Israel is eliminating far more than the "offending group" and they're doing it in a cold blooded, inhumane manner. That's why it's not "self defense". It's shameful.

This is factually incorrect, and even if it were true it's not exactly a great example for you to rest your case on.

> the IDF is actually doing far better than any other army in protecting civilians

According to who, Israel? Not according to the thousands of women and children they've murdered. Who likely far outnumber the number of militants they've killed.

Wasn’t sure who you were talking about there. Still not.

"Attacks began in 2001. Since then (August 2014 data), almost 20,000 rockets have hit southern Israel,[35][36] all but a few thousand of them since Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in August 2005."

...

"Some analysts see the attacks as a shift away from reliance on suicide bombing, which was previously Hamas's main method of attacking Israel, as an adoption of the rocket tactics used by the Lebanese group Hezbollah."

But we're going way back, during this ongoing war: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/10/7/live-hezbo...

"Updates: Hamas, Hezbollah fire rockets at Israel on October 7 anniversary"

I hope the answer to that last question includes those joining Hamas because of the first couple hundred thousands of Gazans killed.

What Israel's critics will add to that is that Israel has no right to self defense because it was occupying Gaza before the Oct 7th attack.

They'll also downplay the Oct 7th attack, claim Israelis killed their own, there was no sexual violence etc.

Then they'll look at the number of casualties as another proof. It's not "proportional". Israel is only allowed to kill a certain number of people in its wars. Otherwise it's clearly not self defense. But only for Israel, for other countries, still self defense.

People see bodies, children, on their social media feeds and destruction and that makes it very clear who the good guys and who the bad guys are.

Israel can't win this argument. Don't look for logic. Days after the Oct 7th attack Israel was already accused of genocide. Nothing Israel can do here is right and the actions western countries have taken (e.g. US post 9/11 or western response to ISIS) are not available to Israel because Israel shouldn't even exist and therefore should definitely not be allowed to defend itself (vs. the Americans and the Canadians who have lived on their land for 10,000 years and definitely didn't just steal it from the natives and kill all of them).

The only thing Israel can win is the actual war on the ground and so the leadership of Israel, while making many mistakes, is determined to win the war on the ground. Not all Israelis agree with that either. Personally I don't know if any other options really exist.

All that said, you can't really argue with the fact the population of Gaza is suffering immensely, many of them have lost everything they've had, many killed and injured, they live in terrible conditions. I mostly blame Hamas. I also blame the west for prolonging this war and not offering any reasonable solutions to Israel. Israel has faults and can and should do better but for the most part its hand is forced and has been forced by Palestinian violence/actions for some time. Maybe Gaza should have been taken immediately after Hamas took over in 2007. Maybe there would have been other courses of actions including post Oct 7. I donno. Oct 7th stunned me, it was an utter failure. Not really seeing anything proposed here at this point in time and don't recall seeing anything productive going back.

So all in all it's terrible. There's human suffering. We need to end it. The only way out I see is for Hamas to surrender. Let's get there and then we can debate what words mean, two states, one state, where do we go from here. This was is not going to end e.g. by the US telling Israel to end it.

With pressure on Hamas to surrender after being defeated in a war they started, this conflict would probably be over long ago.

However it still has considerable weaponry and underground facilities and it is still holding Israeli hostages. The issue isn't Hamas tomorrow. The issue is the consequence of letting Hamas retake the entire Gaza strip and rebuild itself, and the loss of deterrence when Hamas is going to declare they won the war once it ends on their terms.

I can relate to your point though and many people would agree with you. Let's stop killing people and see where this takes us is not an unreasonable position. But Israel is still in PTSD from Oct 7th and the mood is that it can't afford to take a chance here and that any stop/pause will just result in a higher price for Israelis and Palestinians paid a little down the line. The truly totally "unreasonable" side here is Hamas and I see how you can't understand their calculus because it is so death-cult fanatical.

The oppression is the biggest reason Hamas can grow. If that stopped I think with time Hamas would weaken and disappear. Like IRA in Northen Ireland eventually did.

Wrong. It is only their goal to occupy "everything" because they got attacked and need to secure their borders.

Israel already tried to completely withdraw from Gaza which evidently isn't a feasible solution. And this behavior, which cannot sensibly disputed, would also directly and thoroughly contradict any ambitions for genocide as well for that matter.

Israel has to leave the west bank eventually and what they do is wrong. But it is only tangentially related to the current war in Gaza.

I’m sure it’s not a sign of bias how often, eg, the UN writes reports on Israel versus murdered Christians in Africa.

I think a lot would have been won if the illegal settlements stopped and the apartheid like system ended. Hamas (and any other resistance) lives on the resentment created from that.

It think if Israel went back to the border of -67 and then did not try to expand its territories. It would with time resolve.

I can’t remember, was that the third or fourth time in 20 years that all of Israel’s neighbors simultaneously invaded it and lost territory? It’s hard to keep track with all of the wars of aggression against Israel that Israel won and gained territory from.

What would happen is exactly what did happen. Hamas would take over the entire territory. Arm to the teeth. Dig tunnels. And launch endless attacks against Israel.

I'm not a fan of the settlements but they are not the issue. The issue is Jewish presence in the middle east. When there were no settlements Israel was attacked. Pre-1967 it was still attacked. Pre-1948 Jews were still attacked. I don't think there should be any settlements and I would support dismantling them. I also condemn the settler violence against Palestinians. But again, this isn't really the issue, this is an outcome. Israel should have either annexed the west bank and given citizenship to all Palestinians or not allowed Israeli civilians to live there.

Tell me how the Jewish people murdered German civilians, broadcasted that to the world, committed hundreds of suicide bombing attacks in German cafes, supermarkets, malls and theaters, and fired 20,000 rockets at major German cities. Just so I can complete your analogy in my head. Also explain to me how what Israel is doing in Gaza to Palestinians is in any way comparable to the Nazis murdering six million Jews by rounding them up, loading them on trains to concentration camps, and then packing them in gas chambers. How does this compare with Israel targeting Hamas combatants, evacuating civilians population, and providing them with aid?

It's the mass murder of civilians part they have in common. Sure they haven't hit the million mark yet but they're getting there.

> Nazis murdering six million Jews by rounding them up, loading them on trains to concentration camps, and then packing them in gas chambers. How does this compare with Israel targeting Hamas combatants, evacuating civilians population, and providing them with aid

Somewhat similar if your look at the effect on innocent civilians. The Israelis are accused of starving them, blocking aid (and even targeting aid workers), and other crimes.

There is no such defence against a charge of genocide.

The lawyers who wrote the international treaty, many of whom themselves survived the Holocaust and lost their relatives in it, carefully considered whether to add such a defence. They did not add it. They considered that genocide is a crime for which there is no excuse. That is should be possible to defend yourself without resorting to it.

In any case, the group at issue is not Hamas. The genocide is being conducted against all Palestinians.

Your argument also conveniently omits the extreme level of military dominance which Israel has over the Palestinians.

The real reason many Israelis cannot conceive of a solution other than killing or expelling them, is: how can we leave them there, after the level of hatred, murder, violence, and abuse we have heaped on them over the last two years? We have taken revenge for our 36 dead children, won't they want revenge for their 20,000?

- hamas refuses to disarm

- nobody wants to be part of international force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Shani_Louk

EDIT: More likely Naama Levy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Naama_Levy