Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Here's a devils advocate type answer. On balance, I err on the side of Israel rather than Hamas but am not a die hard supporter. I say that because comments below may appear to make me out as such, but I'm just trying to represent the coherent argument for the sake of discussion rather than the strength of my own views per se. For the record I regard the suffering of innocent people in Gaza as grotesque.
Settlements.
The justification for this behaviour is complicated but essentially amounts to the belief that the Geneva conventions were not drafted with Israel's particular dilemma in mind. The Geneva conventions were drafted by European powers for whom the annexing of territory was strategic and imperially motivated rather than existential. Israel does not believe it can have security if a Palestinian state is established in the West Bank. The justification for this being Arab/Egyptian aggression in '48, '56, '63, and '73. Not to mention more recent state sponsored actions by Hezbollah, Hamas et al. A Palestinian state on the West Bank could maintain a standing army on the Israeli border, could invite other Arab nations' armies to base themselves there. Echos of the previous conflicts listed above. This is unconscionable for Israel, one only needs to glance at the map to see how indefensible its position is if a foreign army was amassed on the West Bank. Ignoring settler activity or evicting Palestinians if a single member of their family commits any kind of act against Israel is just a convenient way to achieve the larger goal. The settlers of course are a lot more religiously / ethnically motivated. The government is too but I think realpolitik plays a larger role.
Gaza civilians
The capricious and deliberate targeting of civilians and children with no other goal is of course horrific. Israel of course will maintain that that's not what they're doing, that they are acting on intelligence against Hamas who are using people as human shields. Which is also horrific but is a different type of justification. Everyone of course will have decided in their own minds if they believe what Israel says about its intelligence or whether they believe what Hamas says about their lack of presence in an area.
If we assume for a moment that Israel is being honest about that particular aspect: that they are ok killing innocent people and children if Hamas die too. What's the justification for that? I think their view is that they're dealing with a problem that no Western country has to deal with. Britain has seen maybe a hundred deaths over 25 years from about 20 Islamic extremists. The US has seen 3000+ deaths from a similar number. In both cases the number of Islamic extremists are small enough that you could remember their individual names. Israel on the other hand has ~25,000 signed up members of Al Qassam terror brigades on their doorstep. That is a different level of threat all together, by three orders of magnitude. Hamas will not engage with the Israeli military in a standing battle because they would lose. So they are engaging in a guerrilla type strategy where shielding themselves behind civilians is an integral part so they can opportunistically strike out in suicidal attacks. It doesn't happen accidentally, but repeatedly, it's a core part of their strategy. A state needs to decide whether they're ok with Al Qassam brigades existing or killing the civilians they surround themselves with. It's a shitty choice, but it is a choice Israel sees as Hamas' when they choose their mode of fighting. Leaving Hamas free to plot their next maraudering attack on Israeli civilians is unconscionable, so the death of Hamas human shields has to be ok. There isn't another way.
This is a situation so unfamiliar to the West that it is easy to see it as capricious and brutal, horrific and evil. And the death of innocent people are those things, but one has to see the trolley dilemma in full.
America actually has been in this type of situation, only once as far as I'm aware, and it provides a useful insight into how Western countries justify themselves when confronted with the same dilemma. On 9/11, United 93 was identified as under terrorist control and inbound to Washington DC. Fighter jets were dispatched to shoot it down. The deaths of the 40 innocent people on board would obviously be horrific, but one can see the logic that letting a terrorist controlled plane be flown into a densely populated city would be to cause the deaths of hundreds of even thousands.
Was the mission to shoot down United 93 the right one? Was it evil? What if those 40 civilians had been 40 orphans on their way to be placed with foster families? How completely horrific does the situation have to be before it's better to let the terrorists fly they plane into hundreds or thousands of people?
Israel sees itself caught in this kind of dilemma 24/7 with Hamas. Each signed up member has the proven intention to cross the border and maraude around killing grandparents, babies, children. So Israel calculates that, regrettably, it is necessary to kill them and the civilian shield they themselves have created. It is a shitty awful dilemma with evil on both sides, but Israel feels justified holding Hamas to blame for their human shields deaths the same way most of the American public would have blamed Al-Qaeda if the US Air force had managed to shoot down United 93. (The fact that in reality events meant they didn't have to doesn't take away from the logic of what they were prepared to do)
Well written answer. This actually gives me a fantastic chance to argue the pro-Palestinian side for a change, which deserves some nuance of its own that it doesn't get nearly enough of.
I would argue that the realpolitik stance of Netanyahu is grossly outdated. Before the events of Oct 7th, Israel was getting closer and closer to an agreement with Saudi Arabia, indicative of a growing perception that the days of fossil fuel profits running an economy are slowly coming to their end, and the need to transition towards a service sector economy based around tourism, the free flow of business and cultural and technological export. All of these are severely hampered by violence in a way that resource extraction is far less subject to. Because of this shifting economic climate over not just the region, but the whole globe, the days of sudden, large-scale Arab attacks into Israeli territory were growing more and more unlikely. This ultimately makes the wish to secure a greater strategic depth unnecessary.
While that would not remove the chances of terrorism, we can look to the end of The Troubles in Ireland and see that negotiation and autonomy can create a viable path forward for ending local sectarian hostilities. While this would no doubt be a difficult path, requiring significant investment and no small amount of vulnerability from Israel in the short term, it has the potential to secure a lasting peace in a way that bombs simply cannot. If a negotiated peace and independence for the Palestinian people can be achieved, then, further ties with the rest of their Arab neighbors become significantly easier, giving Israel a much better opportunity to rise to a status of acceptance and prominence within the broader Middle East community. This would in turn allow them to exploit the Sunni/Shiite and secular/religious divides within the Islamic world to align themselves with the majority against Iran, and give them much greater security in the long run.
This diplomatic and economic path to security is perhaps barely still possible, if Israel can throw out Netanyahu and change their direction, reversing their pattern of settlement in the West Bank and economically compensating the Palestinians for land already lost. A back-breaking property tax could perhaps be levied on all Israeli citizens living within the West Bank settlements, with the proceeds going to outreach, health and education programs for their neighbors, both Arab and Israeli. This could slowly lead to a sort of economic demilitarized zone, and be the first step towards co-existence.
Well put.
I think the desire for a national identity (Zionism) is fundamentally at odds with peaceful coexistence with neighbouring ethnic groups. Israel is definitely at a major disadvantage here. Most other ethnic groups have a "homeland" out of sheer geo-historical inertia. Though I wouldn't call it a completely unique situation. We see the tensions arise from the protection (or lack thereof) of national identity all over the world to lesser degrees, especially as globalization creeps in.
And I can empathize with groups that feel marginalized because of it. Though I think letting it boil over into violence is definitely a step too far.
Besides, geography as a means of cultural protectionism may be an outdated idea. We can't underestimate the importance of soft power for spreading cultural influence, and being in a state of constant conflict does not further that goal.
In summary, I think Israel's actions are rational at a tactical level, but ultimately fail to address the big picture you lay out.
Really well argued and explained, I hope people read and don't just reflexively downvote.
I won't ascribe these views as yours, but I will argue against them from a pro-palestinian standpoint.
Settlements and Security:
Israel does justify the settlements and military bases in the West Bank in the name of Security. However, the reality of the settlements on-the-ground has been the cause of violent resistance and a significant obstacle to peace, as it has been for decades.
This type of settlement, where the native population gets 'Transferred' to make room for the settlers, is a long standing practice. See: The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948, the Transfer Committee, and the JNF which led to Forced Displacement of 100,000 Palestinians throughout the mandate, before the mass ethnic cleansing campaign of 1948: Plan Dalet, Declassified Massacres of 1948, and Details of Plan C (May 1946) and Plan D (March 1948) . Further, declassified Israeli documents show that the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were deliberately planned before being executed in 1967: Haaretz, Forward; while the peace process was exploited to continue de-facto annexation of the West Bank via Settlements (Oslo Accord Sources: MEE, NYT, Haaretz, AJ). The settlements are maintained through a violent apartheid that routinely employs violence towards Palestinians and denies human rights like water access, civil rights, etc. This kind of control gives rise to violent resistance to the Apartheid occupation, jeopardizing the safety of Israeli civilians.
How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution
‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe
Civilian Deaths and Human Shields:
Israel does deliberately targets civilian areas. From in general with the Dahiya Doctrine to multiple systems deployed in Gaza to do so: ‘A mass assassination factory’: Inside Israel’s calculated bombing of Gaza, Lavender, and Where's Daddy. When it comes to Israeli Soldiers and Civilians, there is also the use of the Hannibal Directive, which was also used on Oct 7th.
Hundreds of Genocide Scholars have described this ethnic cleansing campaign as genocide because of the deliberate targeting of children/civilians and expressed intent by Israeli officials: “A Textbook Case of Genocide”: Israeli Holocaust Scholar Raz Segal Decries Israel’s Assault on Gaza, 800+ Legal Scholars Say Israel May Be Perpetrating 'Crime of Genocide' in Gaza , Law for Palestine Releases Database with 500+ Instances of Israeli Incitement to Genocide – Continuously Updated.
On the subject of Human Shields, there are some independent reports for past conflicts of Hamas jeopardizing the safety of civilians via Rocket fire in dense urban areas, two instances during Oct 7th, but no independent verification since then so far. None of which absolve Israel of the crime of targeting civilians under international law:
HRW on Laws-of-War Violations 2009
Agency Demands Full Respect for the Sanctity of Its Premises in Gaza - July 2014
HRW - Palestinian Armed Groups’ October 7 Assault on Israel
Israel/OPT: Israeli attacks targeting Hamas and other armed group fighters that killed scores of displaced civilians in Rafah should be investigated as war crimes
HRW - Gaza: Unlawful Israeli Hospital Strikes Worsen Health Crisis
Additionally, there is extensive independent verification of Israel using Palestinians as Human Shields: IDF uses Human Shields, including Children (2013 Report), and in the latest war Israel “Systematically” Uses Gaza Children as Human Shields, Rights Group Finds
This is the kind of response I was looking for.
I'm not seeking to pile on the anti Israel sentiment but to genuinely understand what the basis for the Israeli position and supporters of it might be.
As fucked up as Israel's actions are, it's important to remember they're surrounded by countries who want to do to them what they're doing to Gaza. Israel kicks all their butts, in no small part because of the US. They've developed a real Mexican drug cartel "I'll cut all your familys' heads off in front of you if you mess with me" vibe, and you can see why.
And doing that creates terrorists, and you can see why.
All of those people have tried to seek peace with israel. Notably the controlled opposition from the PA. Palestinian have tried to seek peace with israel. Many times. One common event happens:
Israel kills the negotiator.
First thanks for the response. I'm Neither Pro-Israel; nor Pro-Hamas. I always frame my position as being Pro-Civilian above all. That is:
To me these are the key questions that frame a lot of my positions on this subject.
To the first question, Israel both Pre and Post-October 7th has killed more civilians overall. The general response to this is, "Well sure but that's only because Israel can defend itself." But because you have good defenses -- defenses that arguably should've been able to easily prevent October 7th from happening in the first place, does that really justify the number of civilian deaths, especially when you espouse the moral high-ground in being above a terrorist organization? Israel has the means to target civilians, but should they?
The second question is clear. Israel has committed easily dozens of October 7ths against innocent Palestinian civilians. It would take probably a century for Hamas to be able to commit the amount of atrocities that IDF has done in less than a year. So while not to be callous, by pure logic, the rate of suffering Israel has incurred upon innocent people is overwhelmingly greater than that which Hamas is capable of.
Finally, is this ends-justify-the-means? No, I don't believe so. Never in the history of ever does destabilizing a region by destroying civilian infrastructure and killing vast swaths of families, leaving orphans and parents whose children are dead ever deradicalized a populaton. At least not when the source of that is less an identity with a nation-state and more a festering ideology driving radicalization. Ultimately, Israel seems to be doing all the wrong things in playing whack-a-mole with Hamas; except it's Whack-a-Hydra, and the resulting collateral damage will radicalize further individuals. So what will happen when all these orphans grow up? We all know what. Moreover does this even address the root sources fueling this extremism? No sense of national identity, and Lebanon and Iran? No, Israel won't tackle the source of the problem.
As others pointed out, we would all be utterly shocked if in Die Hard they just decided to level the entire building with everyone inside. We would all be shocked if police just set demolition charges on the latest school shooter with all kids still inside, justifying it as, "Well we had to eliminate the threat!" Israel is justifying widespread, unprecedented collateral damage with this exact mentality... And for what?
At the end of the day we need to step back and look at the big picture. Bibi is deeply unpopular in Israel. He is facing widespread criminal charges in their courts. And now, he is facing crimes against humanity charges by the ICC. He must remain a war time president to avoid criminal prosecution. This is about status & legacy above all else for him. Like all right-wing nationalists, he does not care about innocent civilians; they're merely useful pawns.
Apologies as my response had to be a bit rushed today.
I'm an Israeli lefty and this is the first time I see an argument in favor of the settlements that I'm actually agreeing with. Thank you.
Can I ask which part of the settlements you agree with?
I don't know what constitutes leftist in Israel right now, but I do respect Ofer Cassif, Ilan Pappe, Norman Finkelstein, Avi Schlaim, and any anti-zionist Israelis who are fighting for the equal rights of Palestinians.
Who said I support settlements at all?
May I ask you what you view as Zionism?
Oh my bad, I thought "I see an argument in favor of the settlements that I'm actually agreeing with" meant you agreed with the settlements.
My view on Zionism is that it is fundamentally a settler colonial ideology, one founded and currently engaged in ethnic cleansing. And that the Apartheid Regime needs to change into a Secular One-State with equal rights and right of return for everyone
Considering October 7th, and the war since then, do you think that this is a possible solution? I note that a lot of the the population are quite strong in the religion believes. And I note that both religions list revenge as part of their values. Do you think that enough trust can be built anytime soon?
And also, about colonialism, there is no dispute that Jewish people lived in this land for generations. The comparison to e.g., France in Algier, is not a fair one here.
I agree with the views of Israeli Historians Ilan Pappe, Avi Schlaim that a One-State solution is the only permanent solution. I still support a Two-State solution in the meantime, as a foundation for Palestinian emancipation, but the on-the-ground reality of the settlements dividing the West Bank into hundreds of enclaves eats away at the viability of a permanent Two-State solution. Religion is not the primary element of the conflict, despite the religious ferver of many settlers and rhetoric of Israeli officials. The primary element is still the expulsion and domination of the native Palestinians through the use of Settlements and Apartheid. There cannot be a 'democratic' Jewish State (an ethnostate), without a Jewish majority, which presents what is called the 'demographic problem.' in the words of Ben-Gurion:
I don't believe the Israeli Government would ever agree to a One or Two State Solution, not unless there is enough internal secular and external international pressure.
How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution
‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe
One State Solution, Foreign Affairs
Claiming ancestral history does not justify ethnic cleansing, Settler Colonialism, or the existence of an ethnostate. 'Transfer' has always been fundamental to Zionism. Zionism is not Judaism, despite, as Israeli Adi Callai puts it, its weaponization of antisemitism. Jewish people have lived in historic Palestine for generations, despite the mass ethnic cleansing of Jewish people by the Romans during the Jewish-Roman Wars. Which is exactly why a Secular State, based on religious tolerance and equal rights, is the right way to end this conflict.
Palestine A Four Thousand Year History - Nur Masalha
The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948
10 myths of Israel by Ilan Pappe, summerized and full book
If I may add to this, while the Geneva Convention prohibits attacking hospitals, the International Committee of the Red Cross states that hospitals and similar buildings may become legitimate targets "for example if a hospital is being used as a base from which to launch an attack, as a weapons depot, or to hide healthy soldiers/fighters." NATO intelligence (PDF warning) states that Hamas is well known to launch attacks from civilian locations ordinarily protected by the Geneva Convention. In other words, they're using their own population as human shields. It is extremely difficult to completely prevent civilian casualties in these cases, especially when Hamas discourages people from leaving areas that Israel warns will be attacked (see the NATO document above).
To put it simply, if Israel decides that they are no longer willing to risk the safety of civilians, then Hamas will continue attacking with impunity from civilian areas. Israel absolutely should minimize civilian causalities, but when Hamas hides their fighters and weapons within their civilian population, some of them will unfortunately die. Blame Hamas for putting them in that position against their will.
If I may add, what you present here is a false choice, and understanding why it is gets to the heart of answering the question: "Why do people radicalize in the first place?"
Believe it or not, there are other methods of approaching this; methods the previous Prime Minister in the '90s was addressing before one of Bibi's (in stochastic language) followers assassinated him.
If you get caught in this game of Whack-A-Mole with terrorists, you're going to have about as much luck in dealing with Hamas as The United States did with addressing the Taliban in Afghanistan; for each one you kill considering the collateral damage as occupier, you will create 5 more down the road.
Lebanon and Iran are key source of the problem; that Israel is unwilling to actually confront the source of the problem — creeping annexation, blockades and general enforcement of ghettos along the strips — speaks to their disinterest in actually resolving those stoking the fire and providing the aid. Let's not forget that it was Israel who undermined the Palestinian Authority and Fatah and actually promoted Hamas.
And look, we already know Israel's Iron Dome is effective and improving by the year. Literally all they had to do to prevent October 7th was listen to their own intelligence reports and commit even a fraction of the troops they've already offensively committed to Gaza to actually defend their border so that (checks notes) Paragliders and dirt bikes couldn't just meander in. Reminder that this isn't the Great Wall of China... It's like a 25 mile border. That's nothing. So win-win: Israelis remain safe while Gazan civilian hostages aren't murdered by 1,000lb bombs in densely-populated areas. Reminder that Israel has now committed somewhere around 25 x October 7ths upon the innocent civilians of Gaza.
Should it be protocol for police to demolish schools with everyone in it to eliminate a school shooter?
The problem with your point is that Hamas is actively attacking Israel. They can't just drop what they're doing to wage a different war against other nations that aren't directly involved. If they did that, we would have an October 7th whenever Hamas felt like it. A Hamas official has stated that they will continue to attack Israel in this manner.
Yes, Israel should have acted on the intelligence they had ahead of October 7, but that doesn't mean they are directly to blame. The direct responsibility for raping and killing 1,000 civilians rests solely on Hamas. There was zero effort on their part to limit or prevent civilian casualties. Are you going to tell the rape victims and the families of those who died that day that actually, they should accept the blame for their own tragedy?
And in your school shooter example, no, that would not be justified. But if there were dozens of school shooters in there who were gunning down any authorities who approached and shooting off missiles that were killing innocent people miles away, with the support of paramilitaries that also kept the authorities from getting within fighting distance of the school, then what would you propose be done about them?
No I'm not victim-blaming, which implies they deserved it. What I'm saying is that the solution to the problem of protecting Israeli citizens isn't the rape and murder of their civilians at a scale greater by many factors. The solution is to double-down on defense, because Israel could EASILY prevent future October 7ths simply by properly manning their border. This way, no more civilians have to die on either side.
For you realize that by the rate of Hamas casualties inflicted upon Israel, it would probably take well over 100 years to commit the amount of murder against innocent civilians that Israel has done in less than a year, right? Of course leaving aside the fact that killing that many civilians has only ever increased radicalization as opposed to reducing it. In fact if I was asked, "how do you maximize an environment ripe for radicalization?" It wouldn't be that far off from what Israel is doing.
So let's further ask the question of why there is so much trust in Bibi to solve this problem when he has clearly demonstrated blatant incompetence in the past?
And yet, if demolishing that building led to a number of children dying in far greater numbers than a hundred school shooting attacks and that the devastation would lead to broken families surrounding said school to commit more terrorist crimes because they've now harbored mass resentment against the "police" because their children, parents, spouses are dead... Well, then the police aren't exactly improving the situation now, are they?
As long as Hamas is attacking Israel and using their people as human shields, Hamas will be responsible for their deaths. If I start shooting at you and then hold my wife in front of me when you shoot back, causing the bullet to hit my wife and kill her, that isn't your fault. That's mine.
The blame for the civilians' deaths lies with Hamas for starting this war and hiding behind them. I have no doubt that the population is radicalized, and Israel probably played a part in it, but so did many other Middle Eastern nations that desire nothing for Israel other than its complete destruction. Also, does the Gaza Health Authority take into consideration the deaths caused by Hamas refusing to evacuate civilians in targeted areas? Why have bordering countries refused Gazan refugees?
You have failed to provide a better solution than allowing the school shooters to continue killing people indiscriminately. If you do nothing, chances are they're going to set up more missile sites on other schools, recruit more students and staff to their genocidal cause ("almost all" Gazans believe that Hamas is not committing war crimes), and continue the cycle of violence. In fact, in this case, the destruction of Israel is Hamas's explicit stated goal. What would you do to prevent this?
No matter how you slice it, you are justifying carte blanche for Israel to do exactly as they will with Gaza however they see fit.
So tell me, how far does this logic extend?
Currently the ratio is about 3-4 civilians — half of whom being women & children — for each Hamas killed. So right now, you're saying Israel is completely justified and morally right to sit 4 of these civilians down and execute them so long as for every 4th or 5th or so lined up is a Hamas terrorist? After all, this is precisely what they're doing; for if they know a high value Hamas target is there, then they're certainly aware of the civilian presence when they drop their ordnance.
And tell me further, would you also defend Israel if they were to drop a nuke on Gaza?
Where, exactly, does the line finally begin to be blurred for you, I wonder...?
When does the response become worse than the initial attack that prompted this? After all, it's not the errant rockets that triggered this attack; it was October 7th and October 7th alone. So one cannot justify the rocket attacks for which were ostensibly par for the course and probably less of a threat than simply automotive car accidents.
I don't believe I have to provide a better solution — for my point to be made I only have to prove that the chosen response is orders of magnitude worse than letting Hamas remain as-is. Which is true. There is no way Hamas could incur that many civilian deaths in 50 or 100 years. If the response is more heinous than the initial attack, then that is a problem.
Once again I reiterate the aforementioned point that was deflected, which is to say this methodology that Israel is utilizing historically only exacerbates radicalization for decades to come. So if that's truly your concern, perhaps one should go back to the drawing board. Investing in border security and the Iron Dome seems a much more viable way at protecting your people.
But here's one for you: increasing regional stability instead of destroying it? How about better promoting Fatah or PA instead of undermining them? How about utilizing precision-targeted attacks to get leadership of Hamas, much how Obama used Seal Team 6 to deal with Bin Laden instead of the nation-invasion strategy of his predecessor? How about a change of leadership in Israel to something more competent to begin with...? There are many alternative options.
Israel is in no way justified in executing innocent civilians. What they are justified in is waging a war of self-defense against a country that wishes to completely destroy them and has used every dirty trick in the book to attempt just that before turning its populace into a meatshield and playing innocent little victim when Israel returns fire. This has been Hamas's MO for years.
Now you tell me: what should Israel do? Allow their neighbor to continue killing Jews in perpetuity? Evacuate the whole country so that Palestine can have its "from the river to the sea" goal? Lie down and accept the genocide that will come if they lay down their arms completely? This is by no means an easy war to judge or adjudicate on, and saying that Israel can't fight back at all, like you seem to be saying, is tantamount to declaring that the Jews in that area have no right to live. If you believe that Israel has a right to fight back, then I ask you: how, exactly, do you fight an enemy that will eagerly throw its entire civilian population into a wood chipper if it means killing just one Jew? If you can't think of a better solution to this problem, then you have no place criticizing them for their actions.
It wasn't just October 7th that triggered it. It's Hamas's long and storied history of breaking ceasefires and using humanitarian aid as weapons against Israel. The Hamas government is utterly insane. They need to be replaced with representatives who will not drag their people into wars that get them killed.
I would argue that you do have to provide a better solution. If you do nothing about the people killing innocents indiscriminately, that will only embolden them and lead to even more deaths. When does it become unacceptable to continue allowing your citizens to be massacred by terrorists? Again, should Israel just let their people get killed forever?
What other options does Israel have at this point? Again, you're implying that if they just let themselves die then the problem will eventually disappear. I mean, it will, because the roads of Jerusalem will be painted with the blood of innocent Jews, but that's beside the point. They can't make peace with Hamas because Hamas is single-mindedly focused on destroying Israel. It's going to take an international coalition to stop the war, of which I am in wholehearted support, by removing the genocidal freaks running Palestine. Border security and the Iron Dome are good, but they'll only go so far when the entire purpose of the government across that border is to kill you. Left to their own devices, they'll figure something out eventually.
Israel is, in fact, running precision strikes against the leadership of Hamas. They are continually picking off the leaders of that faction, but it's difficult to get at them because they often hide in other countries and issue suicidal orders from cozy apartments and hotel rooms. They sure could use better leadership - the intelligence failure with October 7th shows that much - and they certainly should be promoting peaceful political parties. I want this war to end peacefully as much as you do, and I don't want any more Palestinian or Israeli civilians to die needlessly. But right now, Hamas is killing its population and Israel's out of sheer, blind hatred. If there was certainty that Hamas wouldn't start its nonsense again (as I've said before, they want to do October 7th over and over again), then maybe we'd have peace now.
How can one not see that the latter is merely a euphemism for the former? Let's bear in mind that Gaza is not "a country" and is not even recognized as a state by Israel, themselves. What Hamas is is a terrorist organization who is holding a captive audience of innocent Palestinians no different than the terrorists in the film Die Hard -- which would have quite a different outcome if the police just decided to demolish the entire building.
In other words, yes: If Israel knows that civilians will be killed when they attack a Hamas target, then they are indeed, executing those civilians in kind. There is zero difference been sitting the 5 of them down and shooting them in the back of the head, or dropping a 1,000lb JDAM on them with full knowledge of civilian presence — agreed?
I need to be very clear because I'm coming from the perspective of someone who is above all Pro-Civilian; So let me explain that when I assess this scenario, I look for who is actively harming the most civilians. Independent of who fired the first shot, if the the response becomes objectively worse for those innocent lives — all the while having no clear end-goal objective that doesn't exacerbate the risk to rising radicalism — then that's going to be the center of my concern.
We know how radicalism occurs. People don't get radicalize out of thin air, after all. It takes decades of oppression, diminished opportunities, living in slums, low education, low socioeconomic opportunity, and so on. Therein lies solutions as to how you improve conditions to the point that people don't feel so desperate and vengeful. The solution isn't to make orphans and leave parents without their children by bombing one of the most densely populated regions on the planet.
Let me be very clear that I am (a) NOT saying Israel cannot DEFEND itself, (b) NOR am I saying that Israel does not have a right to exist. What I am saying is that there are better methods at protecting Israeli civilians (remember, it wasn't just Jews who were targeted that day, but Palestinian Muslims died, too) AND reducing terrorism that does not necessitate committing the equivalent of DOZENS of October 7ths in kind.
It was October 7th that triggered it, bar-none. If October 7th didn't happen, then Israel would not have leveled Gaza as they did. This really isn't up for dispute; this is what Israeli leadership themselves have repeatedly said.
What frustrates me is you dodged so many of the questions I have. If I'm being honest, I suspect your incapacity to confront these questions head-on speaks to the discomfort as we approach the threshold of cognitive dissonance. So please permit me to reiterate the dodged questions:
Where, exactly, does the line finally begin to be blurred for you, I wonder…?
How many civilians are you willing to execute per alleged Hamas target?
And tell me further, would you also defend Israel if they were to drop a nuke on Gaza?
So tell me, how far does this logic extend?
How does killing this many civilians and destabilizing the region by leveling all civilian infrastructure including undermining the capacity for hospitals to operate truly lead to less and not more radicalization in the years to come?
What do you think is going to happen to all those orphans and parents of dead children in the decades to come? I can tell you exactly what I would do if I was in their shoes, after all...
How many children is Israel morally permitted to kill in their end goal?
You ask me what they could do differently and I provided several that went entirely ignored, but I'll reiterate a key one: Change of Leadership. Over 70% of Israel disapproves of Bibi. It's not working. His actions have only exacerbated radicalization and will only continue to do so. He has botched several hostage rescue attempts, moved the goalpost on permanent ceasefire deals that could've seen these hostages freed, and failed to secure his borders and adhere to blatantly obvious intelligence. But it's not going not happen because Netanyahu would be in prison if not for the immunity of being in office. Please, stop trying to justify the actions of this war criminal.
And no, border security and the iron dome really is it. It really is the most effective way. It's not difficult to stop motorcycles and para-gliders. The planning of this simplistic attack took countless resources and months if not longer of planning and could've easily been stopped by a competent leadership and military. Right here I have both protected Israelis, and prevented the mass slaughter of innocent Gaza civilians. I once again reiterate that Israel has committed a scale of destruction against innocent civilians that Hamas could not possibly have achieved in 50 or 100 years with the resources they had. So in that respect, and in regards to thinking about the innocent civilians, it's no wonder why I believe it is in fact Israel who is the larger terrorist threat.
Remember: Under bibi they've ignored intelligence, killed their own hostages who were unarmed and had a white flag, botched a rescue when they could've been saved by a permanent ceasefire, and bombed humanitarian aid convoys despite coordination with IDF command as instructed. This demonstrates profound incompetence that also explains the gross civilian casualty count.
Ultimately here are the conditions for you to convince me that what Israel is doing is morally justified:
You don't seem to understand what "execution" means. Let me put it to you this way: an execution is when you intend to kill someone specific. When the government sentences someone to death and shoots them in the head behind the prison, that is an execution. When the Israeli government is trying to warn people that they're going to attack a place, Hamas refuses to evacuate them, and they die as a result, that is not an execution.
If Israel is going around, finding civilians, putting them against the wall, and shooting them in the head, that is wrong. But the Geneva Conventions are clear that simply because a military installation has civilians in it does not mean the installation is no longer a legitimate target. That's the question at hand here. Hamas has been using civilian buildings as military installations for the entire war. Therefore, Israel is justified in bringing those buildings down. One point you are constantly missing is that not only are the combatants in the building holding the civilians hostage, they are an active threat to people miles away. The longer they aren't dealt with, the worse the situation will become. If they can't go in there and clear the building floor by floor to specifically only kill the combatants - which is precisely the situation Israel is in - then they have no choices other than to bomb the place or to allow the assaults to continue. It's a lose-lose situation, but they have an obligation to their own people first and foremost. Why should Israel take the blame when Hamas is the organization that is putting weapons and personnel into a civilian building, launching assaults at them, and refusing to allow the civilians to leave?
October 7th has had a long, long history leading up to it, on both sides. This just happens to be the worst incident in a long time. It likely wouldn't be as bad as it is today if none of that had happened, or if Israel had listened to their intelligence.
Alright, I will directly answer your questions.
I agree that a leadership change is necessary. But as far as I can tell, you have offered no solutions to the problem of an active war other than "let the Jews die." If Israel gets rid of its idiotic governors and installs people who will at least listen to their intelligence reports, that's a good start, but right now they also have to contend with a genocidal government next door. While you're cleaning up inside the government, what would you do about the soldiers killing your people?
"Border security" means nothing against a foe with a tunnel system that's practically as large and developed as the surface of the country. If you'd like to bury Israeli soldiers underground waiting for Hamas to tunnel to them, I welcome you to relay that to the IDF. Yes, more civilians have died on the Palestinian side, but if Hamas would stop strapping babies to themselves to make it suddenly morally unjustifiable to shoot back, then those deaths wouldn't have happened.
Now, since I've answered your questions, I'd like to ask you some as well.
(Comment 1 of 2)
It's critical we work through this because I see no discernible difference between:
Accepting that executing 3-4 civilians for every 1 Hamas target is okay (which is the ongoing trend).
And leveling a building knowing civilians are inside to eliminate an alleged Hamas target. (again at a 3-4:1 ratio).
Fundamentally zero difference. If you're justifying the latter but not the former, then I highly encourage you to truly reflect on this for a little longer, for this is the heart of what I see is your cognitive dissonance. (a) In both instances, there is a willingness to execute civilians — whether that's pulling the trigger behind their heads, or releasing the payload of a large bomb from above them. Either way, the calculus was made that their lives are worth trading. The only thing that changes is how visceral and close the action is. The calculation was always there (and further below I'll respond to your other point with a source to provide evidence of this).
So to be clear: You're okay with plausible deniability behind them claiming they're NOT going out of their way to kill civilians, but are rather being so reckless that they are killing civilians in great droves either way? That is, if the number of civilian deaths incurred remained the same, but instead of them going, "oops we dropped a JDAM sorry we tried!" they went, "yeah we're going to kill as many as we feel like" — the former is perfectly A-Okay to you, but the latter is not... Even though the amount of actual innocent human suffering remains identical? It's merely whether the murderer tried is how you distinguish good from evil?
Per AP and Reuters in corroboration with the UN and WHO — historically, the Gaza Health Ministry's numbers have been quite reliable. But why can't you put a precise number?
Will they? We'll cross that bridge when we get there. Pretty sure you're putting the cart before the horse, considering, you know that would necessitate them to find a way over the border and iron dome that I originally provided as the easy solution to this problem. At this rate, it seems far more likely that Israel is going to commit genocide on Palestinians than the other way around, don't you think? All the while claiming to be the good guys.
Is every measure being taken? Because it doesn't seem that way. After all as I've pointed out they've killed Humanitarian aid convoys, bombed refugee camps, killed their own hostages no less. In fact, it's the worst conflict in history for humanitarian aid workers and that's largely due to Israel. Forget the contradictory information for where the civilians are supposed to go, the miscommunication breakdown and the unfeasible logistics of moving people who are on the brink of famine and under disease to move from one side to another — all the while humanitarian aid is restricted in the first place.
I mean much of the world is beginning to turn against Israel. At its core, Bibi is a far right wing nationalist little different than the neoconservative far-right nationalist Bush administration who invaded Iraq and little different than the far-right nationalist government of Putin. Ultimately, this is an exploitable crisis for (what went ignored in your post) Bibi to escape active criminal charges as he maintains immunity in his position of power. You seem intelligent but I'm astonished that you cannot see this.
I mean why not? Since you seem to believe that ends justify the means and that you're unwilling to commit to a ratio of civilians to Hamas target deaths, why not just be done with it? Evidently there IS some point in your mind that you seem to begin to question the morality and I wonder why bombing mosques and apartment buildings and so forth with an alleged (albeit rarely proven) Hamas target inside, all the while people like the father who loses his wife and 3-day-old newborn twins as he's registering their births must suffer — is okay. But after all, like you said using your logic, isn't nuking Gaza simply an extension of the same logic you're already using for their blatantly indiscriminate use of large bombs in densely-populated areas with obvious civilian casualties worse than any recent conflict, including what Putin is doing in Ukraine? After all, can't your conscience be assuaged by your own logic in saying, "Hey, the nuke was necessary; after all, Israel wasn't going out of their way to target civilians; rather Gaza was simply a collective human shield for Hamas that we simply could not ignore!" Herein lies another instance of what I view as cognitive dissonance in your defense of Israel's alleged war crimes (as per the ICC who also has charges against Sinwar and Putin for the record).
Yeah... About that. Here IDF whistle-blowers (multiple) report specific targeting of civilian infrastructure and ignoring collateral damage asessments.
When have Jews or Israel been under any sort of threat like that that isn't profoundly exacerbated by the actions of Netanyahu as of recent? What I mean is that now you've only fueled the fire of Lebanon and Iran and created the next generation of pawns to do their bidding. You've only sowed the seeds of resentment; and congratulations, you destroyed civilian infrastructure... That does nothing in terms of permitting Hamas to regroup. It just ensures that civilians are radicalized in greater numbers. Remember, we Americans tried this in Afghanistan and Iraq only to let Taliban take over and ISIS to come out of Al Qaeda. You should learn from the mistakes of Americans that this is utterly failed strategy, not to mention your extremely low value for the alleged human shields that Hamas is using (though in fairness, Bibi has shown he doesn't even care about the Israeli hostages all that much either).
That's quite not happening when they're bombing these densely-populated buildings, though. Hamas bullets cannot reach Israel from Gaza; their rockets can be shot down as they routinely are. This is falsely analogous.
Nobody said anything about, "Let jews die." I simply said, "1) Listen to your intelligence reports 2) Secure your 25-mile border, and 3) Double your Iron Dome defense system. 4) Ditch the far-right war criminal leader and put someone competent who knows how to actually negotiate in good fait. Doing this, another October 7th is quite likely impossible.
Hamas didn't attack by tunnels. There are also incredibly easy methods of detecting underground tunnel networks via sonar systems that are already employed around the world. I'm giving you real, functional solutions to problems that don't even exist yet. Israel is resourceful; they could certainly do this.
Who put those soldiers on the front-line in a situation where that was a risk of that occurring? Who sent those IDF soldiers to attempt a high risk operation where it was obviously a risk that Hamas would execute hostages? Who chose to do that instead of agree to the ceasefire brokered by other middle east nations and the US? The buck stops with Bibi as leader, and I frankly find it wild that you're trying to deflect responsibility.
This one could've been. We'll never know.
Places with no radicalization are places who have agency, prosperity, and space to breath and prosper in the manner of their choosing. Gaza under routine territorial annexation, sieges has never had this. Israel hasn't even been able to support a 2 state solution, after all.
If you think there is any cognitive dissonance here, you're wrong. My position is simply that Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself from Hamas. That doesn't mean they get to kill people willy-nilly, that would make them no different from Hamas. You don't seem to understand that. If Hamas wants to limit civilian casualties in the war that they started, they're more than free to either stop putting soldiers and materiel in hospitals and schools, or simply surrender. This crisis is self-manufactured.
And again, you are misunderstanding what an execution is. If Israel actually was on a genocidal rampage (like Hamas wants to do), then Gaza would have been nothing but a bloodstain months ago. There would have been zero humanitarian aid reaching Gaza. You stated in an answer to one of my questions that it would be acceptable for Ukraine to fire at soldiers who are using civilians as human shields as long as the goal wasn't to kill those civilians. And I would agree. Ukraine has as much a right to exist and defend itself from Russia as Israel has a right to exist and defend itself from Hamas. But when it comes to the situation in Gaza, you suddenly change your mind. The situation is the same - there's a ratio of 3-4:1 civilians to Hamas soldiers killed - but the main difference is where it's happening. Yes, it's tragic every time a civilian dies. I agree with you wholeheartedly there. But that doesn't mean throwing them up like a smokescreen makes Hamas immune to return fire in the war that they started.
No, actually, I am not okay with governments lying about their motives for a war. That's one reason I despise Russia. But again, if Israel's goal was to simply wipe out the Gaza strip, everyone there would have been turned to paste months ago. Israel is suspected to have nukes, after all. Instead, they have been warning people ahead of their strikes, and those people died because Hamas refused to evacuate them so they could use them as propaganda pawns in the war that they started.
(Comment 1 of 2)
A couple logistical things: I think we've generally exhausted our points and are increasingly going in circles; so given the diminished bystander audience by this point I'm going to make this my last comment and oblige you with the final response if you so wish. Upvoted and thank you for the discussion.
Moreover if you don't mind I'm changing my response style slightly to (slightly) tamp down on the increasing length of these while also trying to remain on-point without too much meander.
A criminal cannot justify their crimes by saying, I could've killed more if I wanted to or even tortured them in greater numbers. Yes, Hitler could've used scalding hot water instead of Zyklon B and conducted MORE torture. Hitler could've killed double the amount of people he killed but he didn't. Such restraint! Naturally we wouldn't praise Hitler for committing less war crimes and instead merely focus on the fact that war crimes and murder was committed at all.
Israel has a right to defend itself, but that does not give carte blanche to kill as many civilians as they unilaterally deem appropriate in their calculus.
Thus executing 4 civilians for every 1 Hamas target is exactly the same as releasing a bomb knowing those same number of civilians will die for the target you seek.
Yes, the main difference IS where it is happening. Ukraine isn't actively targeting civilian centers inside Russia; they're playing defense on their own territory. Location matters because the Hamas soldier inside his own building isn't an imminent threat to the civilians of Israel relative to the threat Israel poses to the innocent civilians of Gaza. Again, their bullets cannot reach Israel and ultimately neither can their rockets in any meaningfully significant quantity that wasn't par for the course preceding October 7th for that matter. The world would not stand for Israel doing to Gaza if this was simply the same par for the course rocket attacks that have happened for decades. This proves the rockets aren't the primary motivating factor for killing this many innocent civilians.
If Ukraine began to kill more civilians in Russia than Russia killed in Ukraine by an order of magnitude no less, then the waters would then be muddied and my support for them would, too, wane. Does Putin share responsibility for the murder of those civilians? Absolutely. Would Ukraine as well? Definitely. In the end, they should all be prosecuted for war crimes, just as the ICC is actively doing. If you think it's worth it, then you better be willing to pay the piper at the end and be held accountable for the "justified murders." After all, something tells me that Bibi wouldn't be such a proud martyr then if he was actually held accountable for the demonstrated war crimes he has committed. Something tells me if it was he who had to be on the front line in Gaza that he wouldn't have ordered this invasion.
The Gaza Health Ministry of elected officials actually answers primarily to the PA and Fatah first. There is no indication past or present that the distinction between civilians and Hamas targets is erroneous. Even if we take US Intelligence of Hamas strength versus the number of Hamas killed by said US intelligence, the numbers line up quite closely. In fact, most independent watchdogs suggest the civilian death toll is far higher when factoring in the number of bodies remaining under rubble, those still missing, and the disease and famine situation.
Please don't add words to my mouth. I said that it's okay if there was an imminent threat, but when there is an alternative strategy that ensures civilians are protected and you can wait for, say, the "snipers" to come in to pick these targets off, then change the entire paradigm. Like I said, the scenario laid out before us is factually much closer to that of a hostage standoff and siege in a children's school. Nobody would abide by having the police set the building on fire.
There is no lying down and taking it; there are viable more reasonable paths out of this that everyone on the sidelines is telling Israel: Double-down on defensive, border, intelligence. Get a new leader in. Stop blocking Palestinian statehood, start wining Hearts & minds, and giving them self agency. Start working with the PA and Fatah with better faith, and stop creating more terrorists than you're eliminating when you tear apart families with wanton collateral damage. Stop assassinating your own Prime Ministers who in good faith sought out a 2 state solution. Ultimately the rate of innocent civilian lives being murdered is higher now than ever before. I don't take that as a win in any capacity. I also don't think it would be acceptable anywhere else to continuously annex chunks of Palestine for Israel. After all, we don't accept that when Russia did that in Crimea and the Donbas... Why is it acceptable for Israel to do that with Palestine? Have you ever seen a map of Israel vs. Palestine over the decades? At this point I'm almost beginning to wonder if Hamas is a convenient excuse propped up to justify territorial conquest. I wouldn't put it past Netanyahu. Several times your excuse to justify Israeli actions is, "I mean they could've killed more; they could've annexed more more rapidly!" Of course, but it's all a matter of how much they can get away with no different than a toddler probing the limits of their parents.
To me the following remain immutable facts:
Quantitatively, Israel has invoked, by many factors, more suffering upon Innocent Civilians than Hamas has since both before or after October 7th. The response is thus more heinous than the attack which prompted it. This is frankly undeniable. Even if you disagree with the official numbers, surely you agree that the civilian death toll is well beyond the ~1200 of October 7th. The debt in blood has been repaid many times in all actuality.
There is only one way you can justify these mass, willful murders (which, it is murder): That they will prevent an even greater number of civilian casualties from happening in the future both in Gaza and Israel... And ultimately, the evidence for that is extremely shaky and to me does not meet the standard for justifying murder. Like I said: There are several viable strategies Israel can protect itself that would make it all but impossible for Hamas to commit another October 7th attack let alone the dozens of the equivalent Israel has now committed in Gaza.
Reaction to an alleged first-strike does not give Carte Blanche to commit as many war crimes as one desires.
Restraint of a murderer for not killing 10 innocent people does not excuse their killing of 5.
Restraint of stealing only half of the land instead of all the land is no excuse.
Israel both had and continues to have better options that ensures the protection of Israeli civilians while not requiring to kill 30,000 civilians and counting. The USA, speaking from experience, agrees.
The instability wrought by Israel in destroying civilian infrastructure from schools to mosques to residential housing, food & water, all the while killing women and children is exactly what one does to plant the seeds of radicalization for decades to come -- NOT eliminate it. Especially when the likes of Lebanon and Iran tend to be the sources of all their needs. After all, moles will simply begin digging tunnels anew.
The greater you try to play whack-a-mole with Tunnels "50 meters" down, the less it makes sense to target the civilians who largely reside above. After all, Israel isn't simply using bunker busters to reach these tunnels; and these manholes and entrances are everywhere that it's quite literally impossible to target them all without actually dropping a nuke on Gaza. Moreover, if it was that easy for Hamas to do (a) they would've done it for their October 7th attack, and (b) if it's that easy to do, then it's equally that easy for the much wealthier and capable nation of Israel to dig equally-deep tunnels to stand guard and listen. A small price to pay for the safety of Israeli civilians, after all.
I just want to note that under the ghetto conditions Israel has boxed Palestine in, that too, is no way to live. This creeping territorial annexation as the innocent civilians get pummeled by the "good guys" in far greater numbers than what Hamas is capable of doing to Israel speaks to the dire conditions they too live in. Make no mistake that, "Let the Palestinians die" applies just as much if we let things be par for the course... Hence why radicalization is so prominent in the first place. After all, as I said: Radicalization and terrorism simply does not manifest out of thin air. Wealthy countries with good education and solid civilian infrastructure and room to breathe and self agency do not have radicalization problems. Including Muslim nations.
Your justification for the deaths that have occurred could just as easily be used as justification to drop a nuke. So for whatever reason, there is a red line for you here — and perhaps it's because it evokes an imagery that is incompatible with your conscience. But perhaps like journalists were shown footage of October 7th that you should start viewing footage of the aftermath of IDF strikes and lifeless bodies in Gaza. I've also seen enough testimony from countless independent humanitarian aid workers and especially physicians engaged in the Hippocratic Oath who speak to the horrors they've seen. I wonder, have you? Would you be able to pull the trigger?
(Comment 2 of 2)
Empathy can be useful even to put yourself in the shoes of the wicked. I'll be honest: If I put myself in the shoes of a desperate Gazan whose children and wife were blown up by an Israeli air strike, I wouldn't just think, "Hamas did this!" I would say, "I thought Israel were the good guys and yet look how little they value the lives of us body shields?" At which point in my grief and blind revenge I would join the movement to seek revenge — especially if I'm of limited economic opportunity (what job is there now that Gaza is in ruins?) and of low education. The Taliban fought a war from caves against a force far exceeding Israel and ultimately won. Just as the Vietcong ultimately did. For Israel, this is their Vietnam; this is their Vietcong. Now, strategically, if you were tasked with being the David against the Goliath that is the IDF and you were severely out-gunned, it simply would not be wise strategy to sit in the open against someone who has precision-targeted air force. Knowing your enemy and knowing that Israel holds itself to a moral standard of not harming civilians, I too would probably hide among the civilians. What I would NOT expect is that my opponent who holds the moral high-ground would suddenly decide that killing as many civilians as it takes is 100% okay. Perhaps there was a miscalculation, but then I'd also just go and huddle in my tunnels as the civilians incur the majority of damage above. Does it really impact anything for terrorists who can simply recruit a new army from the surviving orphans, get new weapons from Iran and Lebanon, and have the next leader take its place no different than what happens with the Taliban, ISIS, Al Qaeda? 20 years of failed US interventionism as a stronger fighting force no less suggests a resounding No.
Let me give you a hypothetical. Just suppose you're wrong and Bibi is doing this solely to remain in power. Suppose he knows that this won't eliminate terrorism but only exacerbate it but doesn't care. Suppose he and his cronies want to annex new beachfront property and as Naomi Klein spells out in The Shock Doctrine and to paraphrase Milton Friedman that a crisis is a great opportunity for profit — consider that at least my methodology permits outsiders to immediately protect innocent civilians no matter where they are or whether they're victims of offense or victims of a defensive maneuver. Surely you're aware that perception is reality and that many in Russia wrongly believe just as Hamas that they are doing the right thing. That in fact they are the oppressed by NATO, by Nazis, by creeping Jewish annexation shoving them into tighter and tighter slums. After all, so goes the saying that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. So naturally, heinous crimes against civilians are justified everywhere under false pretenses that it is actually THEY who are on the defense and retaliating for an arbitrary act of the opposition from their perspective of reality. At least with my approach, we can cut through the bullshit of "he started, they started it; I'm justified/they're justified" and just go straight to the quantifiable reality: "Who is actively inflicting more pain and suffering at this present moment on innocent people?" And that is, at this moment, 100% Israel. Keep in mind that when October 7th happened while I was no fan of Netanyahu's actions and stoking the flames of day-in-day-out suffering of Palestinians, I was still in Israel's corner and felt sorry for the civilian lives lost. Do you see how my allegiance isn't to nationalism but rather humanism? And in maintaining such optics, you're able to in the moment identify the key threat to innocent loss of life independent of alleged justification that is often in the eye of the beholder.
So could the crisis for innocent civilians end if Hamas surrenders? Possibly, yes. But that necessitates expecting the terrorists to do what Israel themselves as the "good guys" have been unable to do—practice reasonable restraint. You and I both don't expect Hamas to do the "right" thing; but we do expect the "good guys" who supposedly hold themselves to a higher moral standard than that of a terrorist organization to do the right thing in valuing innocent human life. Yet actions speak louder than words and we care not what excuse a murderer has when they kill an innocent child; only that they did.
Ultimately I don't believe you can excuse the civilian death toll incurred by Israel by exclaiming, "The murdering of innocent civilians will stop when the murdering terrorists suddenly value innocent human lives like we supposedly do!" That doesn't make sense, again, is a race to the bottom where only the civilians will suffer.
You mention that you'd have no problem with an independent group investigating Israel for their actions, and that is exactly what is happening at the ICC. Bibi shares crimes against humanity charges alongside Sinwar and Putin. (Keep in mind that Jack Smith who worked at the ICC to prosecute war lords is now the lead prosecutor against Trump right now).
(Comment 2 of 2)
Just as to whether the scale of the Israeli response was unjustified — No.
Yes. There is a shared responsibility between the hostage taker and the person willing to shoot the hostage(s) alongside the hostage-taker. To me it speaks more of the "good guy," who is so willing to level the hostages than it even does the terrorist for whom we already know lacks moral values. To me it (a) makes zero logical sense in stifling radicalization in the long-term, and (b) it undermines a fundamental western philosophy that actually underscores our entire judicial philosophy: That "it is better that 10 guilty persons go free than 1 innocent person be imprisoned." It's the same reason the US negotiated with Russia to free innocent people in exchange for giving them back scum. The value of our innocent people is greater than their scum. Naturally, I would respect Israel more if they actually cared about civilians of all types a little bit more as opposed to justifying what is, on paper, far worse than the original attack.
I'm not sure a ratio, but I'll say up to but not exceeding 1,200 total or whatever the official toll of October 7th was. As Robert McNamara once said, "Proportionality should be a guideline to war."
Ideally, none.
There is no real government of Gaza; and there is no national identity. There is a gang and that gang like a pimp offers protection to the Goliath next door who is equally no friend but rather a right-wing nationalist state with an obvious interest in creeping territorial annexation that can be tracked going back decades. Both sides of shown an unwillingness to compromise ultimately, which again dates back to the assassination of Israel's former prime minister. My direct answer: Studying how radicalization occurs; why some humans radicalize and others do not. The answer isn't all that difficult in my view.
I'm not sure I buy the premise; there were countless times where IDF has murdered and yes, even raped in between truces; established blockades and invoked clear provocations in their own right.
To make this analogy work, you need to move these people across the border and into the streets of Israel. For that to happen, they need to get through a heavily-defended border, and yes, if that's going to happen, then sure. But I'll tell you what's really happening: You're leaving your home and deciding to wander into an adjacent city of people holed up in their own homes with babies on them and deciding, "Okay we'll just blow you up where you are even though you are not clear and present danger to the civilians of OUR city — nor ever would be if we actually took adequate measures to secure the bridge to our city properly.And in fact, we don't even fully know for sure IF there is a target in this area but we're just going to level it on a lead anyway." Quite a bit different, no? I'm going to also take a wild guess and say that Hamas isn't going so far as to do that and is simply hiding wherever they possibly can because Gaza isn't even that big, and that if they were strapping babies to themselves then they probably would face quite a bit of backlash even from those whom they try to oppress.
Russia basically is doing this with their mobilization and obvious attempts to purge ethnic minorities and other undesireables inside Russia. Unfortunately Ukraine has no choice given the the threat. But again, notice the difference in that Ukraine is legitimately playing defense.
I'll conclude with a reiteration of my original point: that in being Pro-Civilian, I cannot in good conscience believe that Israel is making a concerted effort to reduce civilian casualties; nor can I see how this will ever prevent further radicalization in the future without invoking genocide itself. The amount of civilian murders by Israel in their calculations to kill Hamas is on a scale that Hamas could not achieve for 50 or even 100 years. And within that time frame, I'm certain we could've figured out a better solution.
I forgot to address this from your other comment. If there truly are pointless killings of civilians being carried out by the IDF, those responsible should be punished. I'd be more than happy to see a third-party investigation into Israel's war effort performed by a neutral, disinterested party. If such a thing were to happen and, for example, certain people made it their goal to kill as many Palestinian civilians as possible, then those people need to be dealt with because they compromise the entire integrity of the IDF while wasting human life. Just like Hamas.
One-off intelligence failures, such as the one time I could find that Israeli hostages were accidentally killed, do not an illegitimate state nor genocide make.
We can do de-radicalization when Hamas decides that watching over 200 of its people die every day isn't worth however many Jews were killed since October 7th. They started this war, and they should have understood the consequences of breaching the border of a highly militarized society before they did so. Now, instead of paying the price, they're deflecting all blame to their sworn enemy and basking in neutral-if-not-positive press. If Hamas is truly incapable of coming to such a conclusion, they have no right to exist; not only should there be pressure on Israel and Gaza to declare a truce, but Hamas must be dissolved for the sake of the people of Gaza.
This is a flase equivalence. The "terror" element is a distraction and a poor argument
It would be like Russia coming in and taking Donbas and saying "this is ours", and the world being outraged if Ukrainians fight back and if Ukrainians are still fighting back in 50 years people saying Ukrainians are terrible people look at the terror with zero context and worse still for people to be arguing for Russia, what a skap in the face that would be.
Would people still be outraged at the "terrorism" being wrought by Ukrainians because Russia says its terrorism ? Surely Israel's existence is a travesty, it does exist but obviously there is no dealing with this any other way until Israel stops. This never ends.
Israel just keeps taking more and more and being more and more provocative. What of Indonesia in West Papua? Or more recently Indonesia in Timor ?
This never ends, this is just another phase.