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...
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.)