced introduced to prevent a murder like this in the future, no nothing. A murder without consequences of a journalist does not exactly inspire free press.
Now regarding the al-Ahli hospital bombing on October 17th. There is nothing conclusive about who is at fault. Not everybody agrees that it wasn’t Israel. What we do know is that, (a) yes the number of casualties was probably inflated, (b) it was likely not an Israeli airstrike, (c) the evidence originally cited by Israel showed an Iron Dome rocket intercepting a Hamas rocket in Israel too far from the hospital to have been the cause. This leaves number of possibilities, including: another misfired Hamas rocket, an artillery shell fired from Israel. News sources seem to lean on the former, but there is no consensus.
What we do know is that Israel shouted a bunch of unrelated stuff which they claimed were evidence of it being a Hamas rocket, evidence which was later proven insufficient, unrelated, or just wrong. Officials within the IDF also claimed to have lied in the past, but this time they were being honest.
About 70% of killed people are estimated to be women and children. Those are not Hamas fighters. Even if you assume that every adult male that has been killed was a Hamas fighter (which is obviously not going to be the case), and even if we pretend that men being killed is okay, that is still 70% of civilians dying compared to enemy combatants. That is the basis for "overwhelmingly civilian" deaths claim.
Israel also constantly claimed that Hamas is hiding in tunnels underground, yet they were killing people by bombing residential buildings in a display of logical contradiction. That alone will lead one to conclude that they are mostly killing civilians.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-many-palestini...
Just putting it out there that the median age in Palestine is 18. Almost half the population is children. Figure out the rest yourself.
Furthermore, the leadership of Hamas doesn't even reside within Gaza (in Qatar), though it's not like Israel holds it's targeted killings within its borders, either. The people of both sides suffer, but those outside and those with political power on both sides are eliminationist. I think it's important to listen to member of cabinet when they say "nukes are on the table" or a settler when they say that everything from the Nile to Tripoli are rightfully theirs, when you evaluate similar Hamas rhetoric.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-nuclear-weapons-gaza-iran-...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BETNqgBCjwc
Israel claims that 55 Hamas commanders have been killed. What is the proper ratio of that to civilian deaths (17,700)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_2023_Israel%...
How does Israel know there are bunker/tunnels under the Al Sharif hospital? They built them.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-israel-build-bunker-...
Israel built al-Sharif, to better the living conditions in Gaza. There may have been a bunker and limited tunnels originally, but Hamas developed this much further and linked it to their extensive tunnel system.
if living under a blockade or under military occupation is your idea of peace, no wonder people are resisting.
Israel is not interested in peace, they're interested in submission.
That's a false dichotomy. Preventing surprise attacks on your soil, given an enemy that is smart and tries to outsmart you, is a completely different thing to engaging in war.
> The people of both sides suffer, but those outside and those with political power on both sides are eliminationist. I think it's important to listen to member of cabinet when they say "nukes are on the table" or a settler when they say that everything from the Nile to Tripoli are rightfully theirs, when you evaluate similar Hamas rhetoric.
These are fringe views among the Israeli public, which you can see because that minister was widely condemned for that remark and withdrew it, and most statements made by Israeli politicians state the opposite.
Hamas's leaders have repeated the claim that they will perform October 7th over and over and over. And they actually did it when having the chance. There can be no doubt in any rational person that, were they to have the means to do it again, they would.
Both sides are simply not equal here in their desires, and there's no reading of the facts that shows otherwise.
(And btw, like many people on the Israeli center-left, I hate the settlers too, and definitely consider some of their actions to be terrorism much like Hamas's, though far smaller in scope, fortunately.)
> Israel claims that 55 Hamas commanders have been killed. What is the proper ratio of that to civilian deaths (17,700)?
I have no idea where you're getting that figure. Israel says that it estimates are that 5-7k militants have been killed.
> How does Israel know there are bunker/tunnels under the Al Sharif hospital? They built them.
What is your point? That Israel built some tunnels at some point doesn't prove anything. The Israeli claim is that an entire tunnel network was built out by Hamas for the purpose of using it as headquarters and to commit terror attacks. Which is true and verified.
Israel has all the power to end this, but the current government and their supporters view Palestinians as less than human. Coming to any table with that mentality will result in a less than equitable solution which will just perpetuate the oppressive lives of those in Gaza… and allow “Hamas” to live on.
My batshit crazy idea to resolve this… put 10 Israeli mothers who lost children on October 7 and 10 Palestinian mothers who have lost children in the bombings since into a room. Have them share their stories, the memories of those they lost, grieve together… and then task them with finding a solution to make sure no Israeli or Palestinian mother ever has to feel that again. I’d bet everything that they’d come out of that room with an equitable solution.
Hamas are not freedom fighters of oppression. They are an implacable anti-semitic bloodthirsty terrorist group who murder and oppress Palestinians as well as Israelis.
The true resolution is for Palestinians to give up on the idea of destroying Israel proper and cease the non-stop attacks on Jews from 1929 until today, which in turn will result in no need to monitor and control against these constant threats on Israeli lives. Hamas killed Bedouin Arabs on October 7th too.
Even according to the way you wish to view the conflict, after the 2005 disengagement from Gaza, what excuse did Hamas have to commit murders of Israeli civilians?
Palestinians have been made stateless by Israel, but if they are functionally subject to Israeli apartheid and martial law within their "own borders" then sovereignty is a fiction is it not?
The Palestinians who stayed in Israel became Israeli citizens, and have all the same rights as other Israelis. The Palestinians who fled Israel (by choice or force), did not become citizens. They were refugees for 20 years before Israel had control over them (and in that time were not granted citizenship in any other neighboring country, nor were they given the option to create their own state by the then-occupiers of that land).
The situation in the West Bank is indeed complicated, but the agreed-upon-by-all-sides solution is that it will eventually become a separate state (the two state solution). So it doesn't make much sense to wonder why they don't get voting rights in Israel - they are not citizens, and the agreed-upon path is for them to have their own state, not become citizens.
In Gaza the situation is much simpler - Israel doesn't occupy it anymore (or didn't before October 7th, no idea what will happen now).
You throw in the word blockade as if that's the same thing as Israeli control over Gaza, but it's not. The blockade was a legitimate response to Hamas carrying out attacks on Israel. Sovereign nations likewise sanction and/or blockade other countries for these kinds of attacks.
Does the US have control over Iran because of the sanctions it imposes? Is Iran not free?
The attempts to characterize Palestinians as foreigners to deny apartheid are appalling. By that logic, South Africa could have solved apartheid by declaring itself a whites-only country, changing constitution, so every black person could be labeled "foreigner", even if belonging to families born and living in the land for generations.
The only acceptable way to solve apartheid is by ending it, not fixing the dictionary to change the meaning of words like foreigner.
You might think the founding of Israel was itself an injustice, that there was ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, etc. Those are valid views (and I think they do have some merit, though less than most people think).
But you can't say that there is no difference between Palestinians that stayed during the founding of Israel and were granted citizenship, and between the Palestinians who fled to neighboring countries that proceeded to attack Israel hoping to get all the land, and then lost the war and the land.
There was land there, they and their ancestors inhabited it for countless generations before present, so they must be considered legitimate citizens, regardless of the names it had back then or today. There was no modern countries in Americas before Europeans arrived, yet we don't call amerindians foreigners because of that.
Edit: I would also be surprised if Russia does let previous citizens back in to claim any property they had. Do we have reason to think they will?
Comparing the Gaza blockade to other blockades is ridiculous.
Never said all Israelis, just Netanyahu and his ilk, the ones in charge. Some are on record calling Palestinians animals. And if you listen to how they (Bibi and crew, plus IDF officials in interviews) talk about Palestinians, it’s pretty clear they view them as enemies not humans, hence my “less than” comment. There are also some lovely man-on-the-street interviews with random Israelis in Tel Aviv saying some pretty gross things if you want some civilian opinions too.
> Israeli Arabs are represented in the knesset and have equal rights to any Israeli citizens. (Although in places like East Jerusalem which is neither Israeli nor West Bank, they are treated halfway in terms of security restrictions or building rights, which is where most of the accusations of discrimination come from.)
So the different forms of IDs, different license plates, court systems, etc. are all so the occupying force know to treat them with extra super equality? I’m surprised they don’t have separate water fountains and restrooms.
> Hamas are not freedom fighters of oppression. They are an implacable anti-semitic bloodthirsty terrorist group who murder and oppress Palestinians as well as Israelis.
Never said they were freedom fighters, more like a natural reactionary response. I just think that if you put any group of people in an open air prison for long enough, you’re bound to get some… push back. There’s a Chris Rock line that nails the sentiment…“I don’t agree, but I understand.”
> The true resolution is for Palestinians to give up on the idea of destroying Israel proper and cease the non-stop attacks on Jews from 1929 until today, which in turn will result in no need to monitor and control against these constant threats on Israeli lives. Hamas killed Bedouin Arabs on October 7th too.
The true resolution is for Israelis to give up on the idea of pushing Palestinians out of Israel and ceasing the apartheid, which in turn will give Palestinians hope and a fair shot at life, that will then cause Hamas to naturally dissolve since it will no longer serve any purpose. Israel killed Israelis in Gaza bombings since October 7th too.
> Even according to the way you wish to view the conflict, after the 2005 disengagement from Gaza, what excuse did Hamas have to commit murders of Israeli civilians?
Any reasonable human knows there is no excuse to murder anyone, but civilians especially. I can ask the same thing of you… since 2005 and excluding random IDF sniper picks, settler kills, and the post-October 7 bombings (because those would just wipe the floor with your numbers), what excuse did Israel have to commit murder of over 3000 Palestinian civilians? (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_casualties_of_wa...) They owe Israel a lot more if you’re keeping score…
I don’t wish to view things any way, I do view things through my own lived experiences just like everyone else. But I also spend a good amount of time trying to imagine things from other perspectives. To get an idea of where my perspective comes from in this whole conversation, one thing I strongly believe is that those in power hold the majority of responsibility. I know there are a lot of complicated layers to this discussion but I always come back to that.
> So the different forms of IDs, different license plates, court systems, etc. are all so the occupying force know to treat them with extra super equality? I’m surprised they don’t have separate water fountains and restrooms.
You are mixing up two completely different groups. One is the Israeli arab citizens, which is what the parent comment was referring to, and to which none of what you wrote applies. They are by law equal to any other Israeli, don't have separate court systems IDs or license plates.
You are probably conflating them with West Bank Palestinians, that don't have Israeli citizenship, and are under military control.
> The true resolution is for Israelis to give up on the idea of pushing Palestinians out of Israel and ceasing the apartheid, which in turn will give Palestinians hope and a fair shot at life, that will then cause Hamas to naturally dissolve since it will no longer serve any purpose. Israel killed Israelis in Gaza bombings since October 7th too.
Israel isn't trying to push Palestinians out of Israel. The ambition that leaders on both sides agree on is that the Palestinians will have their own state. Israel certainly hasn't done anything to advance that peaceful solution in the last 15 years, but it's not trying to push Palestinians anywhere, and before that there was a peace process in which Israel multiple times gave Palestinians offers that were rejected (and walked away from with no alternatives proposed, in some cases).
> I just think that if you put any group of people in an open air prison for long enough, you’re bound to get some… push back. There’s a Chris Rock line that nails the sentiment…“I don’t agree, but I understand.”
That's a great quote!
That said, you like many people call Gaza an open-air prison. What do you mean by that? It's evocative imagery for sure, but in what sense is it true?
Israel left Gaza, removed its settlers, and let them rule themselves, exactly as you propose. This didn't cause Hamas to dissolve - Gazans elected Hamas which then carried out many attacks over the last 15 years.
What now?
> To get an idea of where my perspective comes from in this whole conversation, one thing I strongly believe is that those in power hold the majority of responsibility. I know there are a lot of complicated layers to this discussion but I always come back to that.
I agree with this to some extent, and Israel certainly has a moral failing here in not helping advance peace in the last 15 years. As the stronger party I think it has a moral obligation to keep trying and not give up.
That said, I think it really is true that the fundamental reason there is no peace is that the Palestinians haven't given up on getting rid of all the Jews from Israel and getting all their land back, and thus keep choosing violence against Israel instead of accepting peaceful solutions. This whole mess could've ended many times by the Palestinians simply compromising on any of numerous occasions, which is the only way things ever change.
Both sides have some merit to their claims on the land, and no side is realistically going away - the only peaceful way out of this is if both sides compromise. Israel has shown itself willing to do so multiple times.
Yes and what a glorious state it will be. Here is how much land Palestinians have now (Famous image shown to Obama)
https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5b4280778ffba43192e8420f/...
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-map-of-israeli-...
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
That's not true at all.
The 2 most recent Prime Ministers of Israel have made it very clear that they will ensure that no Palestinian state can ever exist. Naftali Bennett is the leader of a settler party whose explicit goal is the expropriation and colonisation of the West Bank at the expense of the Palestinian population.
Hamas are, obviously, wedded to this ridiculous and genocidal notion that they can clear Israel of Jews.
> That said, I think it really is true that the fundamental reason there is no peace is that the Palestinians haven't given up on getting rid of all the Jews from Israel and getting all their land back, and thus keep choosing violence against Israel instead of accepting peaceful solutions.
And Israel persists in fostering the settler movement in the West Bank, forcing Palestinians into enclaves and reducing them to second class status in what is ostensibly their homeland.
> Israel has shown itself willing to do so multiple times.
What is going on in the West Bank is not Israeli compromise.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2021-01-09/ty-article-ma...
Over 60 discriminatory laws exist, here is a few passed between 2009-2012 alone https://www.adalah.org/uploads/2009-2012_Discriminatory_laws...
You can read more about the systemic 2nd class treatment of "Israeli Arabs" here https://imeu.org/article/fact-sheet-palestinian-citizens-of-... Most links refer to zionist newspapers and laws in case you need more references.
Jews, Christians and Muslims in the area were coexisting peacefully under Ottoman rule. I wonder what happened to result in this situation? Possibly illegal settlements? Ever heard of The Nakba?
Also, zionist Jews view even Americans less than human: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lq28ZFNzaWM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%932019_Gaza_borde...
Hell, one of the co-founders of Hamas watched his uncle get murdered in front of him by the IDF in the Khan Younis massacre; he described it a very formative experience, as you might imagine.
History did not begin on October 7, 2023 with the Al-Aqsa Flood.
why do you think that is? why is gaza fenced off?
https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/gaza-populati...
what genocide?
>Denying or minimizing the Nakba is nothing new. A brief look at our myths section shows that the Palestinian refugees and their ethnic cleansing have always been the target of Israeli propaganda. From blaming the Palestinians for their own expulsion, to claiming that no expulsions happened at all, you will find contradictory talking points to fit any purpose.
>What these myths have in common is their dishonesty in how they present information. They either decontextualize data to influence conclusions, or they build an argument on erroneous assumptions and projections. This myth mixes both these approaches.
>From the get-go, it launches its argument from a false definition of ethnic cleansing, conflating it with outright genocide. While it is argued that ethnic cleansing is a form of genocide, it can vary in the methods used. For example, you do not need to wipe out an ethnic group to practice ethnic cleansing. The term “ethnic cleansing” came to prominence after its widespread practice in the regions of former Yugoslavia, a United Nations Commission of Experts referred to ethnic cleansing as:
>“… a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.” This is not a mere misunderstanding by hasbarists, but a deliberate twisting of the term to make a slanted argument not compatible with the full definition.
>(Similarly, the term Apartheid is often incorrectly used to mean a complete carbon copy of South Africa when the definition of Apartheid says no such thing. There are many examples and types of Apartheid. The insistence on this false definition is to distract you from that fact and to stop you from judging Israel by the criteria of the legal definition.)
>With the information above in mind, it becomes clear that looking at the total population number to determine if any ethnic cleansing happened is not in and of itself a useful indicator. Indeed, if everyone was pushed out of New York into Austin, the total population number of New Yorkers would not differ. This would not change the fact that the entire population of New York was expelled. When the correct dates and areas are specified, not even openly pro-Israel websites like Jewish Virtual Library can dispute the fact that Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from the areas people today call “Israel”: >Population numbers >(The table has been abridged for brevity. You can access the full table here)
>This is the reason why many Zionist memes trying to “debunk” this historical fact often begin their table after 1948. This kind of cherry-picking of data, and the suppression of inconvenient facts is rife in the Zionist narrative of the Nakba.
oh, so semantics not actual genocide, got it.
The rocket launches are usually framed as response to massacres, if you read the launch announcements, btw.
In any case, it's quite doubtful that Israel would stop its aggression, if Gaza would stop firing rockets. The goal has been to "eliminate Hamas" for a few months already, if you want to believe the Israel government's statements. There's no "but if the rocket attacks stop" escape hatch in there. So what it's doing is not really self-defense against rocket attacks, here.
Negotiated or unilateral ceasefire is one tactical way to stop the rocket attacks, right now. It's much cheaper than war, too.
Hamas's way is violent resistance against a violent occupation. The occupation is truly bad. I don't think anyone should expect all Palestinians to just take it. Some will always organize to strike against the occupier, and take pride in it.
So the strategic way would be engaging in honest political solution to the decades long conflict. Israel as an occupier and a much more powerful party in this, has to be the one leading this, if it wants long term peace and not just a truce.
And of course, Israel can also continue it's variant on a quest of "de-Ba'athification" of Gaza, perhaps with similar consequences in the future...
1. This is warfare, not civil law. Hamas, which is the sovereign in Gaza (there has been no Israeli military presence there for years), commited an act of war in which hundreds were killed, raped, and kidnapped. Israel, as a state, has the moral duty to fight back and make sure this never happens again. Otherwise, it breaks the most basic contract between citizen and state ("I give up on violence and in turn you protect me from violence").
2. The aggressors (both in the field and leadership) are still largely out there, and holding kidnapped civilians and soldiers. They don't get a pass just because the "aggression is over" (whatever that means, rockets are still being fired indiscriminately at Israeli cities and towns, which is a war crime by the way...)
3. The responsibility for the safety of the Gazan civilians is that of Hamas since, again, they are the sovereign in Gaza. We shouldn't absolve them of responsibility for picking a fight with a better armed opponent. The defense does not have to be proportionate since that would mean Israel cannot use it's Tanks, warplanes, etc. To imply that Israel should fight with it's hands tied behind its back is ridiculous since war is not fair. There are some international laws intended to reduce the suffering of those that are uninvolved. For example, what does have to be proportionate is the harm caused to civilians when attacking a military target on a case by case basis, to the best of your knowledge (note that, according to international law, the target can in fact be a hospital/school/etc if it's used for military purposes).
Finally, an honest question, what would you do? How would you respond in this situation?
That's not a picture of a moral army fighting insurgents embedded in Civilian population, it's the picture of a fight against the entire civilian population- or "mowing the grass" in Israeli military's parlance.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/12/world/middlee...
Israel could have been done with that 6 weeks ago, if they didn't care about making the distinction. It's a pretty small region, after all.
Are they doing a good job in distinguishing military targets and civilians? No. Could anybody do better and still make progress towards the stated goal? Uncertain.
But I don't think that "Israel is not even trying to protect civilians" is supported by Israel's actions.
This is war. War is horrible and tragic, and far more so because Hamas hides within civilian buildings and used human shields.
What should Israel do instead to protect itself and to fight Hamas?
Again, Israel has the right to fight and fight hard, anyone would do that in their place. But I think many people in the west are awefully unaware of just the scale and magnitude of the destruction Israel has unleashed.
To your question - how does bulldozing a park help? I have no idea. Nobody outside of the IDF really knows the specific reasons for bombing some locations. I trust the IDF to not be shooting rockets at targets for no reason, which is probably a level of trust that most people don't share.
I'm sure someone with more military understanding could offer plausible theories, but if you're inclined to believe that Israel is trying to level Gaza just to hurt Gazans, I doubt any theory they offer would sound convincing.
As referred to in other comments, terrorism in Northern Ireland and Spain were solved by coming to the negotiating table. Additionally, rather than bombing civilians which is more likely to Foster a new generation of terrorists out for revenge, Israel could simply spend that war chest donated by the US ($3bn / year and a $14bn aid package) invest in Gaza, give the citizens at least the daily minimum of water recommended by the UN (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_...) and a reliable electricity supply. As the country responsible for these resources it is inhumane to do otherwise. There is a correlation between treating people well, and a lack of violence from them.
Of that aid from the US to a distinctly non-third world country, this is probably the most interesting question. Countries very rarely give money for free, so something is being bought here. Nowhere is the question being asked what that is, but it points to unsaid motives.
Well, "nothing to do" is a bit of a stretch. There are active Hamas militants in the WB as well, and their actions on October 7th have polled at as having around 70% approval in the WB (which lest I be misunderstood, I mention to indicate a willingness to cooperate with Hamas by the populace, not as justification to attack them for their views).
> As referred to in other comments, terrorism in Northern Ireland and Spain were solved by coming to the negotiating table.
Great. Israel did that multiple times, and Palestinians have never agreed to any deal offered them. Hamas isn't really trying to negotiate here though - their stated goal is to kill all Jews and take back the entire land.
> Additionally, rather than bombing civilians which is more likely to Foster a new generation of terrorists out for revenge, Israel could simply spend that war chest donated by the US ($3bn / year and a $14bn aid package) invest in Gaza,
So, disarm itself completely and hope that Hamas doesn't do what it promised it would do over and over, and has already proved capable of doing?
Gaza gets enormous amounts of financial aid, e.g. $600m in 2020 (just the first figure I found on Google). You know where that aid goes? Hamas steals it to finance its war against Israel.
You can literally see videos of them attacking food aid trucks coming into Gaza now and stealing the food for themselves.
> As the country responsible for these resources it is inhumane to do otherwise. There is a correlation between treating people well, and a lack of violence from them.
Israel isn't wholly responsible for these resources, Hamas is the government of Gaza and is responsible for it. Israel provides some water to Gaza and sells some electricity to Gaza.
But really, why do you think Gaza, despite enormous financial aid from around the world, is still reliant on Israel for so many things? It's not like Mexico is reliant on the US for everything.
An approval rating does not justify bulldozing buildings in the WB, nor detaining WB Palestinians for no reason (see https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/29/why-does-israel-have-so-....
and
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/28/arrests 133 from the WB). The detention law is discriminatory, and has been called out by rights groups.
> Great. Israel did that multiple times, and Palestinians have never agreed to any deal offered them. Hamas isn't really trying to negotiate here though - their stated goal is to kill all Jews and take back the entire land.
Aside from proof here, so what? Rejection happened multiple times in NI before the Good Friday Agreement was drafted, this does not mean it should not be attempted again.
> So, disarm itself completely and hope that Hamas doesn't do what it promised it would do over and over, and has already proved capable of doing?
I didn't say that. Disarming completely is a very black and white statement, truces and cooperation are forged from small steps eg. a reliable and adequate water supply.
> Gaza gets enormous amounts of financial aid, e.g. $600m in 2020 (just the first figure I found on Google). You know where that aid goes? Hamas steals it to finance its war against Israel.
Again, finance is no good if basic human rights are not met eg. water, electricity (and arguably internet).
> Israel isn't wholly responsible for these resources, Hamas is the government of Gaza and is responsible for it. Israel provides some water to Gaza and sells some electricity to Gaza.
Literally, the first sentence on the wikipedia page states that Israel has complete control over the water supply https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_...
Electricity is probably the same, given that the supply to Gaza was completely cut off. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.
+ "We are now rolling out the Gaza Nakba" - Agricultural Minister of Israel.
+ “We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly...We will eliminate everything - they will regret it" - Yoav Gallant, Defence Minister.
+ "dropping a nuclear bomb on the Gaza Strip an option" - Heritage Minister.
+ "Nakba? Expel them all,” Nissim Vaturi, deputy speaker for Israel’s parliament.
+ "There will be no electricity and no water (in Gaza), there will only be destruction. You wanted hell, you will get hell." Maj. Gen. Ghassan Alian.
+ "only solution left is "voluntary" evacuation of Gazans to countries around the world" - Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.
+ "If it [Hezbollah] makes mistakes of this kind, the ones who will pay the price are first of all the citizens of Lebanon. What we are doing in Gaza we know how to do in Beirut," - Yoav Gallant, Defence Minister.
+ "You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember" - Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. (that verse goes on to command King Saul in the first Book of Samuel to kill every person in Amalek, a rival nation to ancient Israel)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38619033
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38618814
(I hope this helps a bit in terms of making the distinction.)
I've explained at the top of the thread, and in a bunch of other posts, why this matters and what we're asking for here.
Firstly, some of it was taken out of context.
That said, some of the statements there are appalling, and I detest many of these politicians and condemn these statements. Some of the statements were widely panned, btw. Luckily, the worst of these politicians aren't the ones actually calling the shots (except Netanyahu).
Lastly, and most importantly - these lists have gone around many times, and they are bad, but they are also wartime propoganda. I find it far more relevant to see these statements in a broader context - the vast majority of statements that most of these politicans have made are explicitly against this idea.
That doesn't make these statements less heinous, but if politicians are saying 99 statements along the lines of "we only target terrorists and are doing our best to protect civilians", and 1 time out of 100 say the opposite, it's the 1 statement that makes the rounds for months, without any reference to the fact that it might be retracted, and/or 99% of the time the statements go the other way.
You can choose to insist on only believing the bad statements, because those "show what they really think" or something, but that's again dragging your personal view of Israel into it.
No one in the Israeli government seems to have felt bad about that.
The IDF, with the full backing of the Israeli and US governments, are murdering thousands and thousands of children, then saying things like "well you can't trust Hamas' numbers".
They're targeting journalists and poets. They're targeting historic buildings. They're targeting refugee camps and humanitarian corridors. More UN workers have been murdered than in any other conflict, ever.
That's the context I interpret the above statements in, and I don't know how those facts can be looked over.
If you establish HQ in a building, that's now an acceptable target. The alternative is that civilian areas are an invulnerability shield that lets you conduct whatever operations you want.
And this is Israel holding back. They have the option to level all of Gaza, they don't. They do roof knocks, conduct evacuations. And they didn't break the ceasefire conditions either.
Regarding ceasefire, Israel has broken a total of 17 ceasefires in the past. Ranging from assassinations to straight up bombing civilians during ceasefire period.
I don't understand your reasoning with "they do roof knocks, and tell people to evacuate, so it's all good when civilian areas get demolished and children die, that's war!"
Israel has done nothing but lie since the beginning of this genocide.
This is all happening alongside the blatant terrorism happening in the West Bank with the settlers. You can't seriously defend a nation when the leader is openly saying "wipe them all out - all of them."
I'm sorry, if you seriously believe that - you are just factually wrong.
I urge you - if you're serious - try to view real journalistic accounts of what is going on. They're not all favorable to Israel, but at least they aren't going to completely misinform you about what's going on. Just as an example:
> IDF claimed that Hamas had HQ in Al Shifa hospital, and all they found as proof was a calendar, and they stopped saying there was a HQ.
This is completely false. They didn't "only find a calendar" and they didn't "stop saying there was an HQ there". There have been multiple videos showing ammunition recovered in the hospital, showing the undergroung tunnel network under the hospital, there was even a video of Hamas militants dragging in hostages into the hospital.
You're just straight up wrong about your facts.
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention that the modern phenomenon of violent Islamic terrorism did not exist a century ago. In my view it's basically a direct result of Israeli & Western foreign policy. It's really hard to take land from people and in some cases commit literal massacres (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre) and not end up with a significant portion of the affected population turning to terrorism.
Since then every country in Middle East existed in one of two modes:
1. Murderous dictatorship (sometimes supporting terrorist groups)
2. Failed state controlled by various terrorist groups.
The only thing the West has arguably been doing in the XX century is moving countries from first category to the second one.
Israel is a happy exception here, although it has many flaws compared to democracies established in more peaceful regions
That is incredibly untrue. The roots of this conflict don't go back to 1948 or 1967. They go back to 1918 when the Ottoman empire fell. Prior to that jews and arabs lived in relative peace in the same area-- until the allies overthrew the Ottomans leaving a power vaccuum and uncertainty about the future, which lead to frequent civil violence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Nebi_Musa_riots
What happened in 1948 to trigger all its famous events? The British finally withdrew from the area they called Mandatory Palestine and left the inhabitants to figure it out for themselves. But by then both sides had a lot of distrust for each other from decades of tension. And the British knew they were living a shitshow behind since dealing with said shitshow as precisely what they had bored of.
> On 7 and 8 March [1920], demonstrations took place in all cities of Palestine, shops were closed and many Jews were attacked. Attackers carried slogans such as "Death to Jews" or "Palestine is our land and the Jews are our dogs!"
It is really important to note that the roots of this conflict are over 100 years old, and the reason it didn't exist before is there was a authoritarian empire operating the area keeping the peace and keeping self determination totally off the table for everyone but the Ottoman's Turks.
Look further back in history to the founding of Israel. None of what you imply Israel is responsible for was a thing back then and yet all their neighbours banded together to destroy it. Most of those neighbours eventually lost interest, and now it‘s pretty much only Hamas and Hezbollah. Why? Because they get weapons and money from Iran, which has made it their goal to destroy Israel. Most Gazans just want to live in peace and prosperity. Without Iranian support, Hamas would be gone, attacks on Israel would mostly stop and everyone could finally look toward a future. The Saudis were finally going to reconcile with Israel which would have been a step in that direction, but Iran is making sure we stay stuck in this perpetual war, as they have every interest to.
I gather that you don't agree—and that's ok—but I still need to treat your comments the same way that I'm treating everyone else's.
>Poet
Ah. One of the most known Hamas propagandists is now a mere poet.
EDIT: I just saw the same remark towards the comment I responded to, fair enough
For example, Gaza had been described as an open air prison for almost 2 decades because its borders, imports, sea usage, had all been controlled by Israel. This is not what we call “sovereign rule”. The West Bank has been checkered with military checkpoints and illegal settlements, contravening international agreements.
When people are driven to desperation, and their lives are made miserable because the occupying forces want to remove them, they do not have many options.
I think it is quite adequate to compare Gaza to the situation in for example, the Warsaw Ghetto in WW2, when an uprising was quashed by occupying German forces. This Gaza is a heavily urban area with vast majority of civilians, it cannot be compared to two armies fighting on a battlefield.
[1] https://twitter.com/Aizenberg55/status/1665745935589076992
In the West Bank, I agree that the settlements are abhorrent and need to be removed.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2020-03-06/ty-article-ma...
I'm not implying that October 7 was justified.
The Israel-declared buffer zone is 100m or total exclusion, and 300m where only farmers may enter and only by foot. In practice the murder risk area (during normal times, not during publicized invasions, where the murder risk area is more universal) is 1000-1500m.
This is, of course, inside Gaza; nothing prohibits Israel from backing its border installations off a safe distance from the border and having a murder zone in Israel instead, which would at least be superficially consistent with its pretense not to occupy or exert any control within Gaza between its periodic invasions.
I don't get how it can work. So they make the exclusion zone outside of the fence, not inside. Then they would need to make another fence around this exclusion zone. Then peaceful protesters destroy the old fence, and we are back to square 0.
Shooting people who cross a border without permission, while also not optimal in the case of peaceful protestors, is quite different than shooting peaceful protestors on the foreign side of your border in a territory you assert is not occupied and which further claim you have disenaged from and are not exerting control over.
Israel limiting its arbitrary murder zone to Israel proper would, while still arguably acting immorally, be at least acting consistently with its claim to have disengaged from and ended its occupation of Gaza. Baby steps.
Border between Gaza Strip and Israel on the other hand is not even officially delineated AFAIK, it just de facto exists where the barrier is. So if you make a new barrier 500 meters away, and let the old one be slowly destroyed - as Hamas is not interested in maintaining it - it doesn't change anything, except the de facto border is now 500 away from the old place.
They have cameras everywhere, including automated guns, a 100m buffer zone, and they didn’t see what was going on?
They didn’t see the breach, the hundreds of Hamas fighters crossing over? And they didn’t react for hours? And Netanyahu says they will only answer about Israel’s intelligence failure “after the war”?
1. Gaza declares "we're done trying to kill you guys" and means it. 2. A few quite months go by 3. Embargo and restriction start slowly lifting 4. More quiet months, life in Gaza improves 5. Repeat steps 3-4 for a few years. 6. Gaza is free, independent and thriving.
If you want to be really honest here. The issue is that Hamas need to agree that Israel has the right to exist. Period. As far as they don't, I see this war very well justified similar to the War with Japanese Empire or Nazi Germany.
Israel has not left Gaza.
> They had an election and Hamas came to power, and they never hold an election after.
Israel has obstructed agreements between the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority and Hamas in Gaza on all-Palestine elections on several occasions since then (the fact that some people who would be voters in such elections live in occupied territory outside of what Israel claims as Israel but which is currently administered by Israel, among other factors, gives Israel the power to do this.)
> There is no land dispute between Isreal and Gaza
Yes, there is. Or, rather, there is no dispute at all that the kill zone of officially 100m and in practice up to 1500m that has been enforced by Israel since it supposed "disengagement" on the Gaza side of the security fence is Gaza, and not Israel, and that Israel is exercising control of that swath of Gaza territory, against the wishes and interests (and lives) of the people living in Gaza.
> The issue is that Hamas need to agree that Israel has the right to exist. Period.
Out of Israel, Fatah (the governing party of the PA centered in the West Bank), and Hamas, the only one that hasn't accepted the 1967 borders of Israel, with presently-occupied territories (plus Gaza, for those who accept Israel's claim that it is not presently occupied) outside of those borders as a Palestinian State is Israel.
Israeli rhetoric about other people needing to accept their right to exist is exactly backwards.
The 100m "kill zone" has been proved necessary beyond doubt now. But if your claim is that total military and settler withdrawal besides 100m near the border for security means that Gaza was still occupied and its people justified in using terrorism, then it just shows the extremes that pro Palestinians will go to justify atrocities and explains why Israelis are tired of giving their implacable enemies the benefit of the doubt.
Those were settlers, attempting to lay claim to land in Gaza
Hamas was elected as Bush pushed for elections too early as he wanted to solve the situation before his term ended, PA was unpopular due to corruption. When Hamas won the US pushed PA to do a coup which failed, this caused Hamas to take over Gaza completely and push out PA and stopping future elections.
Hamas is certainly the main problem now, but the situation was caused by typical US fuckery, Netanyahu supporting Hamas didn't help either. Others big problems are the apartheid state of Israel and their systematic stealing of land in the West Bank. If what they have in the West Bank is the kind peace that Israel wants then I can see why people are resisting them.
Israel left in 2005, the "blockade" (which ignores the third border with Egypt) started in 2007 after Hamas seized control and Israel found itself with an enemy worse than Fatah despite it's largest since the Sinai withdrawal to exchange land for peace.
Natanyahu "supporting" Hamas was a policy of containment (coupled with recent pre-Oct-7 increase in work permits to Israel amogst other overtures) and which led to the October 7th. Israelis think a ceasefire would result in resumption of containment and eventually another October 7th so no go.
While Egypt physically controls the border Israel decides what and who can move through it.
Nethanyahu supports Hamas (see money transports most recently, but they've done it for decades) to divide and conquer Palestine between Hamas and PA. And a good Boogeyman is always good for staying in power, though he is likely finished.
Of course there's a land dispute! Something like 70% of Gazans are direct descendants of refugees, or refugees themselves, of the original 1948 Nakba, which was literally when the Palestinians were violently forced out of their homes and driven into perpetual refugee status. Now those that live in Gaza, even before October 7, live under a perpetual blockade which quite literally restricts the calories entering the region, along with every other necessary resource (gas, steel, etc).
How could one, knowing that context, characterize it as "not a land dispute"? Really what you mean is that there are no Israeli settlements in Gaza right now. Which is true but besides the point, and also ignores that there quite literally were settlements, but Israel forced the zionist* settlers out when they withdrew their physical occupation of Gaza all those years ago (replacing the physical occupation with the blockades, border restrictions, policies of shooting anyone approaching the border wall with sniper rifles, etc)
* I know this term is loaded with a lot of baggage, in part because many seem to think it's a dogwhistle for "the jews", but it's the most accurate descriptor for the philosophy motivating these settlers. Settling the west bank is wrong, but settling gaza is next-level crazy. You have to be extremely ideologically possessed to want to establish an Israeli settlement there because it sure as hell isn't a nice place to live.
Agreed
And maybe Israel needs to agree that Palestine has the right to exist
> Israel is a democracy made up of various parties with a whole spectrum of opinions.
That may be so but the Israeli state as a whole has been quite consistent over the last few decades in its systematic destruction of any political or geographical possible basis of a Palestinian state, be it in the West Bank or Gaza.
However as far as I can tell the settlements in the West Bank have grown through every government since the occupation - something which fundamentally undermines any moves towards a resolution.
Any attempt at peace has poor prospects if a significant part of civil society and army is dead set on colonisation.
Any yes, I'm aware of the complexities of Israeli politics and society.
This was not an attempt to further the peace process. It was motivated by the expense and difficulty of a military occupation of a densely populated urban area.
> You seem to be placing the responsibility for these failures entirely on one side.
Please, no need for that. I'm aware of Hamas' efforts to counter any moves towards peace. And of the effects of the suicide bombing campaign.
Similarly any talk of peace from the Israeli government is meaningless while settlement of the West Bank continues.
The same can be said of the terror attacks. I strongly agree that the settlements are an obstacle to peace and apologize if my comment came off as aggressive. But you have to realize that this is a deadlock. No Israeli leader can stop the settlements as long as there are terror attacks, and no Palestinian leader can stop the terror attacks as long as there are settlements. That is our tragedy I suppose.
>It advocated for a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders, describing this as a "formula of national consensus".
1967 borders means two state.
In fact, what they actually said was "Hamas advocates the liberation of all of Palestine but is ready to support the state on 1967 borders without recognising Israel or ceding any rights"
i.e. they would support the creation a Palestinian state within 1967 borders in the interim but not give up their fight for the rest of Israel.
This "softening" (as one left-wing newspaper called it apparently unironically) was in contrast with their previous stance which would reject a Palestinian state offer if it was based 1967 borders.
They have never gone back on their stated aim to reconquer all of Israel and never indicated they will tolerate Israel existing.
Even the famous UN security council resolution 242 deliberately does not define those borders.
Every peace discussion has used them as a basis for a future settlement, but until that happens it's premature to call them agreed anything.
'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.'
I agree that the settlements are an obstacle to peace, no argument there. But there are solid reasons why the border between Israel and Gaza has been closed (putting aside the fact that we're not obligated to open our borders, especially when the other side isn't exactly friendly). Note that they also have a border with Egypt, how come that's pretty much closed as well? (I'll give you a hint - Gaza is ruled by what is basically a fanatic death cult, and Eygpt wants nothing to do with it).
Your proposed solution is "end occupation and oppression". I'll ignore the one-sided phrasing and just say we've tried that with the Oslo accords, the disengagement from Gaza, and numerous negotiations, all leading to this point in time. So again, what would you do?
2, the terming of hamas as a “fanatic death cult” appears quite an extreme label. Hamas is more comparable to a political party with political, social, and military wings. In fact, it’s quite clear that Hamas’s brands itself as part of the resistance against occupation; and the motives for recent attacks lie in the Israeli aggression committed against Palestinians in the West Bank this summer and seeking to release Palestinian prisoners, many who were children, women, and held without formal charges. Even comparing how many hostages who have been released talked about how they were treated by Hamas, with the way Palestinian prisoners were treated by Israeli captors, shows that Hamas is not merely a “fanatic death cult”, given they treated prisoners with a degree of humanity they didn’t need to.
It’s also unclear that removing Hamas will fix the situation; after all, before Hamas, the PLO was labeled terrorists and dealt with brutally. In a resistance situation, the occupying force will typically seek to discredit and derail any process that threatens its control.
3, a desire to end occupation must be one that can be accepted by the occupied people. None of the peace process deals appeared to be honest efforts from the Israeli camp because the ultimate end goal of the occupying force has been to take control of “greater Israel” without the people who are living there.
I would propose a way to move forward for Israel would be a one-state solution: to recognize Palestinians as equal people with human rights, give them citizenship in a democratic rule, and allow them to return to their land. All of this without any military occupations. Because it is clear that a two-state solution has been dead for quite a while, given the occupying force has no intentions to end its theft of land in the West Bank.
I second this. South Africa managed to end apartheid without the need to split in a white-people country and a black-people country. The same can be done in Israel too.
And decades later, South Africa is probably one of the most dangerous countries to live in, where people install flamethrowers on their cars because violent carjackings are so common and people who have any kind of money live in gated compounds with heavy security. South Africa doesn't look too much like a success story to me, and certainly doesn't look like it's completely eliminated a form of apartheid, it's just replaced apartheid enforced by the national government with an apartheid at the local levels.
The remaining inequality (especially along racial lines), government corruption, and violent crime are terrible problems, yes, but pale in comparison to the dehumanising codified violence of Apartheid.
Are you seriously proposing that a two-state solution would have served the people of South Africa as a whole better in the long run? I think the resultant inequality would have been far worse. Do you have another proposal?
(Edit to point out that I'm not implying that what worked for South Africa can or can't work for Israel. This comment is about South Africa.)
(As an aside) I know this community prefers not to focus on weak arguments and avoid flame wars (no pun intended), but I have to point out blatant fear mongering:
> where people install flamethrowers on their cars because violent carjackings are so common
I wouldn't repeat this as fact. The device referenced was a short-lived gimmick from 1998, four years after South Africa's first democratic election. It is in no way a reflection of reality.
Yes, carjackings are a problem in South Africa, but repeating the flamethrower story reads like FUD.
I'm not proposing anything; I'm just pointing out that South Africa doesn't look like some kind of success story to me, but maybe to locals it is if it's genuinely better than what came before.
I understand you meant no harm.
2. OK, let's agree to disagree.
3. I think a more accurate description would be that hardliners on both sides torpedoed it at various points in time. But sure, occupation.
So your solution for two groups of people who can't seem to stop killing each other is to put them together under one state? Sorry, but I think I'll politely pass :)
(And continue to hope for a peaceful, two state solution)
As to a one-state solution, given that this is what worked in Northern Ireland and in Spain, as well as South Africa, it does seem reasonable.
As with Germany, perhaps allocating some spending to aiding a populace rather than fostering a new generation of vendetta by bombing them, would bring the two sides together? People who have a better QOL are less likely to be violent.
It's very likely the 2:1 ratio of civilian:Hamas is correct given the intense ground battle and that the 17-19K death toll clearly is includes thousands of Hamas fighters. The ratio of civilian deaths for similar urban wars is much worse.
I'll link https://ncase.me/polygons/ here, as a simplified example of why this matters. I would also add that this is going in the opposite direction here, thanks to this conflict amplifying extreme views, and unhelpful and discriminatory laws such as Administrative Detention https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/29/why-does-israel-have-so-...
The conflict is insignificant in the sense that hundreds of thousands have been killed and displaced in other conflicts raging in the middle east, which has been largely ignored by the international community and the "ceasefire" crowd. Not to mention the fact that Hamas's ministry of health counts all deaths as civillians, while in truth a lot were probably combatants, and this is then treated as gospel by the international community. This is a major source of frustration among Israelis, and in my opinion an obstacle to having an honest discussion around this.
Regarding a one state solution - up to those living here. Currently, it doesn't seem to be a realistic solution, will probably be rejected by the majority, and will not end the fighting anyway.
Finally, regarding aid, Hamas received tons of money. It just chose to use it for military purposes instead of bettering the lives of their people. The tunnels alone cost an estimated 150$ million (or 200-300$ per meter). We can only imagine how much better life in Gaza would have been if this was spent otherwise.
We are talking about the displacement of 2.3m people, so rather more. As to being allowed to go back- to what? Schools and hospitals have been demolished, there's no justification for that. Clear the building and move on, I'm struggling to understand why you would destroy a school etc. The conclusion you might come to is that with nothing left there, Palestinians 'should move into the Sinai' aka displacement. To add to this, denying access to medical supplies is not humane (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/5/israel-and-who-in-o... This is the WHO complaining here) and appears to be encouraging diseases to spread, killing more of the population.
As you have implied, this conflict extends well back before Oct, we could look at several incidents which have been ignored such as the 2018 Gaza border peaceful protests where Palestinians were massacred (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%932019_Gaza_border_...) With incidents like that, denying access to basic human rights like water and electricity (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_...), this exacerbates the problems there massively. These are things which can be fixed from the Israeli side why aren't they?
To illustrate how disjointed the Israeli government thinking is, and how unlikely this conflict is about Hamas, I'd point you to https://www.axios.com/2023/03/20/bezalel-smotrich-jordan-gre...
When the senior finance minister is saying things like this, in addition to the many faked IDF videos eg. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/israel-blames-translati...
You may well doubt the veracity of statements from Israel on an endgame plan. I would suggest, if you live there, talk to Palestinians in the West Bank, to appreciate the full extent of the impact Israeli policy (https://www.vox.com/world-politics/2023/11/22/23972908/pales... and illegal settlement in the West Bank) is having.
I appreciate your principled stance on the conflict, but if the time comes for you to hand in your passport, it will be too late by then.
Here's a former Israeli official responding to this claim better than I reasonably could:
https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2023/10/10/the-crisi...
https://www.hoover.org/profiles/shlomo-brom
>[Shlomo Brom] retired from the Israel Defense Forces, where he held the position of director of strategic planning in the general staff, in 1998. He was also the deputy national security advisor, 2000–2001.
Those restrictions are in place for a reason, which Hamas has confirmed on October 7th. And, what suffering does this cause exactly? Gaza had an HDI larger than that of many countries not at war, and had areas described as "wealthy".
Any close reading of this conflicts shows that it is an ideological conflict. Hamas and their supporters in Gaza actually prefer that Gaza becomes a hellhole, to rally allies to their side. Do you really think they want a peaceful and prosperous Gaza? No, they want to blow up the conflict, to energize it, to force a reckoning, with the ultimate goal of reclaiming land from the river to the sea, per their own charter.
Under such circumstances, what should Israel do? Pack up their bags and leave?
> with the ultimate goal of reclaiming land from the river to the sea, per their own charter.
The "from the river to the sea" is the language in the Likud charter, the party ruling Israel and dropping thousands of 2-ton bombs on Gaza right now. The popular chant "from the river to the sea palestine will be free" is a direct response to that. I'm unaware of Hamas' charter using the "from the river to the sea" language, although I'm open for correction here because I have not read the entire charter.
As the history of the slogan "from the river to the sea", please read on it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea, it has little to do with Likud.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform...
"The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."
Not that it makes this "who's invented the phrase" argument less of a strawman.
That is exactly what they should do: End the occupation.
I understand Israel left Gaza in 2005, so I'm not sure what occupation is being referred to here. If you mean the blockade, don't you think Hamas laying down arms and renouncing violence would be a good first step towards convincing the Israelis to lift the blockade?
Israel controls Gaza's borders. Israel controls the sea. Israel controls Gaza's airspace. Israel controls the products entering and exiting Gaza. Israel controls even more areas than this. The occupation is ongoing.
> [Don't] you think Hamas laying down arms and renouncing violence would be a good first step towards convincing the Israelis to lift the blockade?
People living under occupation have a right to armed resistance under international law. Israel has no right to continue its occupation.
My father is Belorussian jew, mother Dagestanian Ukrainian, I was born in Russia. I'm Israely. Where exactly do you want me to pack up my bags and leave? Because I WILL fight you if you'll try to deport me to Russia...
I consider calls "to end the occupation" a sign of lack of understanding of the other side, we have nowhere to go.
I yet to see "let's end the occupation" call that resulted in a less naive conversation.
What you propose is not a plan or a decent answer to "how to end occupation".
btw, i used "they" to refer to the same "they" that you wrote. don't insinuate anything with scare quotes.
If you'll ask Palestinians ending occupation means exactly that, Jews leaving, thus the famous slogan, Hamas charter, etc.
I think you are being deliberately obtuse at this point, so this conversation is over on my part.
I do not care if you continue your live in Russia or Israel...
The situation is by design. I am not going to pretend I don't think Netanyahu wanted this.
We need to wait 10 - 30 years til people involved starts to write memoirs.
That said, even in war, there are long established rules of engagement in war designed to protect (as possible) non-combatants. Israel is not respecting these rules at all. And beyond the insane death toll and indiscriminate bombing, Gazans are hungry and without water and shelter.
Of course, Israel should exercise restraint, especially since it's better armed and has such sophisticated intelligence. Now it's making itself a pariah (except in the US)
Israel absolutely should be respecting the rules of war. As far as I know, it is.
People often like to claim that it's not, hinting at some vague "war crimes" or claiming that Israel is targeting civilians, but there is no proof of that happening on purpose, that I'm aware.
This is complicated by Hamas deliberately using human shields and trying to get Gazans killed to make Israel look bad. It is a very complicated situation to fight in and Israel is absolutely making mistakes, but I urge you, show evidence of it actually committing war crimes in the killing of citizens.
> And beyond the insane death toll and indiscriminate bombing, Gazans are hungry and without water and shelter.
Hamas is the government responsible for Gazans. if they are hungry, it's because Hamas is failing in its duty to its citizens. They are literally stealing food from aid trucks in order to feed themselves (and probably stockpile food in tunnels) instead of feeding their own citizens.
Not to mention, they could return the hostages and surrender and spare themselves and their citizens all of this death and pain.
As for the "insane death tool" - what makes it "insane" in your mind?
Note: every death is a tragedy. Civilians dying, on either side, is tragic. Hell, even soldiers and Hamas militants dying is tragic - every death is a tragedy. I'm talking about all this analytically but the death and suffering here is horrible.
Yes and no. Israel definitely hasn't had clean hands these last 15 years, but on the other hand it did withdraw from Gaza and leave it to themselves to manage. They really, really could've tried to better themselves, the area, etc, and instead chose to continue pursuing violence (via electing Hamas), which led to them being blockaded etc.
Don't forget, Israel was allowing more and more Gazan citizens to enter Israel to work. There are terrible stories (I don't know for sure if these are verified though) that many Gazan workers, who worked for years in the cities surrounding Gaza, actually gave information to Hamas to help them carry out the attack.
> That's without mentioning the settler colonialism debacle, which is not as one-sided as some people claim but still an injustice to Palestinians.
Yes, there's definitely at least some merit to this.
But that's true of almost every country. All of them have complicated histories. How many countries were newly created since WW2?
Only in this one case, a group that arguably got a bad deal (and it is arguable), is still clinging to violence and the idea that they'll "return" 75 years later.
A) that's kind of saying colonisation is OK because other countries did it
B) the colonisation in Israel is ongoing and extreme. The West Bank is the site of continuing expropriation and settlement with the explicit aim of shunting the Palestinians into tiny enclaves and rendering any possibility of a Palestinian state impossible, and creating something strongly resembling apartheid South Africa.
See e.g. public statements by Naftali Bennett or Benjamin Netanyahu
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-many-palestini...
Also remember the Israel had (has?) a policy of responding disproportionately: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine
In general, the overall solution would be for Israel to allow Palestine to be an independent state, recognized in the UN, with full control of its own borders. It is fully within its rights to keep its border with Gaza closed, of course, but there is no right whatsoever to blockade Gaza's access by sea. There is also a good argument to be made for paying reparations to Palestine for the occupied territories and for the entire illegal blockade duration - though that is ultimately secondary. The thornier question is of course how to connect Gaza to the West Bank.
If Kyiv went into Russia to capture children and seniors after gunning down a rave, their Western backing would evaporate overnight. Russia would be vindicated in its claim that their neighbour poses a security threat.
Had Hamas hit military installations (demonstrating Israeli impotency) and taken hostages, but treated them well (taking the moral high ground as images of Nonna being served tea and falafel are juxtaposed with those of aerial bombardment), our conversation right now would be very different.
You're broadly right. One component of the solution must be an independent Gaza (if not Palestinian state). Another has to be reparations for the Nakba. Israel can be partly responsible, but the primary debtor should be the U.K. and possibly French. (Reparations for the blockade are needlessly divisive. Israel can always argue, legitimately, I believe, that it was Palestine's Arab allies who repeatedly attacked it first.)
That is an interesting thought experiment in itself. I'd like to believe you are right, but then I remember that there was virtually no condemnation when the daughter of one of Putin's propagandists was assassinated. There was also little interest to determine if Ukraine may have been behind the destruction of the dam that killed many innocent civilians. So, I'm not entirely sure how European and US opinion would have oriented.
> Israel can be partly responsible, but the primary debtor should be the U.K.--they are the ones who took the land and gave it to another
That is a good point, and I'm pretty sure other European states would have quite a bit to attone for to help set this right.
Massive difference between targeted killing and broad slaughter. To put this on the other shoe, it's why we were never going to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan or Vietnam.
The target was the propagandist; “Dugin reportedly made a decision at the last minute to travel separately” [1].
Many would argue that this is EXACTLY what Hamas has done, no more, no less.
The fog of war is well named. There hasn't really been any VERIFIED evidence presented to independent media showing that Hamas deliberately killed civilians.
On the other hand, lots of evidence, from Israeli sources themselves, of zero babies murdered, zero rapes, Israeli tanks shelling Israeli civilians and Israeli helicopters shooting at Israeli civilians with hellfire missiles.
https://youtu.be/RmhrRknUwtU?si=Bo851vbgprjsOdlo
https://youtu.be/WEyVdHL09vY?si=QaRCkr5-TVKiinny
https://www.youtube.com/live/CPMf3CIa_BA?si=jzNZfD76KlK_7Oel
there has been numerous verified evidence the terrorists killing civilians including children:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/18/israel/palestine-videos-...
even the terrorists acknowledged that there are no civilians in Israel, only targets:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67321241.amp
the question is what has become of the world when terrorists are taken for their word?
Even the sources you cite show the Hamas militants attacking entirely civilian infrastructure. Even if it is true that some of the Israeli victims were killed by the IDF inside Israel, it is still in response to Hamas attacks on a kibbutz, festival etc. - NOT military installations.
Cue pandemonium, and wild crossfire.
We DO have actual gun footage camera of Israeli Apache helicopters firing indiscriminately. Plus we have the testimony of those helicopter pilots, as reported by Haaretz, that they had no clue who was who, and they just emptied their weapon stores on anything that moved, and kept going back to base to reload and repeat.
ALL of the above is taken VERBATIM from Israeli sources, reported by the Israeli media.
You haven't looked at any of it. Just blindly repeating the same tired old narrative, long after it has been debunked.
After all, why is Israel BURYING all the forensic evidence (burned out cars, etc) in the desert? Or... you didn't know about either (widely reported even in the US)
And Hamas took hostages for the SAME reason they ALWAYS took hostages. To free the THOUSANDS of innocent Palestinian hostages languishing in Israeli dungeons. Or are you going to pretend that that's not true either?
For goodness sake, J Paul - the US State Dept official who resigned in protest gave interviews talking about EXACTLY THIS, and even shared cases that he personally was involved in where Palestinian child hostages were sexually abused/raped by their Israeli captors.
You can stick your fingers in your ears as long and as deep as you want. That's your problem. It doesn't have to be mine, or others who want to delve deeper and find out the truth.
While sourcing interviews on Israeli media, and the press.
Yes, there's plenty of snuff videos circulating on Israeli telegram channels. Funnily enough, they don't get circulated to reputable, independent, international press. There was one segment on the independent US Breaking Points channel (Ryan Grimm, of the Intercept), highlighting just how much fake misinformation is being spread on those very Israeli groups. Reported on TODAY!
And whenever IDF claims and videos DO get circulated to the international press, they get DEBUNKED within a day or 2. Too many to enumerate. From beheaded babies, to rapes, to bombing this hospital and that camp, to striping civilians making them pose as Hamas fighters, to hiding metal weapons in MRI rooms, to posting videos of fake Gazan doctors criticizing Hamas (later proven to be an Israeli actress, with name and film bio). And on. And on.
Youre saying stuff Hamas themselves have posted to social media is forged? Stuff on wikipedia is forged?
Must be a tremendous amount of delusion in you, and a radical inability to face reality, for you tp deny what happened on October 7th.
It’s kind of sick really, what this crisis has revealed.
And you prove that by not checking or referencing the many copious references and links to NEWS REPORTING that I (and I'm sure others) have given. You haven't tried to address any of the items I brought up (which themselves are just a small sample of a bigger body of work). Instead, you make up silly things I did not say, pretend I said them, and then exclaim fake indignation. That's possibly why you feel sick ...
If Hacker News can "tolerate" that from you, it can certainly handle my attempts at highlighting courageous journalism on here.
This by the way is an important fact to bring up when the claim that "Israel left Gaza many years ago and the problem didn't improve". In actuality, they withdrew their occupying army but still kept up a blockade, including a literal cap to the number of calories allowed to enter the country, which I can only interpret as a population control measure. That's of course in addition to all the other stuff they kept doing, but that's probably a discussion for another day.
I'd note that the GP was careful to specifically mention Israel having withdrawn its military from Gaza which is true, so I'm not disputing the veracity of their claim on that specifically.
() https://www.ft.com/content/7b618433-ba5f-4e92-a3e0-d5d41d6d1...
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/world/middleeast/israel-c...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/17/israeli-milita...
Some behaviors are simply unacceptable - and the current blockade has been found to be illegal by the UN time and time again, or at least would have been without US vetos.
The IRA is a good example of how to deal with terrorism. You don't compromise. You don't have Northern Ireland back to the Irish and bow to terrorism. Instead you strike hard and eventually they'll make peace.
The equivalent would have been to erect a border wall, then send the British navy to intercept any ship going into or out of Ireland, and signing agreements with other EU countries to ensure they enforce the same terms for air travel. This is what Israel is doing to Gaza.
I'm Irish. That's not an accurate description. There very much was a compromise, on all sides. One that both sides in the current conflict could learn from.
There is no bias here, just law and interpretations on these laws.
If this were the security council that would be another issue however.
The blockade is legitimate and justified. The Palestinians do things like take water pipes sent as aid - which were allowed to be imported - dig them up and turn them into rockets. What do you think they'd do if they were able to import more freely?
Blockades are an act of war, so yes, it's not unexpected or illegal that the Allies were blockading Germany while at war. But Israel is claiming not to be at war with Palestine (or at least was before the current invasion). They in fact keep claiming that military occupation of Palestine ended 20 years ago.
The fact that Hamas can turn water pipes into rockets is somewhat irrelevant. The obvious fact is that, as long as it is impossible for Palestinians to live a prosperous life because of this occupation, some part of their population will want to retaliate. Peace in the region can't start without ending this blockade. Israel's Iron Dome can already protect from huge numbers of Palestinian rockets. It is generally the Palestinians who are defenseless in the face of Israeli attacks (as can be seen in the current invasion, as well as past protests and retaliation).
This is not true. They did dig up pipes to make rockets, but they were the pipes from Israeli settlements. Settlements that Israel destroyed so Palestinians couldn’t inhabit them
> What do you think they'd do if they were able to import more freely?
Be more at peace, feel like they matter, like the world cares about them and that they can be a part of it without having to ask for permission from Israel
If anything, the end of the blockade would probably bring more peace and stability to everyone in the region
> Be more at peace
We have fundamentally different interpretations of what happened in October, and the dancing in the Gazan streets that accompanied it.
Stable government in power is needed. Which then can reduce violence by agreements stepping back in lockstep from violence. Pre requisite for that are stable societies not ramping up for loopdeformation showdowns.
For much of the time, Israel allowed goods through the tough restrictions on what types of materials were allowed in started once Hamas started tunneling into Israel to commit attacks.
Very recently, Israel increased significantly the number of work permits for Gazans to work in Israel in the mistaken belief that Hamas and Gazans were getting comfortable with improved economy and this would gradually lead to deradicalisation and eventual peace. The other estimated the humanity of Hamas who it turns out were actually planning barbarism.
The fact that Israel has an agreement with Egypt governing that border crossing and preventing imports other than as approved by Israel undermines the "its not a blockade because one border touches Egypt" argument.
The history of this conflict is a lot more complex than the occupier/ occupied framing would imply. For one, there was a Jewish presence here for centuries, not to mention the ancient kingdom of Judea. But I find these discussions unconstructive usually since they seem to get into these "he hit me first" kind of arguments. I agree that a two state solution is what we should be striving for. Humans are creative, if the will was there, we would find a way to connect Gaza and the West Bank (tunnel/bridge/whatever), do some territory swaps as needed, divide Jerusalem, etc. The plans for this exist, it's the leadership that's failing (on both sides).
Not to mention the "blockade" is in fact Israel closing its own borders and Gaza has a third border with another country (Egypt).
Israel didn't disengage entirely from Gaza, it maintains a murder zone inside Gaza, and has murdered unarmed peaceful protestors in Gaza within that murder zone.
Gaza has sea access, but Israel doesn't allow any ship to dock into Gaza or leave Gaza - this is blockading Gaza's own sea borders, not closing Israel's. Egypt's border with Gaza is also controlled by Israel through a treaty - Egypt can't unilaterally open its border to Gaza without breaking its treaties with Israel.
Here is the prompt:
``` "Please analyze the given article to determine if it exhibits a pro-Zionist bias. Consider the following factors: the author's background and affiliations, the language and tone used, the presence of one-sided arguments, the sources and evidence provided, the framing and context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and any potential biases or gaps in the article's viewpoint. Additionally, compare the article with other sources presenting different perspectives to gain a more comprehensive understanding. Based on your analysis, provide a clear assessment of whether the article can be considered pro-Zionist or not."
```
Your comment:
``` ``` Bizarre is viewing Israel as "oppressor" for disengaging entirely from Gaza, dismantling is own Israeli settlements despite massive protests by the seller movements, and only imposing a blockade once a terrorist group took absolute control (and threw Gays and Fatah opponents off rooftops to their deaths) Not to mention the "blockade" is in fact Israel closing its own borders and Gaza has a third border with another country (Egypt). ```
GPT response:
``` This comment appears to be a Zionist talking point. The comment is trying to justify Israel’s actions in Gaza by portraying it as a victim of terrorism and a benevolent actor that has disengaged from Gaza and dismantled its own settlements. However, this is a misleading portrayal of the situation.
Firstly, Israel’s disengagement from Gaza in 2005 was not an act of benevolence. Rather, it was a strategic move to consolidate Israel’s hold over the West Bank and to avoid the demographic threat posed by the Palestinian population1. Moreover, Israel’s disengagement was not complete, as it continued to control Gaza’s borders, airspace, and territorial waters2.
Secondly, Israel’s imposition of a blockade on Gaza was not a response to terrorism, but rather a collective punishment of the entire population of Gaza3. The blockade has caused immense suffering to the people of Gaza, who are denied access to basic necessities such as food, medicine, and electricity4. The blockade has also severely restricted the movement of people and goods in and out of Gaza, which has had a devastating impact on the economy and the livelihoods of the people5.
Finally, the comment’s reference to Egypt’s border with Gaza is misleading. While it is true that Gaza has a border with Egypt, this border is also subject to restrictions imposed by Israel and Egypt. Moreover, Egypt’s border with Gaza is not a viable alternative to Israel’s blockade, as it is also subject to restrictions and is not equipped to handle the volume of goods and people that need to pass through.
In conclusion, the comment is a Zionist talking point that seeks to justify Israel’s actions in Gaza by distorting the facts. The reality is that Israel’s blockade of Gaza is a collective punishment of the entire population of Gaza, and has caused immense suffering to the people of Gaza. It is important to recognize this reality and to work towards a just and lasting solution to the conflict. ```
I'm seriously thinking of analyzing this thread, flagging all the zionist accounts as it's the same accounts replying and repeating the same lies and debunking those lies via GPT.
However, what is clear is that Israel's current approach is not working to ensure its security, and that in the last few decades it has only succeeded in turning the population of Palestine ever more bitter against them. So, unless they are prepared to wipe them out entirely, what possible hope is there in continuing in this direction?
Say Hamas is successfully eliminated. Every single Hamas leader and soldier is killed or captured. Is there any reason whatsoever to imagine that people in Gaza could return to their bulldozed and bombed "homes" and feel friendly towards Israel? Or did this incursion all but guarantee that the next generation of Gazans will feel even more justified in defying Israel?
And note, the same question is true of Hamas' monstrous attack - no doubt the vast majority of those hurt by the Hamas attack will feel justified in hating and fearing Gaza and Hamas. It's just harder to ask the ones being oppressed to just bear with it in the hope their oppressor might stop.
UN has assisted Hamas in the past, there is no reason to believe it would be any different this time. The history didn't start on October 7th, what has happened on October 7th is the violence went over the threshold in which Israel would believe intent of international community and instead is handling it themselves despite the uproar.
So, if anything, a more accurate description is that October 7th was a boiling point where Palestine retaliated for decades of oppressive killings.
But the reality is that neither is the right framing. The October 7th attacks on innocent civilians aren't justified or justifiable. The following invasion and widespread murder of innocent civilians aren't justified or justifiable.
A ceasefire and peace deals must be imposed to keep the situation under control. All those who have caused the death of civilians, both in Hamas leadership and Israeli leadership, should face international justice, and new leaders should be installed that are committed to a lasting peace process.
Also, I'm not seriously advocating for this. It's a fantasy that has no chance whatsoever of happening. But it is probably the only sort of thing that could bring a quick end to this conflict given the current parties in power.
Your original comment said that leaders committed to peace should "be installed". That doesn't sound democratic in the least. And here you say that "it is not authoritarian to take aggressive war off the table". When you're talking about outside forces forcibly taking over these places governments and "installing" new leaders, that's the definition of authoritarianism. Israel's leaders were already democratically elected, and obviously they're not peaceniks, and if Netanyahu suddenly died of a stroke, I think it's naive to think the Israelis would now vote for peaceniks. And I think it's very unlikely that Gazans, given a new vote, would choose peaceful leaders either, though I could be wrong of course.
I don’t think that the UN is trustworthy in this manner. It seems like the UN is like Lord Farquad in Shrek:
“This ceasefire with Hamas may cost thousands of Israeli lives, but that is a risk the UN is willing to take for the sake of peace.”
What would be the solution of that independent state went to war and attacked Israel again? Would you agree at that juncture that Israel would be within its rights to destroy and conquer that state?
But you do not have the right to attack the civilian population or to take their land. Even if you think they were for the war. The allies didn't conquer and destroy Japan or Germany. They didn't divide their territories among themselves (even the separation of Germany still left two sovereign states).
We have also learned from the end of WW1 and WW2 that investing into the old enemy state to make it happy and successful is in fact a MUCH better solution for lasting peace than pounding them into submission and trying to sap their economy. If Israel had sought a Marshall-plan like solution for Gaza after the Yom-Kippur war instead of a military occupation for the following 30 years, perhaps Hamas wouldn't have won the 2005 elections in the first place.
Both Japan and Germany had major civil cities leveled and gave unconditional surrender in WWII, and were occupied.
Germany was stripped of its sovereignty and former statehood. It was administered by the allies for 5 years and permanently lost 25% of its territory (compared to its 1937 pre-war borders.) It took 25 years post WWII for Germany to be admitted to the UN.
Japan was Occupied and administered by US military for 7 years following the war, and parts of the Japanese home islands are still administered 70 years later. Japan Lost multiple territories it had held for more than 60 years before WWII started.
I think that what we learned from WWII and subsequent wars that you need unconditional surrender and acceptance for any real nation building to take place.
Perhaps Palestine needs their equivalent to Germany's first post-war chancellor Konrad Adenauer, who accepted that Germany lost, and was willing look forward and not back.
This sort of swipe is against the spirit of the HN guidelines and particularly the spirit we asked commenters in this thread to keep. Please don't do this.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/29/opinion/israel-hamas-ceas...
There are plenty of cases of countries being attacked by terrorists and not responding like Israel has. PKK has carried out acts of terrorism in Turkey. FARC carried out attacks in Colombia for half a century.
A better example is eg Mosul which had a far higher death toll, as well as other Isis warzones.
Plus none of those threats are anything like Gaza (and indeed Jenin) which is 5 minutes drive from Israeli towns and so a far greater persistent threat.
Plus those terrorists aren't part of a pattern of repeated wars by neighbouring countries for the same cause that Israel had to endure since its founding.
... amongst many other differences
This is often said and I’m sure often in good faith, but I always find it a bit unsettling. If by “making sure it never happens again” you mean stronger protection of the boarder going forward it’s fine of course. But if you’re referring to someone kind of offensive operation (as I assume most who say this are, since they are defending an offensive operation) I can’t see how that would be possible within the law of armed conflict. It would require sending Gaza back to the stone age and keeping it that way forever, or permanent occupation, or something like that.
Wikipedia describes Lee as such: "Lee oversaw Singapore's transformation into a developed country with a high-income economy within his premiership. In the process, he forged a highly effective, anti-corrupt government and civil service. Lee eschewed populist policies in favour of long-term social and economic planning, championing civic nationalism through meritocracy[3] and multiracialism[4][5] as governing principles, making English the lingua franca[6] to integrate its immigrant society and to facilitate trade with the world, whilst mandating bilingualism in schools to preserve the students' mother tongue and ethnic identity."
That's a forward looking vision, not a backwards looking vision like the "Palestinian cause" that seems to end with restitution.
Would any politician with such a vision like Lee's even have a chance with Palestine's electorate? No idea, elections were last held in 2006...
I wasn’t. I was describing Gaza 2023- under a regime that can guarantee nothing like October 7 can ever happen again as indefinite subjugation.
If violent retribution alone could ensure "this never happens again," the conflict would have ended long ago. Instead, it'll soon be a century old.
> Finally, an honest question, what would you do? How would you respond in this situation?
Israel has no good options, only terrible ones and even worse ones, but: invade Gaza on the ground, block by block, instead of indiscriminate airstrikes. Accept higher casualties among Israel's forces to protect civilians. Give civilians as much stability as possible, as long as they follow orders ("if you are peaceful, we'll ensure you have food, water, medical care, shelter; step out of line and you will never be seen again.") Meanwhile, end the settlements in the West Bank, stop sidelining Fatah, show that there is a path forward for Palestinians if they are peaceful.
There are still rockets flying out of Gaza into Israel.
> 2. Its only purpose is to defend against the agression
The people sending those rockets are in Gaza, so to stop them, Israel has to go there.
> 3. The defense has to be proportionate
That one is regularly the most difficult point of contention in individual self-defense. Hamas essentially goes by this playbook: https://imgur.com/XX6HVrn
So, moving it back to individual self-defense (or coming to somebody's aid, which is covered by approximately the same rules): what should be done about the guy holding a loaded gun at his hostage's head while covering himself in babys?
Netanyahu uses this situation to stay in power. He has no plans beyond that.
Using children as human shields is propaganda to cover for the fact that Israel is dropping a massive amount of ordinances in a 5x25 mile piece of land. They tell people to move south and then bomb them. They snipe women and children complying with evacuation orders. If you actually pay attention to who is dying, the human shield claim is preposterous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_...
On the side of placing military alongside civilians - Israel has a military base, HaKirya, in the middle of civilian Tel Aviv; they had a civilian maternity hospital also called HaKirya in the base until '97. More such military placements in civilian surroundings still exist in other parts throughout the north.
I don't see how intent is relevant to this observation
Consider the opposite: If Hamas had a nuclear weapon, would it pause before detonating it in Tel Aviv? Of course not.
It’s easy to demonize your enemy and say they would commit atrocities and use that as justification to commit your own.
Moving onto hypotheticals, international condemnations don't mean a whole lot. At any rate, I expect that Israel would win a war against Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas. Or perhaps that war would be indecisive, but Israel wouldn't lose.
Finally, it's very clear that Hamas actively wants to kill Israeli civilians. Israel's behavior is not beyond reproach but they aren't going through Palestinian towns and shooting old people and children.
While I agree that Hamas has made it very clear that they are explicitly targeting Israeli civilians, which is an obvious war crime and abhorrent, I see no proof whatsoever that the Israeli military isn't doing the same. The scale of destruction and murder in the current incursion speaks for itself. Sure, they don't intend to literally murder all of Gaza's population. But it's very hard to believe that they don't intend to kill some specific number.
They have already killed more civilians in Gaza than Russia killed in the first months in Ukraine.
Israel is willing to kill a lot of civilians in order to destroy Hamas. But I've seen no evidence that Israel wants to kill civilians. Individual Israelis, sure, but as a policy? No, it would be counterproductive.
Sure, we can't know for sure what the intentions were, what legitimate targets may have been there or not etc.
All we can say for sure is that they have killed a huge number of civilians, so it's illogical to assume that this could not have been at least part of their intention.
Given that, do you deny possibility that some residential infrastructure targeted by Israel including that hospital could have been used militarily by Hamas as they have done in the past?
In principle, no. However, the IDF has failed to provide convincing evidence in many cases, especially in the case of the Al Shifa hospital. Doubly so when their most spectacular piece of evidence - the tunnel found underneath the hospital - was casually revealed by Ehud Barak in a CNN interview to have been an old Israeli construction from the time of the military occupation (taking Christiane Amanpour aback live on air) [0].
Do I think that some of the apparently civilian infrastructure they destroyed was legitimate targets? Yes, absolutely. But given the scale of the destruction and the scantness of evidence, I do not at all believe that all of it was.
[0] https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/11/20/exp-amanpour...
Consider that releasing information jeopardizes its source, both in the physical sense (a person giving information will be executed), and in the intelligence sense - the source will go dead and Israel will have worse intelligence.
That's why Israel can't release information for each and every single target. For Al-Shifa, ample evidence was produced. Whether or not it is convincing is subjective, and your opinion is not more valuable than mine or the IDF's.
The only way to get an objective judgement of the legitimacy of a given attack is to have a neutral third party actively collect intelligence and present their findings, but that's not going to happen.
Why ask civilians to leave before bombing if they wanted to kill them all? Why ask them to move to a different location?
Do you have any clue how difficult it is when the enemy is not wearing a military uniform? Either they have to use intel (which could be wrong) or wait until they are fired upon before engaging.
Stop acting like they are purposely killing civilians when the enemy is blending right in.
Obviously, to maintain plausible deniability. Note that there was nothing organized in the South where they were asking those civilians to evacuate to. And they have also bombed the southern side occasionally after evacuating all those people there.
Not to mention, they have killed plenty of obvious non-combatants, such as journalists, children, doctors and others. They have bombed hospitals under flimsy pretenses, and have leveled entire neighborhoods. By their own (certainly highly biased count) they have killed two civilians for every one enemy combatant - a huge margin.
We can also compare these nukbers to other similar wars in the region. In the Iraq War, it seems the direct civilian casualties were in the order of 200,000 people in three years - most of these killed by coalition forces, with significant chunks killed by increased criminality and by Iraqi forces. In Afghanistan, where there was an even less well defined combatant, the total civilian death count is around 200,000 people in 20 years of conflict. Israel has killed on the order of 20,000 people in less than two months - going by IDF estimates, this would be ~13, 000 civilians. Extrapolate this to 36 months or to twenty years to compare.
Extrapolating like that is a great way to achieve amazing numbers with little relation to reality: wars don't keep up the pressure throughout their duration.
For example: The latest number I've seen was 857 civilians murdered by Hamas on Oct 7. That would be 26500 dead civilians per month, but of course that number exaggerates an already horrible situation into ridiculous heights.
I dont think that "Zionist entity" sounds worse than "Zionist Experiment" TBH.
Ask yourself, why not simply call "Zionist Entity" or "Zionist Experiment" Israel?
Its simple - the word "Zionist" has been hijacked by anti-Israel movement to mean "Jewish".
To the rest of us, modern-day Zionism means "Israel has the right to exist"
It's a difficult situation, but I doubt the answer would be to shoot the guy and two babies, which is analogous to Israel's response, if you believe their claim that 1/3 of the people they've killed were Hamas.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-mini...
not unreasonable if they are pointing the gun at you and your baby. How many children would you kill to save your child? would you just give it up to die?
2. Maybe, Netanyahu not sending Hamas hundreds of millions of dollars to begin with would have been better
3. The "human shields" argument got old the moment it came out that half the buildings in Gaza were destroyed, more homes than Hamas fighters
There's no moral high ground here unless you can find a way to dehumanize Palestinians. And that's unacceptable.
I’ve felt that as well, and I would add that even if you feel every action is justified I am skeptical that it’s not counterproductive. Each civilian killed by mistake has family, friends, and neighbors who might be inclined to avenge them and it’s hard for me to see how this doesn’t end up giving Hamas more recruits than they’re losing.
I especially liked this FP piece where the author mentioned that the big driver they saw for terrorism was loss of land. That’s forced so much conflict and it seems likely to keep this raging for years to come.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/israels-failed-bombing...
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/04/world/middleeast/to-shape...
Most people are conformists.
>Only around a quarter of Palestinians approved of Hamas before the war.
But a lot more approved of violence and terrorism, and they did prefer Hamas over alternatives (that's why no election for 17 years - because everyone knew Hamas would win).
Basically, there's nothing Israel can do that will compare with the main driver in Gaza: Hamas control of media and education or ability to just conscript. If there was nothing Hamas could use as propaganda, they'd just invent something. You can't compare the ability to recruit of a terror organization to that of pseduo-state. The state will always win. The state has a tax base, police, media, ways to make one conform. The terror org always needs to compete with the local power and that makes it way more difficult.
That makes no sense: why prevent an election you’re going to win? Palestinians don’t like the way Israel treats them, with no small amount of past incidents to base that on, but that doesn’t mean that Hamas is the only option.
> Basically, there's nothing Israel can do that will compare with the main driver in Gaza: Hamas control of media and education or ability to just conscript
This is just propaganda designed to absolve the Israeli right-wing of decades of bad decisions. If the Israeli government had done anything to help Palestinians have viable jobs or elections, for example, then the Hamas leaders would have had to justify their positions rather than blaming all of their problems on Israel. The underlying problem is that Netanyahu liked having Hamas as a justification for why they couldn’t allow Palestinians to have a state, and as a bogeyman to point to any time they needed political support.
https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/netanyahu-money-...
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up...
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-q...
Because it is Abbas (PA President) who decides when there are elections and he was always going to lose badly?
> If the Israeli government had done anything to help Palestinians have viable jobs or elections, for example, then the Hamas leaders would have had to justify their positions rather than blaming all of their problems on Israel.
This doesn't answer to my argument, that Hamas has quasi-state resources, and no outside radicalization could compete with the radicalization they can create by simply controlling education.
Anyway, your argument is that it's Israel's job to manage the country next door. That would make sense only in a non-two-state reality where Israel is legally responsible and controls the relevant areas. You can't run elections in areas you don't control. But Israel hasn't controlled the Strip since 2005...
> The underlying problem is that Netanyahu liked having Hamas as a justification for why they couldn’t allow Palestinians to have a state, and as a bogeyman...
Partially true. But consider the alternative was to wage a war like this one. For this reason, nearly all of the Israeli Left supported the same policy... How many people would have supported this war without radical Hamas aggressive to begin it?
Israel had military and, far more critically, economic control. They could at any time have worked towards a two party system or one of the other proposals - except that the people in power were committed to not doing that.
Just as Israel can’t solve this unilaterally, neither can anyone in Palestine. The Israeli right chose to prop Hamas up for years, but they could have tried to work with anyone else. What we’re seeing right now is what happens when two groups of corrupt hardliners see a profit in preventing compromise.
I don't understand what are you suggesting given that Israel didn't control the Strip (no military control), and that Hamas doesn't care for the economy?
>The Israeli right chose to prop Hamas up for years
True, but again remember the alternative was having a war like this one. Granted, cheaper than this one since Hamas was less powerful, but still a lot more deaths compared to what was the norm.
The Gaza Strip has been under blockade for decades and the West Bank for half a century. There are border crossings with Egypt and Jordan, but those require Israeli approval. Palestinian workers are excluded from most of the economy except where they provide cheap labor to Israeli businesses. Meanwhile, Israeli settlers have illegally taken Palestinian farmland and, in conjunction with the military, sabotaged Palestinian farms’ water supplies and done things like chop down orchards which take decades to recover.
> True, but again remember the alternative was having a war like this one.
Or making peace, supporting more democratic groups in Palestine, etc. Again, my point isn't that Israel is the only bad actor here but rather that the path they've chosen seems almost designed to ensure conflict continues by removing so many of the options for the average Palestinian and giving them as many reasons to hate Israel as possible. Every night-time raid, every person abducted off the street and mistreated, every business destroyed builds a grudge. Every opportunity to build personal accomplishments or wealth removed ensure that those grudges are likely to lead to a violent outcome or support for people who are doing that violence. I don't think war is inevitable in general but I don't see any way this trajectory doesn't lead to more of it.
Both Japan and Germany have been pretty well behaved since the Allies ground them to the dust during WW2 - why do you think it couldn't work here?
I would highly recommend reading the FP article I linked. The author has researched this for years and one of the things which has made this so depressing for me is more cogently discussed in their work about what causes people to resort to violence. Japan and Germany had their share of angry losers, but they also had productive opportunities for most people – the U.S. wasn’t taking their land for American settlers and crowding them onto reservations. If you’re a Palestinian teenager aware of the outside world but resigned to a life of subsistence farming or living on foreign aid, and then someone destroys your family’s farm and says that the land they stole is theirs now, violence is going to look more reasonable because pretty much everything else has been removed. That’s completely unlike WWII, or even Vietnam, and I don’t think we’ll see anything good come from it.
Now, imagine some fantasy where Israel leaves occupied Palestine to a UN peacekeeping mission or, say, the United States gives a big chunk of BLM land to anyone who wants to emigrate (not saying this is politically possible, just for the sake of argument). You’re that same Palestinian teenager who’s been shat on your entire life but now you have the option of likely being killed fighting on behalf of people you couldn’t vote for and clearly don’t care about you … or you could do literally anything else with your life and have a much better chance of living to age 30. Having options is hugely transformative and I think any path out of this has to involve finding one.
For people who don't know, especially non-Americans, "BLM land" refers to unoccupied rural, wild land mainly in the western US states that's owned and managed by the federal government's Bureau of Land Management. It has nothing to do with the Black Lives Matter movement.
The grinding into dust was a small part of the reason for the successful outcome
The main victor in WWII poured vast resources into rebuilding the economies of Germany and Japan, ensured their viability as nation states, fostered democracy and encouraged the creation of an environment fostering equality, cooperation and growth. This all ensured residual bitterness was overcome relatively quickly.
Israel so far has done very much the opposite to the Palestinians. The prospects for long term peace look grim without a more magnanimous victor.
The West Bank is every year more decimated by settlements with Palestinians forced into tighter and tighter enclaves. This is not a recipe for long term peace
Palestine has already received much, much, much more aid - in inflation adjusted dollars per capita, than Germany ever did - the only missing ingredient is destroying the terrorists and their supporters that run the country and then controlling, with absolute power, what that money is spent on - only then will things change for the better for both Israel and the Palestinians.
Two infitadas crushed, Arafat long dead, a supine administration facilitates Israeli military occupation, Israeli settlers continue to pour in, expropriation and colonisation continue, the Israeli army dominates a territory where things only change for the worse for Palestinians.
In the West Bank "destroying the terrorists and their supporters that run the country" had lead to settlers and the army forcing Palestinians into every smaller enclaves making a Palestinian state increasingly unviable.
So no. Please do not claim that "grinding them into the dust" is going to lead to a better future for Palestinians. It is leading to colonisation and oppression.
Did lots of non-combatants die? without a doubt. Is it sad? also without a doubt.
Were all the generations after that allowed to grow up and live in relative peace and prosperity because of that? Yes they were.
The reason things keep getting worse for the Palestinian's is because they insist on squandering any aid they get on buying more and more weapons - very little of that makes it to the 'women and children'. Until that cycle is stopped, nothing will change.
Hamas is perfectly willing to use their own women and children as human shields - those terrorists need to be killed with extreme prejudice, which will include a lot of collateral damage - until that happens, there will be no peace for anyone.
The difference is that the USA did not expropriate and colonise the majority of their territory and reduce them to servile status, which is what is happening in the West Bank. Instead it ensured a viable homeland and democracy. Neither of which are happening in the West Bank.
The long term trajectory there is towards reduction of Palestinians to second class status, the inverse of what happened in Japan and Germany.
> those terrorists need to be killed with extreme prejudice, which will include a lot of collateral damage - until that happens, there will be no peace for anyone.
I agree that Hamas are disgusting and should be stopped.
Equally, Israeli colonisation needs to be stopped and until that happens, there will be no peace for anyone.
I am not so sure about that.
I don't recall a bunch of anti-British terrorist Germans out for revenge for Dresden after WWII.
Nor have there been a bunch of anti-American terrorist Japanese out for revenge for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Even in the US, there really isn't a terrorist movement among indigenous people for revenge for the atrocities perpetrated on them by the United States (Wounded Knee being only one of many).
I think revenge can be a factor in radicalizing, but I think it has to be tied to some hope of advancing a goal beyond revenge for it to pick up steam.
Basically, I think it comes down to options. After WWII, the average person in Germany or Japan wasn’t forced out of their home and livelihood, and the Marshall plan was quite effective at giving people peaceful options to be proud of. What I’m not seeing now is how Palestinians get something similar, and if you push people into a corner even non-violent people will conclude they have no alternative.
Allied bombing of Japan in WWII destroyed upwards of 3.4 million homes and rendered the areas unlivable for a period of time.
My argument is that Israel needs to figure out how to get to that level for Palestine: if you want peace, you want people to have prosperous farms and businesses to focus their energies on and confidence that if they do so those won't be taken away or destroyed.
Again, my point was that while those countries didn’t have it great, they had peace after brutal wartime conditions and the prospect of rebuilding. Yes, having to flee would be unpleasant but they ended up in another part of their country where they were unquestionably welcome, spoke the language, and were able to participate in the government (which certainly hadn’t been the case for the previous decade for anyone who wasn’t a committed Nazi), and then the victors were rather generous in helping them rebuild.
1: Define all males killed or captured as combatants and thus valid military target.
2: Either redefine torture or outsource it.
3: Define every military operation as critical to counter terrorism and part of self defense.
The media response back then was that this is just normal part of the horrors of war, and that this kind of reporting "don't tell us much that we didn't already know in broad outline".
That said, we seem to be entering a new world order where international law means nothing at all.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticking_time_bomb_scenario>
It would be interesting to see how well the abusive and transgressive approach fares against one that's far more sympathetic to the interrogatee. U.S. experience from the Iraq war was that soft-touch interrogations were far more effective.
This past November, U.S. Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, the dean of the United States Military Academy at West Point, flew to Southern California to meet with the creative team behind “24.” Finnegan, who was accompanied by three of the most experienced military and F.B.I. interrogators in the country, arrived on the set as the crew was filming.... Finnegan and the others had come to voice their concern that the show’s central political premise—that the letter of American law must be sacrificed for the country’s security—was having a toxic effect. In their view, the show promoted unethical and illegal behavior and had adversely affected the training and performance of real American soldiers. “I’d like them to stop,” Finnegan said of the show’s producers. “They should do a show where torture backfires.”
<https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/02/19/whatever-it-ta...>
(There are other instances of F.B.I. and military interrogators reporting both that testimony obtained under torture is either misleading or no more accurate, useful, or timely than that obtained under sympathetic treatment. I believe there was a Fresh Air Interview following 9/11 / the 2nd US-Iraq War though I've yet to locate it. There's a searchable archive for anyone with stronger search-fu here: <https://freshairarchive.org/>. Specifically matching "interrogation": <https://freshairarchive.org/search?keyword=interrogation>.)
the aggression is still happening, Hamas is still launching rockets into Israel, so I'd personally say this is Israel defending itself
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_...
> From 2004 to 2014, these attacks have killed 27 Israeli civilians, 5 foreign nationals, 5 IDF soldiers, and at least 11 Palestinians[11] and injured more than 1900 people.[12] Their main effect is their creation of widespread psychological trauma and disruption of daily life among the Israeli populace.
Please at least try to stay true to the facts, even if you are not willing to steelman the other's arguments.
I've wrote what is in Overview section in the article. Which is "The rockets have killed 28 people and injured hundreds more."
> Please at least try to stay true to the facts, even if you are not willing to steelman the other's arguments.
Please don't imply intentions that were not mine. When I skimmed the article, I literally didn't see the information you mentioned. What would even be the point of that "selective reading"? Are we discussing a difference of 10-20 people against a figure of 17,000? This doesn't make sense.
What you are trying to say to me is basically that Israel is to blame for being good at defending its citizens (so only 28 of them were killed). What if Israel didn't have the Iron Dome? How many people would have been killed then due to all the missile firing? Think about it.
The intent here is what matters. Hamas obviously has the intent to obliterate not just Israel as a state, but to kill its people, the civilians. It has been trying hard to do that for all these years! Imagine if Hamas were as powerful as Israel in terms of military power, how many people would have died?
P.S. Another argument that I don't get is "but surely Hamas has good reasons to commit terrorism and genocide!". Yeah, and Hitler surely also had his good reasons to mass exterminate Jews.
This is a bit disingenuous. Hamas has more reasons to fight against Israel than Hitler had to kill Jews.
I don't think those reasons justify what they did, nor do I think violent resistance is the correct or moral path for Palestinians. But it's still far more justified than what Hitler did, relatively speaking.
I'm guessing we disagree on who is responsible for those deaths.
If a country attacks me and I counterattack to make sure you can't attack me anymore, you remain at blame.
There are details, like deliberate civilian attacks vs collateral, but at the end of the day, the duty of a country is to protect it's own citizens, and not the citizens of the aggressor.
That doesn't justify attacks on innocent civilians in Israel, and those attacks don't justify attacks on innocent civilians in Gaza.
honestly since the iron dome we are kind of "fine" with the occasional rocket (on a personal but also to some extent on a political level)
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intifada [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Intifada
Additionally, around 30% of those rockets land in Gaza.
if a terrorist hid in an appartement building, and the police came, start killing all the inhabitants of the building and destroyed the building, in order to stop that terrorist, would you be wondering if that response is legitimate defense? I don't think so.
Wars don't end when one side gets yelled at. They either end with diplomacy or victory.
Pray tell, imagine yourself as a 10 year old Palestinian kid who lost half of his family, his house and several friends to Israeli military action. What are the odds that you are willing to die in order to harm Israel in any way, shape or form?
Again, this is the best scenario for Hamas. Their leaders are literally not even in Palestine, Israel could decimate the population thrice and chances are that the amount of terrorists would increase.
Gaza is the agressor.
>How could the millions of innocent civilians that Israel is displacing, destroying all their houses and belongings and killing (and maybe torturing as described in this article), be considered in any way as aggressor?
Because they are launching rockets and hostage raids against Israel?
>if a terrorist hid in an appartement building, and the police came, start killing all the inhabitants of the building and destroyed the building, in order to stop that terrorist, would you be wondering if that response is legitimate defense? I don't think so.
How is that in any way related to the situation in Gaza? Hamas aren't random terrorists, they're the government, they control the whole territory, they get paid taxes, they have bases all over Gaza.
This is war.
Sure, if you completely ignore any previous history and the fact that Israel was created by stealing Palestinians’ land
From the other side, you could say Palestinians have never stopped defending themselves
This is not war, this is a brutal genocidal occupation that started many years ago and that Israel is trying to “complete” now by forcefully displacing all Palestinians
The end goal seems to be to occupy as much of “ancestral Israel” as possible
"Palestinians have never stopped defending themselves." Do you mean when they explode suicide vests and shoot rockets at cities? Is that what you call defending themselves?
"genocidal occupation..." I find it hilarious that people can say a population with some of the highest growth on the planet is at the same time suffering a genocide.
"The end goal seems to be to occupy as much of “ancestral Israel” as possible." Explain how forcing your citizens to leave Gaza in 2005 fits into this master plan.
Please explain how the 2023 and the 2005 governments are the same
And also please explain why the definition of genocide has absolutely no references to population size or growth, yet you keep bringing it up to justify what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people
"Stealing land" is a very one-sided war to look at it. The legalities and mortality of land captured in self defence are debatable to some extent, but clearly not theft. Pre 1948 there was never a Palestinian state (no Palestinian government, currency, army).
2005 disengagement was a more right-wing government. Interestingly, the real peace actions in Israel tend to be achieved by the right wing government.
But if by your argument every Israeli government is somehow a separate state entity, why did the terrorist attacks continue non stop through right wing and left wing Israeli governments?
War is not genocide. Using overly emotive terms does not make your argument stronger.
Why does it need to be some other state there to be theft?
If some lobbied politicians voted to establish a state that takes over your house and farm, would you just consider it ok? Because they voted for it? So then it’s not theft?
If then the people that take over your non-state land, start taking over your neighbors’ land, sometimes even killing them, that’s also not theft? Because the UN voted for it?
Also, Israel keeps doing it. Even right now, illegal settlement activity in the West Bank (as well as violence) are ongoing and increasing. Do you not consider that theft either?
Not sure what you mean about the Israeli government
What’s going on now is clearly not a war but genocide. The historical context, the literal intent expressed by Israeli political and military leadership, as well as the insane slaughter and destruction executed by Israel both in Gaza and the West Bank, all together very clearly fit both the dictionary and legal definitions of genocide
You think denying that makes Israel’s horrendous actions any better?
What weasel way to say killing and displacing the Palestinian to steal their land
On top of that, regardless of whatever history, it’s something that is happening right now. Everyday settlers are forcing Palestinians out of their homes, farms and land in the West Bank
Or are you saying Palestinians in the West Bank are also just “fleeing either from fear or through encouragement”?
Example: Israeli settlers killing Palestinians in the West Bank and stealing their homes and lands.
Obviously when you do that for over 75 years, people will fight back.
> What is the legal definition of genocide?
> The definition contained in Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part
Note that it only requires intent, it doesn’t require the population to be completely annihilated
Seems like you’d just wait until all Palestinians are dead and only then be like “oh well, now we can call it a genocide”
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2023/10/ha...
Genocide, which is the intent and actions to destroy an entire people, is never justified, because it presupposes you'll target and kill many civilians to achieve it.
Strong disagree there. There's always a tradeoff, and where that boundary lies is never going to be fixed. There will always be "acceptable losses" in warfare, to do otherwise is to essentially surrender.
Moreover, Israel has taken actions to reduce civilian losses in the form of evacuations, roof knocks and the like. Conversely Hamas is well known to use civilian areas for military purposes. And this doesn't even consider hostage treatment.
If we talk about minimizing harm, then Hamas is doing the opposite, and thus is a greater moral failure
Regarding Israel's efforts to minimize civilian casualties, such as evacuations and roof knocks, these measures, while notable, do not always prevent significant civilian harm. The dense population and small geographical size of Gaza, for instance, make it nearly impossible for civilians to find safe refuge during conflicts. Moreover, international law obligates all parties in a conflict to avoid civilian areas for military operations, and this applies to both Israel and Hamas. The use of civilian areas by Hamas for military purposes is indeed condemnable; however, it doesn't justify the scale of response that results in extensive civilian casualties and infrastructure damage.
The humanitarian impact on the Palestinian population extends beyond immediate casualties. The long-term effects of the blockade on Gaza, restrictions on movement, and economic hardships cannot be overlooked. These factors contribute to a broader context of suffering and human rights issues.
In discussing moral failings, it's essential to recognize the complexities and nuances of this conflict. The focus should be on seeking solutions that prioritize the protection of all civilians, uphold human rights, and work towards a just and sustainable peace for both Israelis and Palestinians. The sanctity of human life must be the cornerstone of any military strategy, and efforts towards peace must include addressing the root causes of the conflict, ensuring accountability, and respecting international laws and human rights for all parties involved.
While I generally agree with the sentiment here, it's one of those where the tradeoff is in Israel's lives, versus those of Palestinians under Hamas rule. We could argue about the ratios here, but at the end of the day, I do believe that it's perfectly reasonable for a country to prioritize it's own losses, over those of an enemy nation's. When it crosses the line is largely a matter of opinion, rather than any rigorous principle.
Of particular note,
> Moreover, international law obligates all parties in a conflict to avoid civilian areas for military operations, and this applies to both Israel and Hamas.
This has a specific carve out for the exact case which you speak of. If the civilian area is used for military operations then, by international law, it's now a permitted target. The reason is obvious: To do otherwise would make civilian areas a shield and encourage further use of them for military use. As long as Hamas continues to use them as such, they will continue to, by international law, be legitimate targets. (there are other catches, and it doesn't mean one man with a gun in a hospital means you can blow the whole thing up.)
As for the bit on morality, that was largely in response to the implication that the moral failings were largely Israel's. In the end, this is war, and there are often few "good guys" in war. But while morality is largely the domain of the victor, the rules are not nearly as directly set. From what I've seen, Israel appears to be far more in line with the rules of war than Hamas. That Hamas has not managed to achieve high civilian kill counts is not for lack of trying, but instead for lack of ability. Their "lower impact" should not be taken as any form of moral high ground.
And that’s exactly what Israel is doing to Palestinians
Many government officials, including Netanyahu, have openly made genocidal statements, like calling Palestinians Amalek, calling them sub-human/animals, saying there are no innocent civilians in Gaza and calling for leveling the place, not to mention the thousands of bombs dropped, the insane number of civilians killed and civilian infrastructure destroyed
Seems like some people will wait until all Palestinians are killed and then say, oh I guess it was genocide
Maybe Israel doesn’t want to directly kill 2+ million people, but they are sure trying to get rid of them. They are: 1) killing and displacing them, 2) making it insanely hard for them to live in Gaza (destroying hospitals, schools, parks, government buildings, etc) and 3) pushing for neighboring countries to take them as refugees
And if Israel get away with it, the West Bank will be next (I mean they are already on it)
> What is the legal definition of genocide?
> The definition contained in Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part
Note that it only requires intent, it doesn’t require the population to be completely annihilated
Lots of current Israel government officials have openly called for the destruction of Gaza, have called Palestinians sub-human/animals, have said there are no innocent civilians in Gaza and even Netanyahu said Palestinians were Amalek, which is whistle blowing for genocide
The intent is pretty clear, in the open, in recorded public speeches and interviews
Hamas is not the government.
This is absolutely not the case. A few other people have written about why your numbered list makes this clear, but I want to take a different tack.
This war is costing Israel a lot. It's costing the lives of soldiers. It's hurting Israel's economy indirectly. It is directly very expensive. It's prolonging an ongoing situation which is very traumatic for many Israelis (rockets shot at them and having to go to bomb shelters).
Most importantly, many Israelis want to see the hostages released, and while there are many good arguments for why this war is helping to achieve that goal, there are many good arguments against the war if the purpose is to return hostages.
Despite all of the above, Israelis are in general very unified in wanting this war to continue until Hamas is destroyed. This includes many right-wing Israelis who may have nationalistic/territorial aspirations, but it also includes almost the entire Israeli left, who dislike the current government and hate Netanyahu and some members of his cabinet.
The reason everyone is willing to pay such a high price, and being for waging a war that is costing so much, is not just revenge. It's because Israelis truly feel, to their core, that Hamas has proven themselves to be an enemy that must be destroyed, otherwise Israelis are just never going to be safe again.
Has there been public debate in Israel wheter:
1. It is realistic to eradicate Hamas. 2. To what extent Israel's operation will sow new hate and resistance among the Palestinians, so that the risk of future attacks increases, whether that be by Hamas or any other resistance group.
2. Yes, there is a bit of talk about "the day after" and how to keep the peace. No one really knows or has good answers here. (I have my answers for what should happen short-term and long-term, but luckily I have no part in this government!)
I agree that Israel are probably being recklessly indifferent to civilian lives and likely committing war crimes, but Hamas explicitly has the genocide of the Jews as their founding principle. For Israel to be safe, Hamas has to go. I can't see any other way this ends, and with the way Hamas embeds themselves within the civilian population, collateral damage is inevitable. Although, to repeat, I do think Israel need to do more to minimise it.
The point is to remove Hamas from a position of power. If that happens with fewer casualties, do they then continue war and kill a few more just to be "proportionate"? That makes no sense.
Also regard 2, if you genuinely feel your cause is just, the result you want is unconditional surrender.
Proportionality is a maximum limitation in just war theory, not a measure of minimum acceptable violence. (The same is generally true in more personal law when proportionality is a component of self-defense provisions.)
> Also regard 2, if you genuinely feel your cause is just, the result you want is unconditional surrender.
No, you want a resolution with acceptable conditions which align with your cause: unconditional surrender necessarily achieves that, but it is by no means generally necessary.
You can follow along with the missile alerts at https://www.oref.org.il//12481-en/Pakar.aspx (VPN to Israel required).
The alerts aren't as overwhelming as in October and November, but still happen with regularity.
2. This formulation is mind-reading. I recall the more correct formulation is asking what the "reasonable person" would do. Or in this case the 'reasonable state'. It's probably impossible to define a reasonable state without sneaking in our preferences. But if we look at the past record of democracies, they were very aggressive in similar situations.
3. There are reams of papers on proportionality with never any clear conclusion, because the definition was intentionally made to be subjective. The better options are to look at other states are doing (a lot more dead in the campaign against ISIS) or to compare the likely futures given each course of action and see where less people are killed:
There's no peace with Hamas, and they won't let themselves be unelected peacefully. So at best we can expect having another war. We need to compare the future of continuing this war, to the future of stopping and having another one a bit later. I can see a lot of scenarios where the future war is bigger and more destructive compared to this one (the future war would have to retake areas cleared in this one; Hamas could take over the West Bank in the meantime, or manage to drag Hezbollah into the war next time).
"I do not believe that anything I say about what is happening in Gaza will affect Israeli or American policy in that conflict. But I want to be on record so that when historians look back on this moral calamity, they will see that some Americans were on the right side of history.
What Israel is doing in Gaza to the Palestinian civilian population – with the support of the Biden administration – is a crime against humanity that serves no meaningful military purpose. As J-Street, an important organization in the Israel lobby, puts it, “The scope of the unfolding humanitarian disaster and civilian casualties is nearly unfathomable.”
Let me elaborate [...]"
source: https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/death-and-destruction-in-...
Israel’s response is disproportionately aggressive as they’re dropping air bombs on civilian infrastructure and putting a blockade on basics like food, medicine, water.
That being said at an international level, it’s an anarchy. If Israel wants to commit genocide and wipe Gaza and Westbank off the map, they likely have the power to do so.
At this point, they are seeking pent up revenge and likely no longer see Palestinians on equal footing as humans.
I’m likely generalizing but from what I see in TikTok, it’s pretty gore out there.
Hamas has achieved the goal of bringing the IDF to its level of inhumanness.
As an Israeli, I've had to sprint for a shelter many times in my life because of Hamas rocket fire toward our cities, and if Hamas remains after this, it would continue to happen, and they would continue to funnel all of Gaza's resources into their terrorist activities while the actual people will continue to starve.
"The men and teenage boys were taken to a warehouse where they sat on a bare floor covered in scattered grains of rice. There they were beaten, interrogated and verbally abused. There was no sleep, and the grains of rice cut their skin as they sat there, undressed."
A man claims: "Some people didn’t return from the torture sessions. We would hear their screams and then nothing.”
From what I read, it seems typical of counterinsurgency war. A testimony is no proof but humiliation and torture is commonplace is counterinsurgency wars, whether systematic or an initiative of lower ranking soldiers operating on the ground, so it's not an extraordinary statement. And torture can obviously lead to death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterinsurgency
Now I am going to argue something polemic and I am arguing it in the spirit of discussion. I'd love to read well argued counter-arguments :
However supportive of Israel one may be and how repulsed one should be by Hamas, I'd say that we should not fool ourselves in that the military operation in Gaza is Israel defending itself ("Israel's right to defend itself" is now a commonplace phrase) rather than avenging itself. You may think it is justified in doing so but it still is payback imho.
In my country's law, individual self-defense is defined as such :
1. It has to happen in the same time as the agression
2. Its only purpose is to defend against the agression
3. The defense has to be proportionate
It seems that so 1. is not met since once all the militants having trespassed having been killed, Israel was no more defending itself. and it's hard to believe that the civilian collateral damage is just defending either. I'd say the third criteria is met in so far as Hamas has rockets and automatic weapons.
Is that an unreasonable take ?