Such weird framing.

Netanyahu is not supported by all israelis, no question. But israeli isn’t a dictatorship - the actions of the state have been varying degrees of genocide and ethnic cleansing for 75+ years, and pinning that all on one man is bonkers. Do you also consider the war in Iraq a war between Bush and the Ba’ath?

Calling what I said “one siding” is similarly bonkers. My point is just to be consistent with the actions of both sides: israel had hostages before oct 7th - if hamas hostages are justification for mass murder of palestinian civilians, then israeli hostages before oct 7th justify the oct 7th attacks. To say otherwise is to one-side the situation.

To be clear: i don’t believe that hostages justify killing civilians. Doesn’t matter who’s hostages they are.

> i don’t believe that hostages justify killing civilians

It is, however, casus belli. And I don’t know how one fights a guerilla force without significant collateral damage.(This order, to be clear, wouldn’t count as collateral damage if accurately presented.)

“casus belli” is the stated reason to go to war. It says nothing about if those reasons are moral. Hamas had casus belli. The US has casus belli when bush invaded iraq based on lies about WMD. Hell, russia has it in ukraine (something something nato).

If you cannot conduct war against a guerilla force without murdering hundreds of thousands, destroying every piece of peaceful infrastructure, and blockading aid - then the truth is it’s wrong to conduct that war.

Casus belli incorporates legitimacy of war. Hamas had it, Israel had it. America did not in Iraq; Russia doesn’t in Ukraine.

> If you cannot conduct war against a guerilla force without murdering hundreds of thousands, destroying every piece of peaceful infrastructure, and blockading aid - then the truth is it’s wrong to conduct that war

If that force is conducting operations in your borders and against your citizens it’s no longer that clear cut. (This goes both ways in this case.)

Both Hamas and Israel have grounds for war. Both of them have conducted it badly. But in both cases, it’s not easy to see how they could have managed it that much better. (Well, actually, for Palestine it is. They should be suing for peace and handing over their hostages. Neither side looks smart when it takes innocent hostages.)

> Casus belli incorporates legitimacy of war. Hamas had it, Israel had it. America did not in Iraq; Russia doesn’t in Ukraine.

These are your opinions. They have no legitimacy except in the eyes of people who share your opinions.

> If that force is conducting operations in your borders

If you build your borders on other people’s homes, it’s pretty clear cut actually.

It’s not justifying killing civilians. It is justified for Israel to attempt to get their kidnapped citizens back. Hamas could minimize this, but you and I both know that maximizing Palestinian death is their preference.

Leadership on both sides is incentivised to continue the war for domestic purposes.

I agree with that point. However, I don’t believe Netanyahu or the Israeli government glorify the death of their own people.

> I don’t believe Netanyahu or the Israeli government glorify the death of their own people

The indifference shown to the fate of the hostages could have fooled me. But yes, Hamas and PJ treat their civilian population expendably in a way Tel Aviv does not.

It seems like you’re saying the oct 7th attack was entirely justified, as long as one of their goals was to free the Palestinians kept hostage by israel… or that you have two different standards of acceptable conduct for the idf and hamas.