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.
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?