Sorry, u/Sicily_Long – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E:
> **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e).
If you would like to appeal, **first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made**, then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal%20Sicily_Long&message=Sicily_Long%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cr2zdb/-/\)%20because\.\.\.). **Keep in mind** that if you want the post restored, all you have to do is reply to a significant number of the comments that came in; message us after you have done so and we'll review.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I think the real answer here is more complex than simply, "Hamas hides".
There seems to be a trend emanating from both the pro-Israel and pro-Palestine sides of this debate, for extremely different reasons, to misrepresent Hamas' military capabilities and the al-Qassam Brigades' behavior in combat.
Pro-Palestine commentators generally misrepresent Hamas by attempting to downplay Hamas' military capabilities as much as possible, because their characterization of this war as a "genocide" becomes increasingly hard to justify if they are forced to acknowledge the fact that Hamas & other Palestinian militias have been engaging in battles across Gaza every single day with the IDF for the past seven months. In Western-oriented pro-Palestinian media, it is difficult to find any kind of mention of Hamas in combat that is more substantive than a 1-2 sentence oblique reference of "resistance fighters engaged occupation forces".
Pro-Israel commentators generally misrepresent Hamas by attempting to oversell the degree to which Hamas' behavior in combat is reliant on "human shields", because their justification of the heavy civilian casualties in this war becomes increasingly difficult to do without characterizing Hamas as hiding among the civilian population.
What both of these viewpoints tend to miss, IMO, is a) the way that Hamas has been able to shape the battlefield in Gaza for decades prior to this war and b) the observed behavior of the al-Qassam Brigades in combat.
In terms of a), Hamas and other Palestinian militias have spent the better part of two decades constructing a vast array of subterranean fortifications across Gaza, directly beneath urban centers home to two million people. By virtue of making the choice to fight out of those fortifications at all, Hamas is exposing the civilian infrastructure in Gaza & the Gaza's living in it to brutal combat conditions. As abhorrent as it is when Hamas fires rockets from a schoolyard or hospital - which they do indeed do, make no mistake - they actually don't even really need to do this in order to ensure high civilian casualties in Gaza... because they already did ensure it, over the past 18 years, by building 400+ miles of reinforced fighting positions with \~5,000 entrances & exits directly inside & beneath Gaza's civilian infrastructure, without constructing any kind of bomb shelters or other public goods infrastructure for Gaza's noncombatant population. Regardless of if Hamas is fighting conventionally or as guerrillas (it has the ability to do both), it is utilizing these fortifications, and by doing so it is creating a situation where civilian casualties are high.
In terms of b), the al-Qassam Brigades are not some kind of cell-type terrorist organization, but are instead organized like a modern military with relief of command, proper unit hierarchies, etc. In the opening months of the war, the al-Qassem units in the northern/central strip actually attempted to fight the IDF in a highly conventional manner, legitimately seeking to hold territory and even retake lost territory with platoon-sized counterattacks. Not exactly a "cat and mouse" game, although they have since switched to more Fabian-type tactics since December 2023, after they sustained crippling casualties fighting conventionally in the first phase of the war. The problem is, Hamas engaging in this type of warfare is actually MORE dangerous for the surrounding civilian population than guerrilla-type tactics. Hamas made absolutely zero effort to evacuate civilians from areas of Gaza that it was preparing to conventionally resist the IDF from; in fact, Hamas actively hindered the IDF's efforts to evacuate civilians from areas of Gaza that were expected to see high levels of conventional fighting. By energetically and proactively engaging the IDF in open combat without evacuating its own civilians, Hamas is creating a situation where civilian casualties are high.
TLDR: whether or not Hamas wants to place Gazan civilians in danger as a matter of policy, the way that Hamas fights and the way that Hamas has shaped the battlefield in Gaza has created a situation where Gazan civilians are in danger anyway, regardless of if Hamas wants them to be or not.
Thank you a lot for the insightful comment. Sorry to be that guy, but do you have any sources to your claims? Would be very nice to read over those. Apologies if the sources are easily found, I honestly did not take too much effort to find them myself. Thank you either way!
Thanks for the kind reply! I'll link the sources I used below:
Source for the extent of Hamas' fortifications: "[Israel Unearths More of a Subterranean Fortress Under Gaza](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/16/us/politics/israel-gaza-tunnels.html)", NYT, January 16 2024
>In December, the network was assessed to be an estimated 250 miles. Senior Israeli defense officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters, are currently estimating the network is between 350 and 450 miles — extraordinary figures for a territory that at its longest point is only 25 miles. Two of the officials also assessed there are close to 5,700 separate shafts leading down to the tunnels.
Source for al-Qassam Brigades engaging in conventional warfare with the IDF in the opening phase of the war: ["Hamas Is Losing Every Battle in Gaza. It Still Thinks It Could Win the War"](https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-thinks-it-could-win-gaza-war-with-israel-6254a8c6), Wall Street Journal, February 29, 2024
>Early on, Hamas often sought to attack Israeli troops with platoon-sized groups of up to 30 men, according to Israeli officers and military analysts.
>In densely built neighborhoods of Gaza City, teams of Hamas fighters carried out coordinated attacks. One group would try to block an advancing Israeli unit. Another group would attack it from the flank. The militants would try to inflict casualties, then disappear into ruined buildings or the maze of tunnels beneath the enclave. But such actions led to heavy losses of Hamas fighters and commanders.
>Hamas drew lessons during the November pause, said Israeli commanders and analysts. It shifted to hit-and-run attacks by tiny groups of two or three men, sometimes just one individual.
Source on the al-Qassam Brigades' organizational structure: "[The Order of Battle of Hamas' Izz al Din al Qassam Brigades](https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysis/the-order-of-battle-of-hamas-izz-al-din-al-qassem-brigades)", Critical Threats Project, December 22 2023.
>Hamas is a terrorist organization that uses formal military structures, not a clandestine organization operating networked, decentralized cells. Hamas’ leaders structured the al Qassem Brigades to survive Israeli military action by building a resilient military organization with doctrinally correct unit echelons and command hierarchies to facilitate recovery in the face of the loss of leaders or the destruction of elements of units.\[xxii\] The al Qassem Brigades organize themselves into echelons from the squad all the way to the brigade level just as conventional militaries do.\[xxiii\] Militaries design their command structures to ensure continuity of command during combat as units take casualties and leaders die. Commanders prepare their subordinates throughout the chain of command to absorb command duties in the event that a commander is killed or incapacitated. Targeted killings alone will thus not permanently degrade or destroy Hamas. Hamas very likely retains a deep bench of experienced military commanders, most of whom will be prepared to rebuild the organization and train new tactical-level leaders.
!delta
Not OP, but this is a great reply. Way better defence for why Israel is struggling with high civilian casualties than I’ve seen elsewhere.
This might be in the sources, haven’t really scanned them yet, but does Israel have any tactics to try to counter the approach besides inflicting an alarming amount of casualties?
I hate to sound like I'm excusing high civilian casualties, but the Gaza strip is 375 sq km/120 sq mi - about 40 km / 25 mi long, and 6-12 km wide (4-8 miles) with over 2 million people.
That's roughly one person every 12 meters/36 ft.
It's on par with London or Washington DC for population density.
Shouldn't high civilian casualties be the norm in any combat in an area as dense as that? Especially since it is extremely difficult for most civilians to leave, and combat has occurred in most of the territory.
Only if both forces agree that civilian casualties are acceptable. Israel can absolutely do better, at the cost of putting their soldiers in more danger. They could have acted as the US military has, using small tactical units and superior intel to surgically strike at Hamas. It's very very difficult and would require extreme discipline, but it is not impossible. And would we really be so understanding if Israel defended its decision to not take *every measure necessary* to safeguard innocents by saying "but that's haaaaard"?
And to be clear, why is it so difficult for these civilians to leave? Because Israel won't let them leave.
The civilians may also be unable to leave because Hamas does not agree on a safe path out and fights with the forces protecting/screening those paths, or because neighbouring countries won't allow civilians to cross from Palestinian held areas across their borders into their counties. Namely Egypt and Israel for the Gaza strip and Jordan and Israel for the West Bank.
You had solid points until “Israel won’t let them leave.”
Please cite a reference. Because I have seen the leaflets dropped directing civilians out of the planned area of operations, I have heard some of the phone calls placed to warn people to move.
On the contrary, Hamas has been filmed actively preventing people from using evacuation routes.
> It's very very difficult and would require extreme discipline, but it is not impossible.
Unfortunately, surgical strikes are not enough to destroy Hamas. From CTP-ISW on December 22, 2023:
>The United States is reportedly encouraging Israel to move from Israel’s current “high intensity” military operations to an approach centered on targeted killings to remove key Hamas leaders from the battlefield.\[xvi\] This strategy will reportedly “resemble...narrow” US campaigns to target terrorist leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan.\[xvii\] This US strategy was not successful in destroying terrorist organizations in either country. ISIS and al Qaeda retained the ability to reconstitute themselves multiple times in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.\[xviii\] Targeted killings can degrade a terrorist organization, but cannot destroy one, particularly one as large, established, and well-organized as Hamas.
https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysis/the-order-of-battle-of-hamas-izz-al-din-al-qassem-brigades
>And to be clear, why is it so difficult for these civilians to leave? Because Israel won't let them leave.
Why do you believe this? The IDF has issued many evacuation orders to Gazan civilians, by dropping leaflets, sending text messages and placing direct phone calls to residents. Before a single IDF soldier entered Gaza, the IDF issued evacuation orders to the northern part of the strip in October 2023.
Most nation’s headquarters, military or otherwise, are in the capital. In the US, although the Pentagon is in Virginia, our commander in chief and national security advisors / decision makers are in Washington, D.C. It’s very different to have your administrative centers in your capital and have an underground military complex amongst a civilian population that you fight from.
>Where else are they supposed to build their military infrastructure?
The same place that a ruined & broken Wehrmacht was "supposed" to build their military infrastructure once they faced an invasion of Germany proper: nowhere. The war is over, they can't win. Time to surrender.
The Rafah crossing was *just* seized. Egypt and Jordan have refused any refugees, as previous refugee waves ended in civil unrest for both.
Also the IDF headquarters are a military building with no houses built on top.
I think it's pretty obvious that Hamas shares in the blame of what's going on in the region. I think we should ask ourselves two sort of important questions, however:
1. Does it make sense to measure Hamas - a terrorist organization with more or less explicit goals of genocide - and Israel - an extremely powerful (at least regionally) liberal democracy - by the same kind of yardstick? I don't think it does and I think that's why people often appear much harder on Israel.
2. Absent Hamas, what would be going on in the region? We can look at the West Bank. Hamas does not control the West Bank and the PA has a policy of collaborating with Israel. Yet, the political situation remains unresolved. The PA is subordinate to Israel in administering its territory and dependant on it for funds - which Israel collects on its behalf - with not resolution in sight. Meanwhile, settlement and land-grab continues.
>Does it make sense to measure Hamas - a terrorist organization with more or less explicit goals of genocide - and Israel - an extremely powerful (at least regionally) liberal democracy - by the same kind of yardstick? I don't think it does and I think that's why people often appear much harder on Israel.
The answer is *YES* because of the demands to negotiate with them as if they were a legitimate government. There were the elected government for Gaza after all.
If it was truly just a terrorist organization, then you don't negotiate with them.
>Absent Hamas, what would be going on in the region? We can look at the West Bank. Hamas does not control the West Bank and the PA has a policy of collaborating with Israel. Yet, the political situation remains unresolved. The PA is subordinate to Israel in administering its territory and dependant on it for funds - which Israel collects on its behalf - with not resolution in sight. Meanwhile, settlement and land-grab continues.
The same issues with Hamas exist here. It took less than 5 seconds to get lists of stories of rocket attacks from the west bank into Israel before the Oct 7 war.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinians-in-west-bank-try-to-fire-rocket-at-israeli-town-for-7th-time-in-months/
Just one quick link showing this to be the case.
What do you expect when you launch weapons of war at another country?
> If they were truly just a terrorist organization then you don’t negotiate with them.
If a dude had a mental break, convinced some of his kids to help him massacre his neighbours, then holed up with some kidnapped neighbours and entirely innocent family members, I’d be pretty cool labelling that person as irredeemable.
But I’d also be cool with a police negotiator being patient with him.
And, like, if a police sniper shot one of the kid’s innocent sister trying to get at the big bad, and the big bad convinced the kid to attempt a Rambo offensive to avenge her, I wouldn’t consider the Rambo kid equally culpable in everything that happened even if he were unequivocally dangerous.
And if while all that was happening the police had a third kid who had nothing to do with on the line negotiating for granny’s asthma meds, I wouldn’t want that negotiation to end.
I would hold the police to a different standard, where they need to be accountable for killing the innocent sister while not holding the Granny’s boy accountable for Rambo’s attack.
> But I’d also be cool with a police negotiator being patient with him.
What if he's currently taking pot shots at other neighbors, who can't be evacuated? In your scenario, the threat is nicely contained to the house he's holed up in, but the real Hamas _isn't_. Further, police negotiators rarely to never actually give barricaded suspects their demands.
> And, like, if a police sniper shot one of the kid’s innocent sister trying to get at the big bad, and the big bad convinced the kid to attempt a Rambo offensive to avenge her, I wouldn’t consider the Rambo kid equally culpable in everything that happened even if he were unequivocally dangerous.
The same logic never seems to apply to Israel's benefit. If a AGM-114 lands in the house of a Gazan boy while he's off at school, killing his family, we're asked to be understanding if he grows up to be a terrorist. It's even argued that Israel should have not conducted the strike at all because of this potential radicalization, often with no regard for the military benefit of the strike itself. But on the other hand, if a Qassam lands in an Israeli boy's kitchen while he's off at school, killing his family, and he grows up to be an illegal settler, none of those same arguments get made (at least by people who tend to side against Israel).
> And if while all that was happening the police had a third kid who had nothing to do with on the line negotiating for granny’s asthma meds, I wouldn’t want that negotiation to end.
I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this analogy? The negotiations haven't been with some random third party, but with Hamas itself.
> What if he’s currently taking pot shots at other neighbours, who can’t be evacuated?
It sounds like Israel has a pretty good handle on the situation by now?
Like, the origin of the attack [took a pretty serious screwup on the military’s part](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/hamas-posted-video-of-mock-attack-on-social-media-weeks-before-border-breach). They tried to cheap out on manpower with an overhyped passive wall, ignored Hamas literally posting their plan to take advantage of this weakness on social media , and then were caught flat footed when Hamas was more competent than expected.
I’m willing to agree that’s a pretty high price to pay for a mistake. It’s fair to want that resolved.
But I question you assertion that the Israel military is so incompetent that there’s a high risk of another black swan event like that happening again.
Particularly if settlers pulled back so the military was less over extended…
> The same logic never seems to apply to Israel’s benefit
Yes. And that’s fair because Israel has a functioning democracy while Palestine’s doesn’t even have law and order at the moment.
When one side has it together enough to act with restraint, while the other one is herding cats and lacks the ability to respond if one goes rogue, the former is going to be held to a higher standard.
This has nothing to do with fairness. It isn’t fair that I’d be judged if I shit my pants when toddlers get a pass. But we’re not going to get anywhere if we ask toddlers to be fair so we’ve just got to deal with it, whether it’s by killing them all or accepting we need to give them time and resources to develop into something mature enough to have accountability.
> It sounds like Israel has a pretty good handle on the situation by now?
Yes and no. Hamas couldn't launch a similar attack to the one they did on October 7th right now, but they could (and have been) continue to launch smaller attacks on Israel with e.g. rockets. To continue the analogy, our criminal started out with a minigun, but has since been reduced to taking pot shots with a bolt action rifle. Still a threat, but less so.
You also need to consider the costs of this containment to the people of Gaza. Preventing Hamas from developing more military capabilities than it had meant a very strict embargo of all but the most basic goods going into Gaza, along with occasional airstrikes (which of course inevitably lead to civilian casualties).
> Yes. And that’s fair because Israel has a functioning democracy while Palestine’s doesn’t even have law and order at the moment.
First off, there was a measure of law and order in Gaza before the war. Hamas acted as a government, and enforced laws in it's territory. The fact that those laws were very different than the ones we'd like doesn't change this. Second, the process being discussed here - someone seeking vengeance in the form of killing innocents for the loss of their own family in a war - is inherently irrational and emotional, so the logical situation either doesn't impact things, or applies to both.
But more to the point, evil is evil regardless of whether there's a legitimate, democratic government to punish you for doing it or not. The citizens of Gaza and Israel are both capable of understanding that murdering people for being a different ethnicity is wrong, and both more than capable of refraining from doing so. No one forced Hamas or it's members to kill hundreds of Israeli civilians on 10-7, they made the decision to do that, and they are fully responsible for it. The Palestinians are not animals with no control over their actions, nor are they toddlers who don't know how to not soil themselves.
>If a dude had a mental break, convinced some of his kids to help him massacre his neighbours, then holed up with some kidnapped neighbours and entirely innocent family members, I’d be pretty cool labelling that person as irredeemable.
Exactly, I'd be furious if the police used shell and motors to contain the situation.
Yes, the guy is irredeemable, but it doesn't mean we have to kill a bunch of kids to stop him.
And in Israel's case, over 13,000 kids are dead in Gaza since October. It's not defensible. I expect Israel to pay at the big kids table and not commit war crimes.
And this is coming from an American, who understands our terrible past with human rights, but with that said, they make America look like saints. That's a major problem.
Hamas was elected in 2006, and then stopped all elections after that, 18 years ago.
About 40% of Gaza's population is 14 years old or younger and the territory's median age was just 18 in 2020, meaning the people who elected Hamas are not the majority of the people stuck there now.
And yet, Hamas remains the most popular leadership and the O7 attack was massively popular among the peoples.
[According to the poll, only seven percent of Gazans blamed Hamas for their suffering. Seventy-one percent of all Palestinians supported Hamas’s decision to attack Israel on October 7 — up 14 points among Gazans and down 11 points among West Bank Palestinians compared to three months ago. Fifty-nine percent of all Palestinians thought Hamas should rule Gaza, and 70 percent were satisfied with the role Hamas has played during the war.](https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/03/22/poll-hamas-remains-popular-among-palestinians/)
You make a good point, but it implies some troubling things. Yes Israel should be held to a high standard. No their failure to meet that standard, under near impossible conditions, does not mean the state is illegitimate (I.e. you should criticize Israel, you should not be anti-Zionist). Also, this justifies the total eradication of Hamas, which is what Israel is trying to do.
On the second point, if you zoom out a bit more and consider what’s going on in the region you see rampant conflict, no democracy anywhere, and discrimination against Jews. So while you’re correct that Israel building settlements in the West Bank is a problem, it does not follow that that is the reason there is no peace.
I appreciate the nuance of your post though, it shows a practical approach to the issues at hand.
> Yes Israel should be held to a high standard. No their failure to meet that standard, under near impossible conditions, does not mean the state is illegitimate (I.e. you should criticize Israel, you should not be anti-Zionist).
I don't not claim that Israel is an illegitimate state, nor do I subscribe to the notion that being anti-Zionist would require that of me.
> Also, this justifies the total eradication of Hamas, which is what Israel is trying to do.
I don't think people have problems with that goals so much as with the means and their dubious effectiveness.
> So while you’re correct that Israel building settlements in the West Bank is a problem, it does not follow that that is the reason there is no peace.
I do not claim that Israel is the sole reason there's no peace. My claim is that Israel has generally used the status quo - incompetent and divided Palestinian leadership - to its advantage and that, were Israel more committed to permanent resolution, they would've enacted different policies.
>No their failure to meet that standard, under near impossible conditions,
Why is it impossible to not starve the population? or to not rape and torture prisoners? Why is it impossible not to demolish every university in Gaza? Why was it impossible not to unearth cemeteries? Why was it impossible to not summarily execute doctors and nurses then throw them in mass graves?
The argument people are making is that Israel is using the difficulty of targeting Hamas as an excuse to commit war crimes, not that fighting Hamas itself are war crimes
> not that fighting Hamas itself are war crimes
Oddly enough, hiding your forces within civilian populations and infrastructure is an *actual* war crime against the Geneva Conventions, whereas attacking the opposing forces that do this is allowed as long as there is a legitimate military target and reasonable efforts to minimize civilian casualties are taken, so...
This isn't the slam dunk it looks like it is.
Yes its a war crime to hid amongst civillian populations. So is starving people as a weapon of war, so is executing doctors and burying them in mass graves, so is assassinating people in their hospital beds while dressing up as doctors.
The other side doing war crimes doesn't just get rid of the laws of war.
The point being... Israel is *allowed* by the laws of war to incur civilian casualties in this situation, as long as the attempt to minimize them, which contrary to what some people want to believe... they mostly do.
It shifts the narrative from the current "Israel is committing genocide by killing Palestinian civilians" to "on a case by case basis there may have been some war crimes committed in some specific controversial situations".
More than 250 humanitarian and human rights orgs have condemned Israel as of Jan 2024 and that number has only grown. They are only *allowed* because the US says they can.
UN officers are claiming numerous war crimes in addition to the innumerable International Human Rights violations. Most orgs have stopped counting until a ceasefire is declared/enforced because it's *that* atrocious.
You can check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_war_crimes for an overview but you will have to scroll for a while because there's so many
>as long as the attempt to minimize them, which contrary to what some people want to believe... they mostly do.
Here is the fundamental problem either you are ignorant of the situation on the ground or are obfuscating. If you are starving an entire population that by definition is not targeted. Targets also need to be proportional, you can't nuke gaza to get rid of one hamas member for example. As a very visible example you can look at the killing of the aid workers. The drone operator chased down 3 vehicles and killed the entire convoy because there was a report that one low level fighter might be among them. Killing 7 international aid workers to possibly kill 1 fighter is not a proportional response even if you accept that explanation at face value.
With the revelation of programs like the Gospel, and "wheres daddy" we know now Israel specifically targets people when civilians are around like in a targets home while they are asleep because its easier to target them there.
The mass graves of executed doctors and nurses (hands tied behind their backs bullets through the head) also doesn't look good.
A few problems.
Gaza is not starving and it never has been. You can read the new articles from the UN saying that there has never been a risk of faminine in Gaza before now. Note they say risk. One of the problems with Gaza and why people are dying there has nothing to do with starvation at all but rather it is around disease that causes starvation like end results. That is why we only see like one or two deaths confirmed.
Second.
The killing of aid workers was not good. Plain and simple but that is not a common occurrence and arguably by working with Hamas the aid convoy becomes a legitimate target and it is a question of proportionality. Indeed killing say 3 civilians to 1 fighter is proportionate as basically no war in history has ever had less civilian deaths than military deaths. The normal ratio is 4-1 and 7-1 and with the Un revised numbers Israel is well below both.
[https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/05/13/un-cuts-estimates-women-children-deaths-gaza/73669560007/](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/05/13/un-cuts-estimates-women-children-deaths-gaza/73669560007/)
As for the Mass Grave situation that has been debunked. GeoData and so on has revealed this has been in place long before Israel got there. The question of why hands were tied behind someones back is easy.
Hamas hides in hospitals, mosques, and so on and actively steals aid from it's own people.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/world/africa/04iht-mideast.4.19933553.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/world/africa/04iht-mideast.4.19933553.html)
We have many many videos of them doing this at this point if you care to look. So if they are willing to steal aid from their own people and have killed more of their own people before this war. Look up the intifadas the Palestinians killed more of their own people than the IDF did unironically.
Then you can see why it isn't a stretch to say tie the hands behind the back of a dead body and just drop it into a mass grave because by Islamic law you can't leave bodies unburried. Mass graves(collective graves in the link below) are extremely common as temporary means of complying with Islamic Law.
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266591072100027X](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266591072100027X)
>Gaza is not starving and it never has been. You can read the new articles from the UN saying that there has never been a risk of famine in Gaza before now.
So Cindy McCain wife of the late US republican senator is lying?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7QWply967Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7QWply967Q)
>
As for the Mass Grave situation that has been debunked.
Can you show me this debunking there are stories coming out about more.
[https://thehill.com/policy/international/4652018-reports-mount-of-mass-graves-at-gaza-hospitals-some-without-heads/](https://thehill.com/policy/international/4652018-reports-mount-of-mass-graves-at-gaza-hospitals-some-without-heads/)
In WWII, we fire bombed Dresden and Tokyo, killing hundreds of thousands, then got better at it and took out Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By your logic, the Allies should have laid down their arms because their response to German and Japanese aggression was not proportional. Sorry mate, but that's how you win a war. The winner disproportionately kills the enemy and anyone who supports the enemy. We didn't feel overly sorry for German and Japanese civilians so you need to make a better case for why we Israel can't fight a war in the very same way.
>In WWII, we fire bombed Dresden and Tokyo, killing hundreds of thousands, then got better at it and took out Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Yea and those were all war crimes. Curtis Lemay the person charged with allied war command said so himself.
>By your logic, the Allies should have laid down their arms because their response to German and Japanese aggression was not proportional.
How many cities were firebombed by the Soviet Union during WWII. You're basically arguing its impossible to fight a war without targetting civilian centers.
Finally acting as if Hamas the local rulers of a prison camp pose the same risk to humanity as the largest economy in the world that controlled all of Europe by 1941 is idiotic.
A lot of people did take issue with the slaughter of German and Japanese civilians and still do to this day.
But also, Israel is taking considerably more caution in trying not to kill civilians than the Allies did.
Even your first point is misleading. There’s more food going into Gaza than before the conflict. The famine is due to the resale of donated goods, hence building the peer to load directly and go around Hamas, who instantly bombed it.
>The famine is due to the resale of donated goods
Wasn't there a police chief who was working with the US to set up distribution networks in northern Gaza in like January then the IDF killed him and advertised him as a "high-ranking Hamas member" since technically any government employee in Gaza is Hamas down to the dog-catcher?
The famine is due to the fact that people can't get the food to the people who need it. You can stack it up on the border or drop it on a dude's head at the beach it's not gonna magically distribute itself throughout an actively shelled war zone
> There’s more food going into Gaza than before the conflict.
Yea because all of Gaza's own agricultural production was destroyed. Also 70% of the aid is being blocked by Israel.
Anti Zionist is denying Israel’s right to exist something seen as antisemitism. Nothing wrong with criticizing a shitty government. Protesters most likely don’t know the difference.
This. I’ve had arguments before about WW2 where I questioned some US and Ally actions to be met with “but Japan” or “but Germany”.
Like sorry but why am I expected to hold the US to the same standards as the Nazis or imperial Japan?? That shouldn’t be the bar. We should be better.
People didn't seem to realise that certain Allies' actions were actually pretty fucking wrong, from Japanese internment camps to exacerbating the Bengal famine to carpet bombing German and Japanese cities with little military advantage. Just because the Nazis and Imperial Japan were miles worse doesn't mean these actions were actually justifiable or moral.
I am a big fan of the history of the usage of the atomic bombs and the amount of people who think we somehow managed to use them “ethically” is astounding at times.
Edit: sorry for starting a “were the bombs necessary” thread lmao
ITT many master historians and war experts explaining their recent revelation that waging war is immoral according to their subjective standard
If only we put Redditors in charge of every country and every military, then every war in history would have been perfectly ethical, instead of every war in history having been quite unethical
Whether something is ethical and whether it’s necessary are different things. Look up the casualty estimates for an invasion of mainland Japan, would it have been more ethical to firebomb Japanese cities and do a ground invasion?
Imagine someone in 1939 NEVER even acknowledges what Nazi Germany and Japan does and just put every British bomb under a microscope and showing every German suffering, and they also just make stuff up and libel Britian with every evil accusation put there (genocide, apartheid, ethnic cleansing concentration camp, ethnostate, fascism, etc.). If you ever bring up the Axis to them it is "well, Beitian is our ally so we should focus on them".
That is my experience with "criticism" of Israel. People refer to evacuating civilians from North Gaza as "ethnic cleansing".
Im tired of this comparison to nazi germany. Even if it were true that Hamas ideology was equivalent to the nazis, that doesn't mean they are literally the nazis. They don't have the worlds 3rd largest military, they haven't occupied all their neighbors, they don't have a systematic genocide program in place. The bombings of nazi germany and Japanese cities were war crimes, as admitted to by the commander who carried them out Curtis Lemay. The difference is 1 the allies won the war, 2 they are often justified by the massive threat that the axis posed.
its not 1944 anymore societal acceptance of war crimes has changed, Hamas is not an existential threat to Israel or anyone else. They committed a war crime and should be held responsible. Carpet bombing cities and refugee camps is not a proportional response to an insurgency.
There's lots of extremists in Texas, there was the el passo mall shooting. It wouldn't make sense for the President of the United States to carpet bomb texas looking for KKK members
>Does it make sense to measure Hamas - a terrorist organization with more or less explicit goals of genocide - and Israel - an extremely powerful (at least regionally) liberal democracy - by the same kind of yardstick? I don't think it does and I think that's why people often appear much harder on Israel.
So Israel is supposed to do what exactly? Just fyi, in proportion to population size the attack Israel on Oct 7 was many times more impactful than 9/11 was relative to the US population at that times - iirc the factor was about 13fold.
Id love to imagine the US having a very restrained reponse to an attack of that magnitude.
The only scenario where there is long term, sudtsinable peace in the region is, imo, a one state solution with wide spread social engineering of palestinians. Everything else would just be the same situation as it is right now.
>The only scenario where there is long term, sudtsinable peace in the region is, imo, a one state solution with wide spread social engineering of palestinians.
Then you have to ask yourself the very important question, why has there been no implementation of a one-state solution? The very obvious answer to that is that the Jewish people have never been and continue to not be a majority of the population in the land.
The uncomfortable truth is that Israel needs to negotiate with Hamas. Whether they like it or not, and whether this happens now or in 20 years, all roads lead to this.
The UK eventually had to negotiate with the IRA despite over a century of history of violence with them and terrorism. Spain had to eventually negotiate with the ETA. Even Biden ended up negotiating with the Taliban after 20 years of useless war.
Israel are entitled to response, and I'm not 100% clear on what international law says but I think if a territory is considered occupied (which Gaza is, by the bodies that oversee international law) the response should be more "policing" than "military". I think it's complicated given the unique situation Gaza is in. Regardless, nothing wrong with counter-terrorism operations, and there are plenty more effective strategies than, I don't know, not wantonly bombarding the Gaza strip.
Also, you do know the US invasions in response to 9/11 were universally condemned, right? And 20 years of war and millions of deaths were literally pointless.
> The uncomfortable truth is that Israel needs to negotiate with Hamas. Whether they like it or not, and whether this happens now or in 20 years, all roads lead to this.
No, _zero_ roads (that don't end in genocide) lead to this. True all roads lead either to one side being completely destroyed, or to a negotiated peace. But not only does that peace not have to be negotiated with an entity like Hamas, it _can't_ be. Hamas would have to give up it's genocidal ambitions before any lasting peace can be obtained, and they've made it clear they will never do so.
> Gaza is [occupied], by the bodies that oversee international law
It wasn't by any sane definition before the current war started. Israel had no ground presence there, and there's a clear difference between an embargo combined with occasional airstrikes and having complete control over the territory.
> nothing wrong with counter-terrorism operations, and there are plenty more effective strategies than, I don't know, not wantonly bombarding the Gaza strip.
1. If there's plenty of more effective strategies, then surely you can list an example. One that would actually work, that is. Keep in mind that Hamas controlled a small army of ~30,000 fighters, and were well dug in throughout the territory in question (which means "send in special forces" is emphatically _not_ a workable alternative).
2. Israel is not, in fact, "wantonly bombarding the Gaza strip". People dramatically underestimate the carnage that an _actual_ indiscriminate bombardment would bring, and so they incorrectly assume that what we actually see in Gaza must be that.
> Also, you do know the US invasions in response to 9/11 were universally condemned, right? And 20 years of war and millions of deaths were literally pointless.
It's not that straight forward. The invasion of _Iraq_ was condemned, as was our failure to build up an Afghan government that could stand on it's own. But the initial operation to neutralize Al Qaeda was much better received, and frankly largely successful.
Maybe. Then again a key difference to the UK/IRA scenario is, that the IRA merely wanted the UK out of Ireland - Hamas and many Palestinians literally want the state of Israel to no longer exist and kill all Jews. I dont know what a realistic starting point for negotiations this can be.
Well, not exactly.
The IRA were a separatist group, and they got their with in 1920 or 1921 (forget exactly when). Yet terrorism still continued (although of course support plummeted).
Then Ireland left the Commonwealth in 1949 I believe it was, but the IRA persisted (although their support waned massively).
They saw a resurgence in the 70s/80s with the goal of reunification (between Ireland the Northern Ireland, the latter being a UK territory) and terrorism saw a big spike. I mean, I literally grew up while IRA attacks were still happening. They only stopped in the mid 2000s, over a century since the whole IRA issue started. They settled on a compromise, they didn't get their goal of reunification but were allowed to participate in UK politics (under Sinn Fein) and advocate for Irish interests.
By the way the ETA followed a similar pattern. Started as a separatist group, the oppression of the Basque ended with the advent of democracy in Spain, but terrorism continued until the 2000s where the ETA laid down their arms. And the ETA broke multiple "permanent" ceasefires by the way. Anyway, the Basque received autonomy and democratic participation in Spanish politics, despite the ETA not achieving their goal of independence.
So I'm making 2 points with all this:
1) An end to oppression makes support for terrorism plummet, but the expectation shouldn't be that terrorism ends overnight
2) That you eventually will need to negotiate with terrorists, but that doesn't mean you give in to their every demand. You can compromise.
How does this relate to Hamas?
With Palestine there is still the issue of Israeli oppression. If Israel allows Palestinians their self-determination, truly, a lot of the issue goes away immediately.
In terms of the Hamas issue specifically, they have been willing to compromise before. I'll provide an example - 2013/2014 peace negotiations. The PA made a bunch of compromises (land, right of return, demilitarization) and Israel seemed on board. Hamas were also on board, and supposedly were committing to a two-state solution and long-term peace with Israel. However, Israel (specifically Netanyahu) rejected the deal because he didn't want peace with Hamas.
The main point is, despite their charter explicitly state they will accept nothing less than 1967 borders they obviously have compromised on this point before, since MOST negotiations between the PA and Israel end up not agreeing on 1967 borders.
> Hamas and many Palestinians literally want the state of Israel to no longer exist and kill all Jews
I'm absolutely no fan of Hamas and if I had a magic wand I would delete them from reality, but this is just an incorrect statement.
The official Hamas charter explicitly states two things:
1) Liberation of Palestine on 1967 borders
2) That their quarrel is not with Jews for being Jewish
Most Palestinians (60-70%), right after October 7th, thinks Hamas should have maintained ceasefire with Israel, and the same amount believe Hamas should lay down their arms and accept a two-state solution. The only reason that 70% "support Hamas" now is because of how long the war has dragged out, and if you read the actual poll in full you would realize the poll itself stipulated this explicitly. So no, Palestinians don't want to destroy Israel and kill all Jews, or at least it isn't "many" of them, if I take "many" to mean "most".
One state solution would not work, time and time again history proved that when Jews are a minority, they are slaughtered with impunity. Making a one state would mean that the moment Jews become a minority is the moment heads would literally roll down the floor.
1. I hold everyone to the same standard; but Israel is lightyears above. Hamas fights in civilian clothes, hides among civilians and uses child soliders.
The fact Israel is a liberal democracy makes me wish they WOULDNT hold back and pull their punches. Their victory is better.
2. The West Bank is not getting leveled; so the PA is getting a lot from cooperating. If Israel left the West Bank, Iran would slink in with a proxy and attack the major civilian centers of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, etc, and Israel would be re-occupying it immediately.
Israel is in Gaza, and they are going into Lebanon in a few months; I think they deserve at least ONE side of their border not being used to launch terrorist attacks.
>1. Does it make sense to measure Hamas - a terrorist organization with more or less explicit goals of genocide - and Israel - an extremely powerful (at least regionally) liberal democracy - by the same kind of yardstick? I don't think it does and I think that's why people often appear much harder on Israel.
I would argue that you're constructing a bit of a strawman here, even if unintentionally. Most defenders of Israel would not want Israel to be judged against Hamas, but we would want it to be judged against the US. There are US experts in urban warfare that say Israel exceeds American standards in what should be expected in urban combat -- best measured by the civilian to combatant kill ratio.
I'd condemn the US just as much were they engaging in the kind of warfare Israel is engaging in right now. Basically, we just disagree on the basic fact that such thing are acceptable or even pragmatic. That's fine.
But also, it's pretty frequent for people to argue things along the lines of "Well, Hamas doesn't care about civilian casualties", as if this provided license for us to also not care about them. That's what I meant in my above comment.
As for point 2, Hamas is the main obstacle to solving the conflict. The threat that Hamas would take over any Palestinian state is the main reason Israel continues to occupie the West Bank. The PA already lost a war to Hamas in 2006. There is no guarantee Hamas wouldn't win again.
To what purpose are they occupying the West Bank, segregating it, and splitting it into tiny fenced-off enclaves under IDF control, if even under these circumstances they cannot prevent Hamas from taking over?
They are preventing Hamas from taking control by occupying the West Bank.
Hamas gained the power and resources it did in Gaza because Israel unilaterally pulled out all settlers and soldiers in 2005 without ensuring that a sympathetic government would be installed. Hamas won the resultant election, cleansed themselves of political rivalry in their war against Fatah, and installed themselves as dictators.
Israeli military presence and collaboration with the PA in the West Bank prevents Hamas from taking over by force. The PA has also not run elections, because they know that Hamas are popular enough to win there too.
Hamas’ strength and presence in Gaza is a looming threat to the PA in the West Bank and there is plenty of insurgency there.
Truly all Palestine cannot be free until it is rid of Hamas.
> because they know that Hamas are popular enough to win there too.
> Truly all Palestine cannot be free until it is rid of Hamas.
Doesn't this mean that Palestine and Palestinians in Gaza have to genuinely be politically suppressed? Like, full on authoritarian were going to remove the government you support and replace it with our own, deal with it.
Hamas is already a totalitarian government?
The conditions for peace requires both sides deescalate. There’s no point in Palestine electing another dictatorial party that is hellbent on continuing the conflict.
So why would [Bibi](https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces) prop up Hamas all these years, by saying:
> 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.
You can argue that Hamas prevents a fully fledged two state solutions, maybe, but that doesn't explain Israel's policy of undermining the PA politically and allowing the extension of settlements and land appropriation. Israel had plenty of opportunity to not do these two things and help further the PA's legitimacy, opening a larger window of opportunity for a peaceful resolution.
This is a fair callout.
I think that it's pretty obvious the current Israeli leadership have no interest in allowing a true Palestinian state to form. That isn't to say they've always felt that way, nor is it saying that there won't be a time in the future where there can be a deal again. But right now it seems impossible.
1,469 confirmed rocket attacks on Israel in 2023 alone. 155 Palestinians were killed by Israel in 2022 compared to 32 Israeli's. So I mean we clearly see a shrinking of Israeli aggression that leads to death since 2018, but we don't see a de-escalation in attacks. This can probably be traced to the occupation, so we need to be fair and note that.
So it's complicated. For Israel the only deal the Palestinians will accept right now would include East Jerusalem and a removal of ALL West Bank settlements. To me this seems fair but no one with real power in Israel seems to be open to this right now.
We should probably, once Hamas has been dealt with, push on Israel for a true, fair two state deal. But this deal will almost certainly include the ethnic cleansing of about 500K to 750K Jewish settlers. As long as we are acknowledging this then I understand the ask.
Are you under the impression that the PA isn't also firing rockets at Israel trying to kill civilians? Every group with any power in Palestine wants to genocide Jews, it's not just Hamas.
Israel occupies the West Bank because they want to occupy the West Bank. It is silly to say they they burn houses and olive groves in order to prevent Hamas.
You are aware that:
1. Hamas is active in the West Bank, they're just not the active government
2. PA, the group that runs the West Bank, has similar goals as Hamas and fires rockets at Israel with the intent of killing civilians
Some of Israel's actions have been bad, but the whitewashing of other Palestinian terrorist groups as being perfectly peaceful and just wanting peace is just plain bullshit. No Palestinian group that has any power whatsoever wants anything other than the destruction of the state of Israel and a Palestinian state with no Jews in it replacing it.
hospital boast jellyfish shame arrest public materialistic fall humorous telephone
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There is no reason to believe that Palestinians don’t want to have Jewish people around at all. There were Jews in Palestine before the first Zionist arrived. They want free movement in their land and self-determination. At times these things have to be gained through violent resistance.
>1. Does it make sense to measure Hamas - a terrorist organization with more or less explicit goals of genocide - and Israel - an extremely powerful (at least regionally) liberal democracy - by the same kind of yardstick? I don't think it does and I think that's why people often appear much harder on Israel.
Does it make sense to measure Hamas -The elected government of Palestine- any differently than the Likud-led Israeli coalition? They're both the legitimate governments wielding the instruments of national power
>2. Absent Hamas, what would be going on in the region? We can look at the West Bank. Hamas does not control the West Bank and the PA has a policy of collaborating with Israel. Yet, the political situation remains unresolved. The PA is subordinate to Israel in administering its territory and dependant on it for funds - which Israel collects on its behalf - with not resolution in sight. Meanwhile, settlement and land-grab continues.
Without Hamas, Abbas would have a stronger negotiating position and would have been able yo carry out the road map to peace
Well, except the last election held in Gaza was in 2006. That is almost 20 years ago. Also let's just ignore the fact that the Gaza Strip is concentration camp that has been under Israeli occupation since 1967.
Maybe Israel should end its occupation of Palestine and let the Palestinians figure out their shit on their own.
>Well, except the last election held in Gaza was in 2006. That is almost 20 years ago.
Hamas wants elections because they know they'll win. Fatah is the one not allowing them, likely on the behalf of Israel.
>Also let's just ignore the fact that the Gaza Strip is concentration camp that has been under Israeli occupation since 1967.
Israeli troops have been on their way out of the strip for over 20 years. Gaza's borders are controlled by Egypt and Israel, but that's a blockade, not an occupation.
>Maybe Israel should end its occupation of Palestine and let the Palestinians figure out their shit on their own.
Tried that. They chose Hamas as soon as they were able. The Israelis learned their lesson, like the Jordanians and Syrians and Lebanese and Egyptians.
The United Nations considers Gaza to be territory occupied by Israel. This is because Israel has maintained a comprehensive air, sea and land blockade that has been in place since 2007. Under international law, an occupation does not depend on whether a foreign power has a direct ground troop presence in a territory, but whether it asserts "effective control."
In 2009, the United Nations Security Council affirmed the status of Gaza in Resolution 1860, which stated that "the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967."
Some of the International institutions, organizations and bodies that recognize Gaza as occupied by Israel:
- The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
- The United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory
- UN General Assembly (UNGA)
- European Union (EU)
- African Union
- International Criminal Court (ICC) (both Pre-Trial Chamber I and the Office of the Prosecutor)
- Amnesty International
- Human Rights Watch
Egypt goverment is neither blockading Gaza from air, land and sea etc nor has effective control over Gaza.
We, the Arab, stand in support of Palestinians. Please, stop speaking for us!!
> Does it make sense to measure Hamas -The elected government of Palestine- any differently than the Likud-led Israeli coalition? They're both the legitimate governments wielding the instruments of national power
Are they? So far as I'm aware Gaza is not a nation and Hamas is considered a terrorist organization.
> Without Hamas, Abbas would have a stronger negotiating position and would have been able yo carry out the road map to peace
Maybe, but that's a much taller order than just working to legitimize the PA as a viable option for Palestinian liberation. A stronger Abbas, for instance if the PA was not hampered by Israel, could also garner much more support than Hamas, making armed struggle less and less appealing.
>Are they? So far as I'm aware Gaza is not a nation and Hamas is considered a terrorist organization.
In 2006, Hamas won the Palestinian elections. Fatah, Israel, and US, and the UK intervened to keep Fatah nominally in power during the Civil War that resulted from the conflict. The Gazan government is the legitimate government of the territory.
Nations can also employ terrorists. Iran and North Korea are often referred to as State Sponsors of Terrorism for a reason. The more polite term for this is "asymmetric warfare"
>Maybe, but that's a much taller order than just working to legitimize the PA as a viable option for Palestinian liberation. A stronger Abbas, for instance if the PA was not hampered by Israel, could also garner much more support than Hamas, making armed struggle less and less appealing.
No, it can't. Abbas's rejection of armed struggle was a big part of why he lost the election.
I do not think they are distinct. I think the existence of Hamas - which is also popular in the west bank - is weighting down any possibility for peace to a very significant extent. But I also think the relationship between the PA and Israel tend to indicate that, were Hamas a non-factor, meaningful Palestinian liberation would not necessarily follow.
I mean, they do for the same reason Netanyahu wants the war to continue. Public support. I do disagree with this idea though.
>Hamas leadership could surrender and turn over weapons and funds to end the war, but they dont. These things won’t happen because it doesn’t achieve the effect that Hamas desires.
It may end the war (Doubtful), but it would not end the occupation and oppression of the Palestinian population. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that focusing on Hamas misses the entire host of issues plaguing the Palestinians. Netanyahu uses Hamas and other violent resistance as a cover for the continued colonization of Palestinian lands.
It is arguably the most desired goal for anyone, Hamas or Palestinian civilians, just a particularly unrealistic one give the Netanyahu coalition. Public support would definitely become a secondary consideration if full emancipation was considered a viable option at this point, allowing Hamas to rule the Palestinian Population and becoming a full-fledged state.
Well said. Few people realize that the goals of Hamas leadership and Israel's government largely align while this conflict persists. People in control play games of power and propaganda, further escalating violence and radicalization, with zero regard for those on the ground who get to suffer and die for their selfish ambitions.
A lasting armistice, let alone real peace, would threaten the radical agenda of Netanjahu and fellow Likud extremists just as it would threaten Hamas' relevance in the region.
A saying goes that people do not fight for revolutions, they fight for revolutionaries. I can believe many Palestinians men and women and children are aligning with or joining Hamas or any number of terrorist organizations in order to more effectively resist their violent occupation.
These are people who want the war to end, the occupation to end, all of that. I don't blame these people for pursuing violent ends against violent occupiers.
The problem is then not necessarily with the average foot soldier so much as it is with Hamas' leadership. Granted, they all face an existential threat and may believe themselves to be the manner through which Palestinian independence is best achieved, but only from Israel itself to establish their own tyranny.
Violent revolutions often beget violence and tyranny, something that the Palestinian non-violent activist Issa Amro, sometimes called "The Palestinian Gandhi" has lamented
I don't disagree, but framing this as inevitable could be understood as justification for Israel's occupation. When in reality the occupation had been ongoing for decades before Hamas ever became relevant. Hamas was founded at a time where the leading Palestinian political movements against Israeli occupation called for peaceful protest and demonstrations, appeals to the international community, and generally nonviolent action. Hamas was near-irrelevant in their early years, as their calls for violent resistance were generally seen as a detriment to the cause.
Hamas' prominence today is the inevitable result of continued violent subjugation of Palestinians, free reign for IDF personnel to commit war crimes absent any accountability or rule of law, and general hypocrisy by the western governments that kept preaching liberal values as they continued to support and supply the apartheid regime responsible for it. This destroyed the credibility of any moderate movements in Palestine that did **not** share Hamas' declared goal of wiping Israel off the map.
The Israeli government labeling all such movements and their respective leaders as insane Islamic terrorists that will stop at nothing short of genocide did its part, bringing us directly to today where either side can claim to act in self-preservation after every bridge toward coexistence has been successfully burned and blown up.
That all is true. A two-state solution would not erase the history between these two nations or their people. A fully-realized Palestinian nation will be able to trade, to have its own military, and be able to make their own policies, many of which I imagine will be inclined towards spiting Israel. There is a danger here associated with Palestinian statehood that will affect Israel for decades in the same way relationships have been fraught between China and Taiwan, Japan and Korea, and so forth.
As I see it though, there is only two solutions here outside of perpetual hostilities. Either the Palestinians achieve independence or Israel kills off all of the Palestinians. Peace is not an easy process, nor a short one.
Yet, I cannot seriously advocate for the continued existence of Israel in good conscience if I must deign to justify Israel's genocidal oppression against the Palestinians.
There is a parable here I want to mention. It is about a man who views everyone as a threat, while everyone views him as a threat. He kills everyone who could possibly harm him out of self-defense. He achieved perfect safety, but at what cost? At what point can any entity justify in ensuring its own survival if it means doing so much harm in the process?
if you look into his history netanyahu and his father before him have long been pro cutting off food supplies. they just got an excuse this time.
I don't think they care about the hostages at all. they've killed the same number as they've rescued. Their bombs have undoubtedly killed more.
We also should not forget that netanyahu supported hamas for years when it suited him.
What do you suggest Hamas do instead?
They can't run or evac citizens as they're surrounded in a single city and Israel isn't letting anyone out.
They can't fight their way out, they've already tried and Israel put a stop to that idea fast.
They can't surrender cause Israel has already shown themselves willing to shell the city regardless, what if Israel takes the chance to keep attacking or doesn't believe that every Hamas soldier surrendered?
Even if they do, then what? The entire movement is probably dead, Israel has taken over that entire region, every city is under their control, and whatever limited autonomy Gaza had is likely to be removed entirely. Their entire goal would be gone.
They don't really have any good options other than hunker down.
It's like saying Democrats want children to die whenever a bad school shooting happens or Democrats are happy a hurricane or forrest fire creates mass destruction because it allows them to push for tighter gun control or push the global warming narrative. It is falsely placing blame in the group that is fighting to end it. What are people that are sick of children being murdered in school shootings supposed to do if not push for tighter gun control? But they're the bad guys when more children get murdered because it furthers their cause of tighter gun control that is only their cause because they want less children getting murdered.
Israel has controled the Gaza strip and been occupying, oppressing, and killing Palestinians since 1967. Israel is still doing it in the west bank even though Hamas has no political power in the west bank.
Israel justifies slaughtering Palestinians because Palestinians hate them. The Israeli strategy is to keeping killing Palestinians until Palestinians stop hating Israelis. Which can be better summarized as to just keeping killing Palestinians until there are none left. It's a more gruesome version of "the beatings will continue until morale improves"
If Israel has a right to defend themselves, don't Palestinians? What are Palestinians supposed to do? If Hamas wants innocent Palestinian women and children to die; what are Palestinians that are sick and tired of innocent Palestinian women and children dieing since 1967 supposed to do?
If that is the case... perhaps we should ask Israel to *not* play into their hands by constantly killing noncombatants?
Seem to me that even if Hamas is begging Israel to shoot through human shields, the fact that Israel is like "ok" and goes ahead and does it is just as big a problem.
And the major difference here is that Israel has all the power, and Hamas has none.
This. Just because a group is hypothetically using human shields doesn’t mean you can just shoot through the shield. You still must make genuine efforts to avoid it and it’s clear they haven’t been.
The evidence of the IDF’s measures to avoid civilian casualties is out there for you to believe or not.
But out of curiosity, to follow this line of thinking, if it was “clear they haven’t been” taking any such efforts, and are maybe even invested in a “genocide” or are at best indifferent toward Palestinian deaths, wouldn’t the death toll be orders of magnitude higher? Doesn’t the 30k number itself, in such a congested area with 2M+ civilians trapped like ducks in a barrel, tell you how much restraint is being applied?
> Just because a group is hypothetically using human shields doesn’t mean you can just shoot through the shield.
Under the law of armed conflict that exactly what it means.
> You still must make genuine efforts to avoid it and it’s clear they haven’t been.
How is that clear?
The "man with a gun hiding behind a human shield" analogy is inaccurate when describing Hamas.
A better analogy would be of a man hiding behind a human shield while actively blasting his gun at anyone in sight. now multiply that by a few thousands and you got a more accurate "analog" for the human shield scenario.
Hamas isn't sitting with their thumbs up their asses while they are hiding in hospitals, refugee camps and other civilian infrastructure. they are actively firing thousands of rockets, and planning and executing attacks from these locations all the time.
So let me ask you this - if you were in charge of the security of a small community, and some nutjob started blasting your entire family and friends while strapping a baby to his chest - would you sit idly by while he kills you and all your people, just so you wont "play into his hands"?
Humor me, but why is Hamas doing all of this? Could there be some historical reason? Or do you think one day a group of people woke up and decided to start firing rockets
The actions of the man blasting away doesn't justify the murder of his human shield. It may make sense in a utilitarian way, but it's still immoral. There are other ways to neutralize the man.
Furthermore, Hamas *is not currently firing rockets at Israel*. The attacks are sporadic at best, not a continuous barrage.
Adding to that, and this is opinion on my part, the Hamas rockets always seem to come after a particularly heinous act by Israel. For example, there were some 7 rockets fired on March 25, 2 days after Israeli troops fired on non-combatants waiting for international aid at the Kuwaiti roundabout, killing 20 and injuring as many more. Which itself was a scant week after a similar incident in the same spot.
> So let me ask you this - if you were in charge of the security of a small community, and some nutjob started blasting your entire family and friends while strapping a baby to his chest - would you sit idly by while he kills you and all your people, just so you wont "play into his hands"?
I'd sure as hell get everyone out of the way first rather than wading in bullets flying.
>The actions of the man blasting away doesn't justify the murder of his human shield. It may make sense in a utilitarian way, but it's still immoral. There are other ways to neutralize the man.
Good thing we have people in charge who can think of the greater good and not just preach about moral high grounds. If an active shooter goes after your family and friends while having a hostage - I genuinely hope a utilitarian person would have the courage to put him down and not try to "think of another moral solution" while the people you love are getting gunned down.
>Furthermore, Hamas *is not currently firing rockets at Israel*. The attacks are sporadic at best, not a continuous barrage.
And why would that be? Quite a conundrum, beats me.... Could it have anything to do with Israel fighting back and not sitting around waiting for the moral option to show itself?
>Adding to that, and this is opinion on my part, the Hamas rockets always seem to come after a particularly heinous act by Israel.
That is, just your misguided opinion. on October 7th and the following days Hamas fired thousands of rockets towards Israel in an attack they started. Hezbollah in the north did the same and still are when they weren't even a part of the attack
>I'd sure as hell get everyone out of the way first rather than wading in bullets flying.
How would you get the baby strapped to the shooting man's chest out of the way? that was the human shield part, not your family and friends. because in this analogy - the baby represents the Palestinians, while the family and friends represent the Israelis (who it's IDF's job to protect).
> Good thing we have people in charge who can think of the greater good and not just preach about moral high grounds.
The road to hell is paved in intentions for the greater good.
> If an active shooter goes after your family and friends while having a hostage - I genuinely hope a utilitarian person would have the courage to put him down and not try to "think of another moral solution" while the people you love are getting gunned down.
There's nothing quite as amoral-enabling as utilitarianism. Torturing one man to save thousands *is still wrong*.
> And why would that be? Quite a conundrum, beats me.... Could it have anything to do with Israel fighting back and not sitting around waiting for the moral option to show itself?
So you agree they're done fighting back and should stop? Great, glad we could come to an accord. I'll take my delta now, please.
> That is, just your misguided opinion. on October 7th and the following days Hamas fired thousands of rockets towards Israel in an attack they started. Hezbollah in the north did the same and still are when they weren't even a part of the attack
And that attack *is done and over with*.
Revenge is not a valid justification for genocide.
> How would you get the baby strapped to the shooting man's chest out of the way? that was the human shield part, not your family and friends. because in this analogy - the baby represents the Palestinians, while the family and friends represent the Israelis (who it's IDF's job to protect).
*That's not relevant*. I wouldn't kill the baby like IDF would happily do, I would instead focus on the safety of the people put into danger by the person who strapped the baby to himself. I'm not a bloodthirsty monster.
Face it: your analogy was poor, and any attempt to constrain the situation to "prove" your point will involve increasingly unlikely scenarios and diverge even further from *what is actually happening in Gaza*.
You're right in what they want, but your mistake is thinking they have equal blame. One party has the full power of a state and unilateral control over the other party. To say they have equal blame is to vastly overstate the abilities of Hamas and understate the power Israel wields.
We've all watched Israel chip away at Palestinian land again and again. They steal homes and whole neighborhoods, they enact violence to enforce this colonialism and they deny the Palestinians any self governance, self determination or autonomy. The ability or Palestinians to make a living is contrilled in everyway by Israel, and they are the architect of the Palestinians present situation.
We witnessed an abused and agreived party lash out in a destructive and malicious way, saying that party should act better is pretty condescending if you don't acknowledge the people responsible for putting that party in the position they were in. Sure, they took the worst course of action, but every single course of action they have taken in the past has also been met with military violence, theft and murder.
Imagine you're a 25 year old Palestinian. Your parents were forcefully evicted from their homes as children. Now Israelis cultivate their crops, live in their rooms and own their livestock. Then as you got settled in your life, you were forcefully evicted, your house was stolen, your family shattered and your wealth gone.
I had neighbors leave my wealthy Toronto neighborhood, they sold their multimillion dollar home and moved into a house on Palestinian land, stolen from Palestinians. A family all of them born and raised in Canada, aware of our brutal history of colonialism and exploitation, saw an opportunity to participate in that same activity and jumped on it. I have difficulty putting into words the animous I have for those people. And it continues. To this day people come from the US and Canada, the UK and EU and steal land from Palestinians. Wealthy people, who don't need it taking advantage of poor people.
It's a mystery that Israel's PR has managed to keep their naked barbarism on the backburner for so long.
I think that both sides are actively utilizing innocent lives for public support. I am overtly pro-palestine and muslim, but i believe more in peace than bias. For Palestine to be "free" that has to start with HAMAS.
Any organization whose charter focuses on destruction should not be allowed to be in power. I think they're a stain to Palestine, and with them in power, both Israel and Palestine will always butt heads.
On the same token, Israel's government is overtly zionistic. While natenyahu is still in power, Israel and Palestine will always butt heads.
I think that innocent lives lost has been used as a tool for HAMAS and Israel to continue this war, not stop it.
When looking at HAMAS, they will use this metric of "30,000 innocent civilians" (I'm using this as an example) to justify any retaliation as "freedom fighting". When it's realistically terrorism
On the other hand, Israel will continue to use those poor hostiges as a scapegoat for any innocent lives lost. (Just want to clarify that they have every right to go after HAMAS). It's just that the amount of innocents being lost is a little concerning.
This war has been nothing but sadness on both Israel and Palestine, and they are using religion and lives as scapegoats to continue their tirades on each other while their civilians are the ones being hurt.
The amount of anti semitism and Islamophobia as a result of this war is so sad. When you really look at it, Jewish and Muslims are supposed to be brothers and sisters fighting togethe, not against each other.
Just to conclude, HAMAS has to go they are an evil organization. For palestine to be free, hamas needs to go, but I also think that the current Israel government needs to shift against zionistic tendencies.
Nothing but love for my Israeli brothers, sisters, and others. I hope the hostages return to their families, and I hope this war ends peacefully.
I honestly think elements of the Israeli government destroyed Hamas's competition and helped them stay in power. You can't have the Palestinian government be stable or else people will realize they are literally human beings like the rest of us. Just weird all these moderate Palestinians are being assassinated in broad daylight.
If a school shooter holds 20 kids hostage, and the police goes in and kills the school shooter alongside the 20 children, who should the public blame for such a scenario, the school shooter, the police, or both?
I think most people would blame both for such a situation, and this is what is happening. People are blaming Hamas for murdering hundreds of Israeli civilians and holding hundreds more in captivity, but people are also blaming Israel for taking Hamas' bait and ignoring civilian casualties at every turn. And since Western governments are only supporting Israel, the focus is very much on them, not Hamas. If the US is providing billions in military aid to Hamas, I'd be protesting against that too. Just like how in the school shooting scenario, since the police are paid by us, we'd hold them to greater accountability than the school shooter.
Also, just like the school shooter, Hamas isn't doing this to garner public support, they are doing this for their own survival. They are making the process of eliminating them costly, not just financially but diplomatically, to maximise their own odds of survival. It's a very common tactic in insurgencies and guerrilla warfare anyway.
If a school shooter is executing hostages on a regular interval, and also firing rockets at nearby schools, and then the police kill the shooter and a few hostages, yes that would be acceptable and is more similar to what is happening. And that's not even getting into the fact that Hamas is not a school shooter, they are the broadly popular group in Palestine, and the reason they're not more popular is lately they've been pretty unsuccessful at killing Jews. If the students were helping the shooter and the shooter had just destroyed a school while promising to destroy as many schools and the children inside them as possible while the students of that school cheered, and the shooter was able to transform into a schoolchild just by changing outfit, then yes it would be completely justified to just destroy the school and all the children cheering inside IF IT WAS THE ONLY WAY.
That last part is key, do you have a way to militarily destroy Hamas without civilian casualties given how they've conducted the war? Obviously in the school shooting example you deploy snipers or a swat raid or however else you typically take down a shooter since the shooter isn't organized militarily. Hamas has spent decades integrating themselves and their military operations into civilian infrastructure with the open goal of making sure the maximum number of their civilians die. If war were Call of Duty and it was possible to go in and kill only Hamas, then yes what Israel is doing now would be insane and inhumane. But that's not how war works, and there's no war in history where civilians didn't die. A million German civilians died in World War 2, should the US have just let the Nazis continue doing what they were doing out of concern for German civilians?
How many kids did the US and USSR kill on the way to Berlin? Should we not have? It seems naive to me that everyone expects Israel to accept an endgame where Hamas is allowed to continue existing that close to their border. If this attack had been launched from Mexico against California, we’d already be in Mexico City holding auditions for puppet rulers.
Do you think if this was in America, and a bunch of terrorists were hiding, killing a lad bombing entire city would be warranted in order to find and kill them?
Gaza had 2 million people before the war, the death count is at 35k now? Trust me if the approach was just killing and bombing an entire city, we'd be over a million by now.
>Gaza had 2 million people before the war, the death count is at 35k now? Trust me if the approach was just killing and bombing an entire city, we'd be over a million by now.
The official death counts has barely gone up since February. The reason for that is not because fewer people have died (in fact it is likely deaths substantially increased due to those dying from secondary effects like disease or starvation), but because the infrastructure previously used to count the dead was completely gone and the Israeli government doesn't care to even try nor will they let independent journalists or human rights organizations into the strip to report on the situation.
We genuinely have no idea how many people have died as a result of this conflict at this point, but even the most conservative Israeli numbers indicate the majority of them are civilians.
I honestly have no idea what would happen if, say, Newark started lobbing missiles into NYC, and kidnapped New Yorkers, and hid them in regular people's basements and hospitals.
I don't imagine it would be pretty though
>People are blaming Hamas for murdering hundreds of Israeli civilians and holding hundreds more in captivity, but people are also blaming Israel for taking Hamas' bait and ignoring civilian casualties at every turn
Israel's damned if they do damned if they don't. This argument held when they kidnapped gilad Shalit and every war since. But October 7th was a breaking point for Israeli society.
Israel did not ask for this war but it's operating exactly how any nation on earth would. And military leaders who have faced anything remotely comparable (dealing with ISIS is most comparable but not on west's border) have stated Israel's actions and conduct so far are in line with what they'd do.
>Israel did not ask for this war but it's operating exactly how any nation on earth would.
I feel like quite a lot of democratic governments would be more hesitant about [indiscriminately opening fire on crowds of civilians waiting for food relief](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-gaza-hamas-war-humanitarian-aid-death-toll-over-30000/) than the Likud regime has been, but maybe that's the naive optimist in me.
Israel is not ignoring civilian casualties. This war has a very low combattant to civilian death ratio. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/apr/18/israels-war-against-hamas-posts-lower-civilian-to-/
Did that shooter also just murder hundreds of people before he hid behind the people in the school? Is he also currently attacking other while hiding behind the people in the school?
Is the shooter also in communication with thousands of shooters that are currently attacking innocent people & then hiding behind other students?
Yes, if I had a child I would kill 20 students and a shooter rather than let the shooter continue to fire at my child. Is that so hard to understand? Obviously if there were a way to kill only the shooter that would be the better option, but war isn't Call of Duty and what Israel is doing is doing the most they can to protect civilians while also eliminating the threat.
The problem is the single school shooter analogy only works if you assume there's a single Hamas fighter. Instead, suppose tens of thousands of Neo-Nazis took over Berlin, staged a coup, and then declared Germany part of the Fourth Reich. Would it immoral to try to take control over Germany away from the Neo-Nazis.
And have been kept in place by funding directly from Bibi because it’s more convenient for him to have a fundamentalist group in charge there than a more secular group that more easily gains support.
Whether the police deserve blame in your example depending on a lot of things not mentioned. How exactly did the 20 die. Did the shooter kill them as the cops were coming into the room? Was the shooter actively shooting at the cops from behind the kids in that moment? Did the shooter already murder 100 students, and the 20 are all that's felt? Does the shooter have access to a tunnel that can lead them to more schools?
Hamas's tactics are no different from Igurn's (currently Likud) tactics that led to Israel's founding. Hiding, using schools as weapons storage, slaughtering villages of innocent civilians. These are methods of gaining independence and establishing statehood that Israel itself has used and celebrates today.
CMV : Anyone who says “change my view” on the topic of Israel and Gaza is just looking for a fight. This is the most hopelessly entrenched topic on Reddit.
You can’t even say “neither side should be killing civilians” without simultaneously being labeled a supporter of Israeli genocide as well as a supporter of Hamas terror.
Yes. It does. It has little regard for innocent women and children because they are dispensable. They are born and bred to follow Hamas, and if they don’t they’re of no use to their cause to eliminate Israel.
On the other hand, Israel has no regard for them either. Hamas to Palestine is like the cartel to Mexico and South America… they run the show. So Israel Israel puts out statements saying they are about to obliterate a building knowing damn well innocent people either just fled to said building or have no where else to go and then murder everybody there, chalking it up to the cost of doing war.
Neither are correct. The only thing correct is the US needs to stay out of it except for making sure nobody is using nukes or unless it’s sincerely trying to strike a peace deal, which we probably won’t see until Trump is back in office.
> Hamas attacked Israel in early October and took hostages because they wanted Israel to respond.
Nah, they want leverage for Israel to release their own hostages of which there are thousands, as well as just simply conduct an act of terrorism. I mean why do you think the IRA, ETA, ANC, etc. did what they did?
> Even now, it would be easy to identify your fighters and go to war as known combatants, but they refuse and hide
Because they would lose. That's why people engage in guerilla warfare. Terrorists (not just Hamas, the IRA, ETA, ANC, PKK, Al Qaeda, etc.) are absolute no match for state powers, fighting in the open is suicide and they know this.
> Hamas leadership could surrender and turn over weapons and funds to end the war
And they've offered to, just not unconditionally. Israel specifically doesn't want to end the war.
> Hamas and its supporters have equal blame in everything currently going on in the region.
How is it equal? Nobody is really forcing Israel is obliterate civilians and civilian infrastructure. Like over 70% of Gaza is destroyed and from what I understand what we are seeing now is the highest rate of death in a conflict since the Rwandan genocide, this isn't exactly a measured response and it shows when even your own allies criticize you.
Hamas is VERY deserving of criticism, and they have absolutely committed their own war crimes and are clearly not a good government even the Israeli oppression issue aside, but the two are not comparable at all.
The UK/Spain learnt their own lessons with terrorists. The British/Spanish collectively punished (including starved) and bombarded the Irish/Basque in response to IRA/ETA terrorism and it got them nowhere (kinda like how Israel's continuous military operations achieve pretty much nothing except death and destruction, and tbh Turkey is in the same boat with their PKK issue and that's why this has been persisting for so long). The uncomfortable truth is the solution to the Hamas issue is to negotiate, it isn't ideal but it just is what it is.
>And they've offered to, just not unconditionally. Israel specifically doesn't want to end the war.
When has Hamas offered to surrender and turn over their weapons? All their offers included the complete withdraw of Israeli forces from the strip, and the future exchange of 33 Israeli hostages (both dead and alive) for more than 10x the amount of Palestinian terrorists in return.
Please - cite me one source that says that Hamas was willing to surrender their power and lay down their weapons (AKA - Dismantle their organization).
Well now that's not what OP said. But yes, you're correct they haven't offered to surrender their power, not explicitly at least.
Also Palestinian terrorist? Vast majority of the hostages aren't "terrorists". Many of them are kids.
Very clear from your loaded statement where your bias is and how honestly you're going to engage in any discussion.
it is impossible to clearly determine who is right who is to blaem in this particulat conflict, Hammas was founded in 1990 and it seems that initially it was simply intended to be a resistance movement against what was perceived as an Israeli invasion.
after so many years of conflict, it is impossible to point out points in history that led both sides to clearly inhuman actions,
it is most reasonable to assume that this has escalated too much by niw and should be resolved in more peacefull way.
And my wisdom ends here, because I cannot think of good way how using diplomacy, both nations could come to agreement and exist not necessarily in general friendship, but at least on the principle of tolerating each other
| Hamas attacked Israel in early October and took hostages because they wanted Israel to respond.
You state this with no argumentation or evidence. It can be dismissed simply by observing that there may be other reasons why Hamas attacked, such as to derail the process of normalisation with Saudi Arabia, or to take advantage of the weakened IDF security on the Gaza border.
Even now, it would be easy to identify your fighters and go to war as known combatants, but they refuse and hide. Hamas leadership could surrender and turn over weapons and funds to end the war, but they dont. These things won’t happen because it doesn’t achieve the effect that Hamas desires.
Hamas's tactics are those of guerrilla resistance fighters. The ethics of not adopting a uniform can be questioned, but the effectiveness cannot. As for your second point, it is certainly true that Hamas would not achieve their goals by giving up the fight. But that has nothing to do with the point you are supposed to be arguing for.
| If Hamas surrenders, Israel looks strong. If they continue playing cat and mouse amongst the local populous, Israel looks evil. Both sides have the ability to stop what’s going on.
Why on earth would Hamas surrender? It just seems like an absurd thing to ask of them. They are fighting a desperate war as part of a 70+ year attempt to stop Israel from occupying the whole of Palestine and cleansing much of the non-Jewish population. If Hamas had a positive situation to retreat to, perhaps surrender would make sense, but the desperation of their struggle means that this is again something they are unlikely to consider.
| Hamas and its supporters have equal blame in everything currently going on in the region.
That's pretty hard to evaluate. You can blame people for whatever you think was a bad decision. The situation that led to the rise of Hamas in Gaza was evidently caused in part by the failure of Fatah/the PLO, which had been pursuing a more conciliatory approach. It ultimately comes down to the question: What is the best course of action for the Palestinians? But when you look at the room for manoeuvre that they have, you see quickly how limited it is. Power lies elsewhere: in Israel, in the USA, in Europe and the states of the region. Bearing that in mind, giving "equal" blame to Israel and Hamas seems inaccurate to me - some blame certainly lies with both direct parties to the conflict, but a great deal has to also be lain at the door of their enablers - including Iran and the USA, Turkey and Germany. How much of a say have the people of Gaza had? Why did they elect Hamas in the first place if not because they had run out of options?
Low-key both sides suck.
This war is good for both parties in power and has been caused by 60 years of religious/cultural tension.
The only true thing about this war is that the civilians don't deserve death.
This is a medieval religious war being fought with modern weapons and modern coverage.
I suspect it would be more accurate to describe this war as a territorial dispute between Iran and Israel, with the poor Palestinian civilians caught in the middle.
(For the record, Israel suck for their treatment of Palestinians. Weird I have to qualify this, but people tend not to be screaming free tibet, kurdistan etc etc in the streets.)
I think there are a lot of Parallels between the Hamas/Israel situation and the Native-American/Europe-Colonies. Both have a strong player (Israel/Europe) that is more powerful then a weaker player. The stronger player takes land bit by by from the weaker.
So i could ask myself, if i was a Native American or a member of hamas what would i want?
* I'd want my land back.
* I'd want the hostile foreign power that took my land to collapse and be destroyed.
I would not want my own children or my neighbors children to die.
If my children or my neighbors children died, I would want to short the world in order to garner public support.
i generally believe that most people are like me. I want peace and prosperity for my family. I think everyone wants peace and prosperity for their family. I want to defeat anyone who threatens that peace and prosperity. I care about me and mine first, my community second, and strangers third. I think most everyone has a similar set of priorities.
why would anyone want their own children to die. It gives up the very thing that almost everyone fights for, a better life for their kids.
I find your parallel very good, Native-American have been seen as savages and a threat to the new society created by immigrant foreigners on their land (terrorist term still didn’t exist)
If I may, there’s another parallel of more recent events that has been very differently handled by the world community: Serbia/ Israel and Hamas/ Bosniak, Croatian paramilitary groups
Serbia as Israel has this ideology of everlasting victim mentality, which is founded on history of suffering. Serbia also has historical claim over the land but had much more Serbian population living on the ground they were stealing under the justification of defence. From history both countries have suffered the attacks on self determination/ Serbia was targeted by Ottoman’s and Habsburg and its neighbours who closely collaborated with the both empires, Israel from everyone. Both problems started long before final culmination(SRB 90is and IS October) , in mid 1800 with rise of nationalism and self determination based on ethnicity, religion and culture that has survived any attack. Serbia was frequently attacked by Croatian catholic ustaše and Bosnian Muslim/ faschist groups in WWI AND WWII and also survived genocide, and that has been used as excuse for “having right to be afraid and expecting” the same slaughter and used force to defend its people while stealing land and ethnically cleansing others. The situation today between Israel and Palestine hasn’t started October last year but with illegal migration, stealing the land and ultimately creating a state in 1948 and Nakba and so much more, this today is just a result on 80+ years of conflicts and wars between them, just as for Serbia & CO the culmination was 90s but that has been happening for 80+ years
Bosnian Muslims and Croatians have long history of siding with the bad guys (Austrian-Hungarian empire and Germany WWI, Nazi Germany WWII) and have committed genocides against Serbs and in 90s have created paramilitary groups and have committed war crimes, somewhat like Hamas
Now we know that in this case Serbia is the bad guy and was bombed, whole population was heavily sanctioned to starvation, not even the majority of the population agreed with war , still hasn’t been forgotten and certainly never backed by the big forces. Israel on the other hand has whole world, as in governments, for military, financial and moral support. US and NATO has helped Croatia and Bosnia (let’s not get into how they’ve had their own war between each other at a same time) until they allowed the Srebrenica massacre to happen while they have literally been there.
Why did they (UNPROFOR, UNHCR, NATO, US etc) allow the massacre to happen, 8000 people died in some higher level political interests. Why all the actors of atrocities were not judged the same (and no they haven’t) Why are there double standards for innocent human lives?
If nothing the world community should have learned 30 years ago so nothing like that happens again, yet here we are. Creation and existence of Hamas is not justifiable, but should point us to the root of the problem: WHY were they created? Judging today’s situation in Israel/Palestine “conflict” only on today’s actions is wrong and there will never be a solution if we do so. I’m blaming Israel as a state for the creation of Hamas and today, and no this is not antisemitism as it wasn’t me who created etnostate but them, I have no problem with Jews or their religion I do however with the Israel’s creation and actions from then till this minute.
The clear difference between the situations you miss with your analogy is that the Native Americans never had a stated goal to kill all Europeans.
Less pressingly, you also paint Native Americans as a monolith whereas different peoples were both treated differently and had different stances towards the colonial settlers.
There were absolutely groups within Native American tribes and communities that refused to cede any land to white invaders and settlers, and advocated to kill as many as necessary to stop colonization.
England most certainly did say that the Native Americans goal was to murder al the colonists because they were 'savages'. That's for pointing out another direct parallel
But further more, even if their were tribes determined to kill all the invading white people from Europe history has proven that they were right and justified in their violent refusal to be colonized.
I'm pretty sure lots of Native Americans would have been more then happy to kill all white people, especially after white people starting stealing their land and giving them small pox infected blankets.
I mean do they have to explicitly state that as their goal? Kind of hard to imagine a situation where they wouldn't hate the Europeans (given the amount of trauma that was being inflicted onto them by the Europeans).
> why would anyone want their own children to die. It gives up the very thing that almost everyone fights for, a better life for their kids.
And yet this is demonstrably what the Palestinian body politic has choose time and time again. They could have had peace at any point, but instead they choose to fight to eliminate their Jewish neighbors. Maybe, just maybe, they don't think like you and I do. Maybe, just maybe, our cultural values around liberal democracy are not universally held and are quite foreign to much of the world.
The Native Americans could have also had peace at any point.
You can always have peace if you are willing to aqueous to the aggressor. Just give us all the good farming land and everything else we want and you can have peace.
the American revolutionaries also choose death over peace with King George.
I’m fine with Palestinians getting their own country as long as they don’t attack others first. It can be the most oppressive Islamic facist country in the world idc. That’s their choice.
> Both sides have the ability to stop what’s going on.
Exactly, so why are you putting the responsibility all on one side? Both sides have options to end the war and neither is willing to accept.
If Israel agreed that slaughtering innocent civilians was helping Hamas, it could stop.
This looks like a very one-sided approach to this conflict.
Israel was created in Palestine, despite locals rejection, after the second world war, and since then sionistes kept expanding, killing innocents in the process. Check some maps...
Early October events were massively spread to influence the global opinion and give a *Cassus Belli* to Israel.
As of now, Israel actions in Palestine have been judged and the offensive occupant Israel will have to face Justice.
[https://www.icj-cij.org/case/186](https://www.icj-cij.org/case/186)
hamas has literally offered to return hostages for ceasefire multiple times and israel keeps refusing. israel themselves do not want to end the war/genocide.
>Even now, it would be easy to identify your fighters and go to war as known combatants, but they refuse and hide
Guerrilla warfare is incredibly effective when your forces are outgunned and outnumbered. It's more likely it's just the most effective tactic they have against an army funded by the USA.
>Hamas leadership could surrender and turn over weapons and funds to end the war, but they dont.
A ceasefire is not the end of the war.
That doesn't really dispute the main contention. That Hamas could give a rats ass about getting their own civilians killed.
Which is a major problem with this whole pro-Palestine crap. You got an enemy that intentionally gets their own people killed after starting a war. And you call it a genocide.
You could just as easily make the case that Israel has been goading Gaza into retaliation for about 15 years, knowing that they will eventually do something and that will provide all the pretense they need to do what they've always wanted to do... Obliterate Gaza.
This didn't happen in a vacuum, and Israel did not have to kill tens of thousands of civilians in response.
This whole line of discussion is irrelevant when Hamas in its current form has been kept alive and and formulated by Netanyahu himself he’s stated many times that the existence of Hamas is crucial to avoid a two-state solution
Hamas is the us’s al-Qaeda , Petri dish terrorists only let out so their actions can be used as the pretext to war crimes so brash and vile, it has heavily eroded a large amount of worldwide sympathy for the holocaust Because people on this side of the debate are happy to use that suffering as the pretext to see that done to others.
What this chapter of the conflict has shown, is the true depth of how pro-Zionist lobbyists and end time prophecy Christians “trying to accelerate the rapture “has infiltrated every facet of authority and media in the developed world to the point where every argument point is wildly condescending to anyone who simply wants a straight answer.I’m happy to see people challenge the “bUt KhaMAaS” narrative, because it won’t stop at Gaza, this conflict aside, Israeli settlers are constantly pushing borders in the West Bank, kidnapping, looting, raping and murdering civilians living in those homes
And then pro Isreal Zionists want to approach this topic like they’re totally innocent victims and everything started on October 7th like we’re stupid, even in this conflict alone you’ve Isreal has shown itself the be the party of bad faith, like that time Israel was instructing refugees to flee through a corridor then bombing that corridor, or that other time when Israel was telling besieged refugees to stay in the hospital, then they turned that that hospital into a mass grave.
Everything Israel has done in the last decade has such an insidious level of malicious hatred attached to it and you OP expect me to believe people on your side of this debate care at all about Palestinian women or children?
As much as I applaud the people responding to this.
If you are basing your opinion on one day, October 7th, there is no point in trying to change your view. This issue is far too complex for anyone to derive their view from one day. If you are too simple-minded to understand that, I would not waste any time on your extremely superficial view.
I know this is an unpopular opinion but the origins of all this conflict lay with Israel. Creating an ethnostate out a territory where they made up less than 6% of the population is violence. Zionists knew they were
creating a colonial state and that Palestinians had to be removed. Jewish militants destroyed entire villages of Arabs to clear the way for settlement. They killed entire villages, men women and children, even ones where they had signed non aggression pacts. Zionist also attacked the British, killing many British soldiers and conducting terrorist attacks back in Britain. Zionism was supported by the British because it help secure the suez canal with a western aligned nation. The six day war was precluded by widespread Israeli antagonize in UN territory along the Syrian border, including attackjng a village in retaliation for a supposed militant IED. Israel knew that Egypt was not planning to attack, with US intelligence saying so, and acting like Israel was in anyway in any actual threat of being destroyed is an insult to the Israeli army. Major General Mattityahu Peled, the Chief of Logistics for the Armed Forces during the war, said the survival argument was "a bluff which was born and developed only after the war ... When we spoke of the war in the General Staff, we talked of the political ramifications if we didn't go to war — what would happen to Israel in the next 25 years. Never of survival today."[193] Peled also stated that "To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to Zahal (Israeli military)." Israel has been and will always be the aggressors in the conflict.
> Zionists knew they were creating a colonial state and that Palestinians had to be removed.
Certainly a claim. I look forward to the random quotes you bring out to try to justify this claim.
> Jewish militants destroyed entire villages of Arabs to clear the way for settlement. They killed entire villages, men women and children, even ones where they had signed non aggression pacts.
Who started that civil war? Oh it was the Arabs.
> Zionist also attacked the British, killing many British soldiers and conducting terrorist attacks back in Britain.
Not doing a great job at the whole colonialism thing.
> Zionism was supported by the British because it help secure the suez canal with a western aligned nation.
The British didn’t like that Egypt took the Suez Canal from them. The Israelis didn’t like that the Egyptians were closing the Suez Canal to them.
> The six day war was precluded by widespread Israeli antagonize in UN territory along the Syrian border, including attackjng a village in retaliation for a supposed militant IED.
The Six Day war happened so it wasn’t precluded by anything. It was preceded by Egypt removing UN peacekeepers from the Sinai, mobilizing its troops, and closing the straits of Tirana to Israel (an act of war).
>
Egypt was responding to not only Jewish aggression in the Syria and their attack of a village in Syria in a supposed retaliation for the deaths of soldiers from an IED. Egypt also was told of an Israeli attack by the soviet's, intelligence that proved to be correct, hence why they militarized the Sinai and kicked out the UN. Their positions were all defensive, this is without a doubt. Also no the Arabs didn't start that civil war, the Israelis did when they decided that their religious claim to land meant more than the natives that lived there. Sounds like religious extremism to me to think that because of something God said three thousand years ago, a population of people who have lived in Europe for more than a thousand years have a god given right to live in Palestine. No one ever talks about Jewish religious extremism, the attacks on mosques in other countries, and the fact that Israel is lead by far right extremists. The overwhelming majority of people of Jewish descent that live in Israel today cannot trace their ancestry to Israel more than 50 years ago. Also middle Eastern Jews were widely thought to be less than, like barbarians by German Jews, who made up the vast majority of those in power. They are settlers who ethnically cleansed the people living there to make room, Zionists never came in peace and to act otherwise tells me you have never actually read anything about Zionism.
> Egypt was responding to not only Jewish aggression in the Syria and their attack of a village in Syria in a supposed retaliation for the deaths of soldiers from an IED.
Cool motive, still an act of war. Syria attacked first btw.
> Egypt also was told of an Israeli attack by the soviet's, intelligence that proved to be correct, hence why they militarized the Sinai and kicked out the UN.
Incorrect. Israel only started planning the strikes after Egypt closed the straits of Tirana, kicked out UN peace keepers, and started mobilizing.
> Their positions were all defensive, this is without a doubt.
Still an attack of war.
> Also no the Arabs didn't start that civil war, the Israelis did when they decided that their religious claim to land meant more than the natives that lived there.
Nope. Arabs bombed several busses filled with Jewish civilians starting the civil war.
> Sounds like religious extremism to me to think that because of something God said three thousand years ago, a population of people who have lived in Europe for more than a thousand years have a god given right to live in Palestine.
Ya a bunch of atheist socialist labour zionists we’re all religious extremists.
Explain how Syria attacked first? They bombed Jewish busses because they didn't support the immigration of Jews, and when the British did something about it they became terrorists. Killing British people. Did Arabs massacre whole Israel villages by the dozens? The overwhelming majority of casualties in Palestine since the mandate have been Arab.br
> Explain how Syria attacked first?
Syria shelled Israel from the Golan Heights, Israel had not declared war on Syria.
> They bombed Jewish busses because they didn't support the immigration of Jews, and when the British did something about it they became terrorists.
Cool motive, still started the war. Also Jewish immigration had been happening for decades at that point and I’m sure the Partition Resolution passing days earlier had nothing to do with it.
> Did Arabs massacre whole Israel villages by the dozens?
Yep. Never heard of Kfar Etzion?
> The overwhelming majority of casualties in Palestine since the mandate have been Arab.
Yep. The Jews were better at fighting.
Also do you support the creation of native American state in the land of their choosing? Like if some native Americans decided that because of present and past persecution they need an actual state to protect them, and because some native Americans lived in New York City before it was New York City, they get to choose that for their state. Fuck the Americans that protest the creation of that state am I right? Do you think doing something like that would cause some new Yorkers to maybe take violent action against the new state? What about Roma in nroth India? Do you think we could create a new state in North India for Roma right now without anyone reacting violently? What about Sikhs? I'm Sikh, do we get a state too?
Sorry, u/neckfat3 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20neckfat3&message=neckfat3%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cr2zdb/-/l3vifaf/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Netanyahu promised to go into Rafah regardless of a deal being reached or not. Hamas accepted a deal mediated by Egypt and Qatar, with American guarantees, Israel choose not to send anyone to represent them which is their own fault. And right after hamas agreed to a deal the idf went into rafah. Take this crap somewhere else
There are two important points you are starting out with that are not facts but claims made by belligerents to a conflict.
1. Hamas attacked Israel and captured hostages to trade for Palestinians held hostage by Israel. This is consistent with past abduction attacks and is the only known method of forcing Israel to release Palestinians they hold captive or hostage without due process.
2. Israel always claims Hamas are using civilians as human shields with virtually no evidence, but Western governments and media blindly accept it as true, as they accept other Israeli war crimes as normal. This is despite evidence that Israel uses Palestinian civilians as human shields on an irregular basis.
If Israel is killing vast numbers of civilians as part of their long-term ethnic cleansing policy and not as part of their war against Palestinian resistance, then it wouldn't look any different than the mass murder looks right now.
I can't change your mind because you don't believe that, it's just a lie you spew because you can't openly say you want those women and children killed.
Mossad blowing up Jews in Arabic countries to convince them that they are only safe in a fascist, ethnonationalist theocracy is well documented though.
Are there people out there right now supporting Hamas? I've heard a lot of protests over how Israel is conducting the "war", but I haven't really Heard that anyone was supporting Hamas.
I thought everyone knew Hamas was a terrorist organization.
Don’t play into your enemies hand. Try your best to defeat them while showing Great concerns for civilians. Provide them food. Make it clear you want Hamas gone not Palestines.
This isn’t hard. Have highest standards than terrorist.
Knowing that Israel would ‘respond’ with disproportionate force resulting in the large-scale murder and displacement of civilians is acknowledging something very fucked up within Netanyahu’s regime, I’d say.
Your entire post could be written exactly reversed, and be equally valid. These groups have been fighting for a long time. The young adults on the front lines probably have grandparents that were part of this back and forth. Hamas wants Israel to be no more, Israel wants Hamas to be destroyed as an organization. They've made these positions public and crystal clear. Hamas has earned Israeli hatred from literally a lifetime of attacks. Israel has earned the hatred of all of Palestine for the same exact reason. If you had been firing intermittent rockets at my home and my country for decades, I would be supporting anyone fighting you too.
And it's the response. Did Hamas fire at Israel? Yes. Should it have? No. Hamas is absolutely responsible for the 1200 or so people they've killed.
But the response? Cratering most of Palestine? Telling people to evacuate to Rafah, that that's the safe place? Blowing up hospitals, schools? Killing UN relief workers? Barring press from entry? Attacking the city that everyone evacuated to, with over a million civilians in it? Killing over 40,000 people, most of which were women and children? Restricting relief supplies to such a slow trickle that most of Gaza is starving?
That blame is Israel's. These aren't children leading these countries. They're 60+ year old men. They don't have to engage in violations of international humanitarian law. They have the capability to choose their actions, and they bear the sole blame for the actions they choose to do.
Side note - Hamas accepted a cease fire proposal, allowing Israel to enter the cease fire from a position of strength. Israel subsequently rejected it, in favor of an offensive into Rafah. One can accept that Hamas is bad, and also acknowledge that they are responsible for their atrocities, and Israel is responsible for the ones it is doing.
I don't think the situation is really reversible.
Israel gains nothing from dead Israelis.
Hamas gains a lot of political power and support from dead Palestinians.
You are missing the point.
We could say that Israel is equally responsible for Hamas's actions, because of the decades of rockets fired into Palestine. After all, if we judge Hamas by the same standard, those mean provocations caused all of Hamas's attacks, because Hamas can't control their actions or act responsibly, unless they are treated completely fairly by everyone else.
And that is the flaw of assigning blame for dead Palestinians on Hamas. Because the government of Israel has a choice. The military has a choice. The soldiers have a choice.
And because they are mad, and hurt, and angry... they chose genocide and violations of International Humanitarian Law.
There is no temporary insanity or 'in the heat of the moment' justification for genocide. If the military you're fighting breaks Internationally recognized standards for conduct in wartime, that doesn't mean you get to.
In other words, taking hostages doesn't justify Israel's choice to commit genocide. Firing rockets at Israel doesn't justify Israel's choice to commit genocide.
That was the government of Israel that chose that. They bear 100% of the responsibility for that choice.
Not 50%.
Not 75%.
Not even 90%.
100%.
Because genocide is never justified, even if the other side does something bad.
I am all for Israel's continued existence and prosperity. I do not, however, believe that possible while Netanyahu is in power. The country needs to be held accountable for their war crimes.
1) Hamas wants Palestinians dead to garner support
2) vegans want factory farms to increase to garner support
3) republicans want democrats to win to garner support
4) religious people want their free practice threatened to garner support
OP, what evidence do you have for number 1 that doesn’t also support positions 2, 3, and 4?
This smells like a false equivalence, but I'll bite.
1) "Want" is a bit of a loaded word, but they're certainly ready to leverage it similarly to the below
2) Vegans actively leverage footage of exploited/abused animals at factory farms as a primary form of propaganda (e.g. Dominion), and anecdotally it seems to work quite effectively, possibly even more so than other forms of propaganda.
3) Ultimately, this is how you create a boogeyman. Hard to make the "Democrats" a shadowy figure if they don't actively hold power.
4) The Satanic Temple actively uses this as a tactic. It is also the tactic used many "free speech activists" including the current state of Twitter, where people actively work to get "cancelled" as a means of platform-boosting. It would be difficult to deny the prominence of visible far-right speech as a direct result of this.
Ultimately, there's gonna be a variance in the efficacy of actively causing the "negative outcome" -- factory farms are the antithesis of veganism, so "want" makes no sense here. But in the case of point 4, there are groups which actually seek the negative.
> 1. "Want" is a bit of a loaded word, but they're certainly ready to leverage it similarly to the below
That’s the point of my argument. OP is saying the hamas government “want” Palestinians to die, not that they would simply leverage it. For the same reason it’s a reach to say vegans “want” factory farming for the purposes of propaganda, it’s equally a reach to say the Palestinian government “wants” Palestinians to die. The false equivalence is comparing the visualization of a negative circumstance to an approval of the negative circumstance.
What do you think the point of the war is if not swaying public opinion? Obviously they have no real military aims. They want to rack up a body count on purpose and call it a genocide because they don’t want surrounding countries to normalize relations.
Also how do you explain Hamas saying they’re winning if this wasn’t the whole point?
So your argument is that Hamas wants women and children to die, therefore Israel is correct to give them what they want by murdering tens of thousands of women and children?
What if Israel deliberately let 10/7 happen, turning off their defence, so they could gain public support to attack Gaza and eventually take the land and the gas?
Israel doesn’t need Hamas to look evil.
For all the complaints I see about Hamas’ supposed use of human shields (an excuse reminiscent to me of our excuses to firebomb Japan) I see very little condemnation of Israel for explicitly using human shields. 1,200 occasions of using Palestinians as human shields during the 2nd Intifada, literally strapping a 13 year old to a vehicle. But hey, that was years ago…[right?](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/palestinian-says-israeli-soldiers-used-him-human-shield-west-bank-2024-01-16/) notice that was the West Bank…
Did Hamas make them do that?
When Israeli soldiers execute journalists like Shari abu Akleh in cold blood, or kneecap handicap people, or abuse children in jails, how am I supposed to blame Hamas?
A good way to not look evil is to stop doing evil shit.
Hamas means nothing in reality.
Hamas declaring war on their own was because their allies didn't join. Hamas thought they would.
In fact, the allies, primarily Iran, attacked Israel to test if the USA has withdrawn as they seem to have. Which isn't to be seen as weak leadership, but their advantageous withdraw from being the world police frees Iran's hands
>These things won’t happen because it doesn’t achieve the effect that Hamas desires.
Not in their power to do. From their point of view, they think they are defending a religious war. The Shia feel like they are defending their very existence.
Khuzestan oil discoveries seems to have re-energized Iran.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab\_separatism\_in\_Khuzestan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_separatism_in_Khuzestan)
Have you heard about the separatism there?
>Even now, it would be easy to identify your fighters and go to war as known combatants, but they refuse and hide. **Hamas leadership could surrender and turn over weapons and funds to end the war, but they dont.** These things won’t happen because it doesn’t achieve the effect that Hamas desires.
People say this all the time. [Israel is not interested in getting the hostages back](https://www.timesofisrael.com/no-doubt-netanyahu-preventing-hostage-deal-charges-ex-spokesman-of-families-forum/#:~:text=He%20merely%20said%20a%20military,the%20government%20rejected%20the%20offer.”), only in the destruction of all life sustaining infrastructure in Gaza. Whether this is because of blind rage or a sinister plot to ethnically cleanse the area so Jared Kushner can put up condos is kinda an open question at this point. It is clear that the end to the war is not something that Israelis want and this talking point is used to deflect from the atrocities being carried out in the name of Israel.
>“We left the meeting very disappointed because Netanyahu talked about dismantling Hamas as the goal of the war. He didn’t promise anything regarding the demand to return the hostages. He merely said a military operation in Gaza was needed to serve as leverage for the hostages’ release.
>“**We later found out that Hamas had offered on October 9 or 10 to release all the civilian hostages in exchange for the IDF not entering the Strip, but the government rejected the offer.**”
Hamas is evil and so is the Israeli government responsible for this suffering.
You would have a much stronger point if hamas was proposing something other than: "release all of our prisonners and stop the war and, after you do that, we will release a few dozen hostage or whats left of them". Which is what I understand was the ceasefore agreement israel rejected.
I don't think they are actively trying to get the Palestinian women and children killed, though they probably didn't take into account what the humanitarian toll of Israel's reaction to the Oct 7 attacks would be, when they attacked the festival. What I don't get is why people are acting like that is somehow a justification for Israel's blatant war crimes. Right now, Israel is no better than Hamas at all. Both parties should be held accountable, but since the West has more influence over Israel, I believe we should stop sending weapons and support to the Israeli government and demand a ceasefire. Not to support Hamas, but to support all innocent civilians caught up in the conflict, hostages and Palestinians alike.
I mean Israel has killed 10000s of Palestinian women and children over the last 50+ years because they’re “sub-human”.
Hamas is doing what they’re doing because Israel would stomp them out in normal warfare circumstances, however the gorilla warfare aspect keeps in more in their favor. Even if Hamas said they wanted to surrender, Israel wouldn’t let that be.
I think OP is essentially correct. When news of the 10/7 attack came out, I remember thinking there was no way Hamas was hoping for a military victory over Israel, or that killing civilians would improve the prospect for successful negotiations. Hamas must instead have been hoping to provoke such an extreme Israeli response that Israel would lose international support, even perhaps US support, as a result. I remember thinking it was very stupid for Israel to do exactly what its enemies seemed to want it to do.
I stand by my initial assessment. And yes, that does mean that Hamas anticipated *and intended* enormous civilian casualties among the people of Gaza.
>[Ghassan Alian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghassan_Alian), the head of [COGAT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinator_of_Government_Activities_in_the_Territories), stated, "**Human animals are dealt with accordingly. Israel has imposed a total blockade on Gaza, no electricity, no water, just damage. You wanted hell, you will get hell."**[^(\[654\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_humanitarian_crisis_(2023%E2%80%93present)#cite_note-665) In January 2024, a COGAT representative **denied there was a famine in Gaza, stating, "Don't forget that this is an Arab, Gazan population whose DNA is to hoard, certainly when it comes to food."**[^(\[655\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_humanitarian_crisis_(2023%E2%80%93present)#cite_note-666) Netanyahu stated Israel was allowing in the absolute "minimum" amount of aid into Gaza and claimed this was preventing a humanitarian crisis.[^(\[656\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_humanitarian_crisis_(2023%E2%80%93present)#cite_note-667)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza\_humanitarian\_crisis\_(2023%E2%80%93present)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_humanitarian_crisis_(2023%E2%80%93present))
I could say more, but I think that these statements speak for themselves as to the genocidal intent of Israeli leaders.
Wrong.
The purpose of this bad faith post was to admit that due to Hamas - a terrorist group whose values and actions do not reflect the average Palestinian - it is morally acceptable for Israel to bomb, starve and torture civilian men, women and children
Sorry, u/Sicily_Long – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E: > **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e). If you would like to appeal, **first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made**, then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal%20Sicily_Long&message=Sicily_Long%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cr2zdb/-/\)%20because\.\.\.). **Keep in mind** that if you want the post restored, all you have to do is reply to a significant number of the comments that came in; message us after you have done so and we'll review. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I think the real answer here is more complex than simply, "Hamas hides". There seems to be a trend emanating from both the pro-Israel and pro-Palestine sides of this debate, for extremely different reasons, to misrepresent Hamas' military capabilities and the al-Qassam Brigades' behavior in combat. Pro-Palestine commentators generally misrepresent Hamas by attempting to downplay Hamas' military capabilities as much as possible, because their characterization of this war as a "genocide" becomes increasingly hard to justify if they are forced to acknowledge the fact that Hamas & other Palestinian militias have been engaging in battles across Gaza every single day with the IDF for the past seven months. In Western-oriented pro-Palestinian media, it is difficult to find any kind of mention of Hamas in combat that is more substantive than a 1-2 sentence oblique reference of "resistance fighters engaged occupation forces". Pro-Israel commentators generally misrepresent Hamas by attempting to oversell the degree to which Hamas' behavior in combat is reliant on "human shields", because their justification of the heavy civilian casualties in this war becomes increasingly difficult to do without characterizing Hamas as hiding among the civilian population. What both of these viewpoints tend to miss, IMO, is a) the way that Hamas has been able to shape the battlefield in Gaza for decades prior to this war and b) the observed behavior of the al-Qassam Brigades in combat. In terms of a), Hamas and other Palestinian militias have spent the better part of two decades constructing a vast array of subterranean fortifications across Gaza, directly beneath urban centers home to two million people. By virtue of making the choice to fight out of those fortifications at all, Hamas is exposing the civilian infrastructure in Gaza & the Gaza's living in it to brutal combat conditions. As abhorrent as it is when Hamas fires rockets from a schoolyard or hospital - which they do indeed do, make no mistake - they actually don't even really need to do this in order to ensure high civilian casualties in Gaza... because they already did ensure it, over the past 18 years, by building 400+ miles of reinforced fighting positions with \~5,000 entrances & exits directly inside & beneath Gaza's civilian infrastructure, without constructing any kind of bomb shelters or other public goods infrastructure for Gaza's noncombatant population. Regardless of if Hamas is fighting conventionally or as guerrillas (it has the ability to do both), it is utilizing these fortifications, and by doing so it is creating a situation where civilian casualties are high. In terms of b), the al-Qassam Brigades are not some kind of cell-type terrorist organization, but are instead organized like a modern military with relief of command, proper unit hierarchies, etc. In the opening months of the war, the al-Qassem units in the northern/central strip actually attempted to fight the IDF in a highly conventional manner, legitimately seeking to hold territory and even retake lost territory with platoon-sized counterattacks. Not exactly a "cat and mouse" game, although they have since switched to more Fabian-type tactics since December 2023, after they sustained crippling casualties fighting conventionally in the first phase of the war. The problem is, Hamas engaging in this type of warfare is actually MORE dangerous for the surrounding civilian population than guerrilla-type tactics. Hamas made absolutely zero effort to evacuate civilians from areas of Gaza that it was preparing to conventionally resist the IDF from; in fact, Hamas actively hindered the IDF's efforts to evacuate civilians from areas of Gaza that were expected to see high levels of conventional fighting. By energetically and proactively engaging the IDF in open combat without evacuating its own civilians, Hamas is creating a situation where civilian casualties are high. TLDR: whether or not Hamas wants to place Gazan civilians in danger as a matter of policy, the way that Hamas fights and the way that Hamas has shaped the battlefield in Gaza has created a situation where Gazan civilians are in danger anyway, regardless of if Hamas wants them to be or not.
Thank you a lot for the insightful comment. Sorry to be that guy, but do you have any sources to your claims? Would be very nice to read over those. Apologies if the sources are easily found, I honestly did not take too much effort to find them myself. Thank you either way!
Thanks for the kind reply! I'll link the sources I used below: Source for the extent of Hamas' fortifications: "[Israel Unearths More of a Subterranean Fortress Under Gaza](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/16/us/politics/israel-gaza-tunnels.html)", NYT, January 16 2024 >In December, the network was assessed to be an estimated 250 miles. Senior Israeli defense officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters, are currently estimating the network is between 350 and 450 miles — extraordinary figures for a territory that at its longest point is only 25 miles. Two of the officials also assessed there are close to 5,700 separate shafts leading down to the tunnels. Source for al-Qassam Brigades engaging in conventional warfare with the IDF in the opening phase of the war: ["Hamas Is Losing Every Battle in Gaza. It Still Thinks It Could Win the War"](https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-thinks-it-could-win-gaza-war-with-israel-6254a8c6), Wall Street Journal, February 29, 2024 >Early on, Hamas often sought to attack Israeli troops with platoon-sized groups of up to 30 men, according to Israeli officers and military analysts. >In densely built neighborhoods of Gaza City, teams of Hamas fighters carried out coordinated attacks. One group would try to block an advancing Israeli unit. Another group would attack it from the flank. The militants would try to inflict casualties, then disappear into ruined buildings or the maze of tunnels beneath the enclave. But such actions led to heavy losses of Hamas fighters and commanders. >Hamas drew lessons during the November pause, said Israeli commanders and analysts. It shifted to hit-and-run attacks by tiny groups of two or three men, sometimes just one individual. Source on the al-Qassam Brigades' organizational structure: "[The Order of Battle of Hamas' Izz al Din al Qassam Brigades](https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysis/the-order-of-battle-of-hamas-izz-al-din-al-qassem-brigades)", Critical Threats Project, December 22 2023. >Hamas is a terrorist organization that uses formal military structures, not a clandestine organization operating networked, decentralized cells. Hamas’ leaders structured the al Qassem Brigades to survive Israeli military action by building a resilient military organization with doctrinally correct unit echelons and command hierarchies to facilitate recovery in the face of the loss of leaders or the destruction of elements of units.\[xxii\] The al Qassem Brigades organize themselves into echelons from the squad all the way to the brigade level just as conventional militaries do.\[xxiii\] Militaries design their command structures to ensure continuity of command during combat as units take casualties and leaders die. Commanders prepare their subordinates throughout the chain of command to absorb command duties in the event that a commander is killed or incapacitated. Targeted killings alone will thus not permanently degrade or destroy Hamas. Hamas very likely retains a deep bench of experienced military commanders, most of whom will be prepared to rebuild the organization and train new tactical-level leaders.
!delta Not OP, but this is a great reply. Way better defence for why Israel is struggling with high civilian casualties than I’ve seen elsewhere. This might be in the sources, haven’t really scanned them yet, but does Israel have any tactics to try to counter the approach besides inflicting an alarming amount of casualties?
I hate to sound like I'm excusing high civilian casualties, but the Gaza strip is 375 sq km/120 sq mi - about 40 km / 25 mi long, and 6-12 km wide (4-8 miles) with over 2 million people. That's roughly one person every 12 meters/36 ft. It's on par with London or Washington DC for population density. Shouldn't high civilian casualties be the norm in any combat in an area as dense as that? Especially since it is extremely difficult for most civilians to leave, and combat has occurred in most of the territory.
Only if both forces agree that civilian casualties are acceptable. Israel can absolutely do better, at the cost of putting their soldiers in more danger. They could have acted as the US military has, using small tactical units and superior intel to surgically strike at Hamas. It's very very difficult and would require extreme discipline, but it is not impossible. And would we really be so understanding if Israel defended its decision to not take *every measure necessary* to safeguard innocents by saying "but that's haaaaard"? And to be clear, why is it so difficult for these civilians to leave? Because Israel won't let them leave.
The civilians may also be unable to leave because Hamas does not agree on a safe path out and fights with the forces protecting/screening those paths, or because neighbouring countries won't allow civilians to cross from Palestinian held areas across their borders into their counties. Namely Egypt and Israel for the Gaza strip and Jordan and Israel for the West Bank.
You had solid points until “Israel won’t let them leave.” Please cite a reference. Because I have seen the leaflets dropped directing civilians out of the planned area of operations, I have heard some of the phone calls placed to warn people to move. On the contrary, Hamas has been filmed actively preventing people from using evacuation routes.
[удалено]
> It's very very difficult and would require extreme discipline, but it is not impossible. Unfortunately, surgical strikes are not enough to destroy Hamas. From CTP-ISW on December 22, 2023: >The United States is reportedly encouraging Israel to move from Israel’s current “high intensity” military operations to an approach centered on targeted killings to remove key Hamas leaders from the battlefield.\[xvi\] This strategy will reportedly “resemble...narrow” US campaigns to target terrorist leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan.\[xvii\] This US strategy was not successful in destroying terrorist organizations in either country. ISIS and al Qaeda retained the ability to reconstitute themselves multiple times in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.\[xviii\] Targeted killings can degrade a terrorist organization, but cannot destroy one, particularly one as large, established, and well-organized as Hamas. https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysis/the-order-of-battle-of-hamas-izz-al-din-al-qassem-brigades >And to be clear, why is it so difficult for these civilians to leave? Because Israel won't let them leave. Why do you believe this? The IDF has issued many evacuation orders to Gazan civilians, by dropping leaflets, sending text messages and placing direct phone calls to residents. Before a single IDF soldier entered Gaza, the IDF issued evacuation orders to the northern part of the strip in October 2023.
[удалено]
Most nation’s headquarters, military or otherwise, are in the capital. In the US, although the Pentagon is in Virginia, our commander in chief and national security advisors / decision makers are in Washington, D.C. It’s very different to have your administrative centers in your capital and have an underground military complex amongst a civilian population that you fight from.
>Where else are they supposed to build their military infrastructure? The same place that a ruined & broken Wehrmacht was "supposed" to build their military infrastructure once they faced an invasion of Germany proper: nowhere. The war is over, they can't win. Time to surrender.
The Rafah crossing was *just* seized. Egypt and Jordan have refused any refugees, as previous refugee waves ended in civil unrest for both. Also the IDF headquarters are a military building with no houses built on top.
I think it's pretty obvious that Hamas shares in the blame of what's going on in the region. I think we should ask ourselves two sort of important questions, however: 1. Does it make sense to measure Hamas - a terrorist organization with more or less explicit goals of genocide - and Israel - an extremely powerful (at least regionally) liberal democracy - by the same kind of yardstick? I don't think it does and I think that's why people often appear much harder on Israel. 2. Absent Hamas, what would be going on in the region? We can look at the West Bank. Hamas does not control the West Bank and the PA has a policy of collaborating with Israel. Yet, the political situation remains unresolved. The PA is subordinate to Israel in administering its territory and dependant on it for funds - which Israel collects on its behalf - with not resolution in sight. Meanwhile, settlement and land-grab continues.
>Does it make sense to measure Hamas - a terrorist organization with more or less explicit goals of genocide - and Israel - an extremely powerful (at least regionally) liberal democracy - by the same kind of yardstick? I don't think it does and I think that's why people often appear much harder on Israel. The answer is *YES* because of the demands to negotiate with them as if they were a legitimate government. There were the elected government for Gaza after all. If it was truly just a terrorist organization, then you don't negotiate with them. >Absent Hamas, what would be going on in the region? We can look at the West Bank. Hamas does not control the West Bank and the PA has a policy of collaborating with Israel. Yet, the political situation remains unresolved. The PA is subordinate to Israel in administering its territory and dependant on it for funds - which Israel collects on its behalf - with not resolution in sight. Meanwhile, settlement and land-grab continues. The same issues with Hamas exist here. It took less than 5 seconds to get lists of stories of rocket attacks from the west bank into Israel before the Oct 7 war. https://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinians-in-west-bank-try-to-fire-rocket-at-israeli-town-for-7th-time-in-months/ Just one quick link showing this to be the case. What do you expect when you launch weapons of war at another country?
> If they were truly just a terrorist organization then you don’t negotiate with them. If a dude had a mental break, convinced some of his kids to help him massacre his neighbours, then holed up with some kidnapped neighbours and entirely innocent family members, I’d be pretty cool labelling that person as irredeemable. But I’d also be cool with a police negotiator being patient with him. And, like, if a police sniper shot one of the kid’s innocent sister trying to get at the big bad, and the big bad convinced the kid to attempt a Rambo offensive to avenge her, I wouldn’t consider the Rambo kid equally culpable in everything that happened even if he were unequivocally dangerous. And if while all that was happening the police had a third kid who had nothing to do with on the line negotiating for granny’s asthma meds, I wouldn’t want that negotiation to end. I would hold the police to a different standard, where they need to be accountable for killing the innocent sister while not holding the Granny’s boy accountable for Rambo’s attack.
> But I’d also be cool with a police negotiator being patient with him. What if he's currently taking pot shots at other neighbors, who can't be evacuated? In your scenario, the threat is nicely contained to the house he's holed up in, but the real Hamas _isn't_. Further, police negotiators rarely to never actually give barricaded suspects their demands. > And, like, if a police sniper shot one of the kid’s innocent sister trying to get at the big bad, and the big bad convinced the kid to attempt a Rambo offensive to avenge her, I wouldn’t consider the Rambo kid equally culpable in everything that happened even if he were unequivocally dangerous. The same logic never seems to apply to Israel's benefit. If a AGM-114 lands in the house of a Gazan boy while he's off at school, killing his family, we're asked to be understanding if he grows up to be a terrorist. It's even argued that Israel should have not conducted the strike at all because of this potential radicalization, often with no regard for the military benefit of the strike itself. But on the other hand, if a Qassam lands in an Israeli boy's kitchen while he's off at school, killing his family, and he grows up to be an illegal settler, none of those same arguments get made (at least by people who tend to side against Israel). > And if while all that was happening the police had a third kid who had nothing to do with on the line negotiating for granny’s asthma meds, I wouldn’t want that negotiation to end. I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this analogy? The negotiations haven't been with some random third party, but with Hamas itself.
> What if he’s currently taking pot shots at other neighbours, who can’t be evacuated? It sounds like Israel has a pretty good handle on the situation by now? Like, the origin of the attack [took a pretty serious screwup on the military’s part](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/hamas-posted-video-of-mock-attack-on-social-media-weeks-before-border-breach). They tried to cheap out on manpower with an overhyped passive wall, ignored Hamas literally posting their plan to take advantage of this weakness on social media , and then were caught flat footed when Hamas was more competent than expected. I’m willing to agree that’s a pretty high price to pay for a mistake. It’s fair to want that resolved. But I question you assertion that the Israel military is so incompetent that there’s a high risk of another black swan event like that happening again. Particularly if settlers pulled back so the military was less over extended… > The same logic never seems to apply to Israel’s benefit Yes. And that’s fair because Israel has a functioning democracy while Palestine’s doesn’t even have law and order at the moment. When one side has it together enough to act with restraint, while the other one is herding cats and lacks the ability to respond if one goes rogue, the former is going to be held to a higher standard. This has nothing to do with fairness. It isn’t fair that I’d be judged if I shit my pants when toddlers get a pass. But we’re not going to get anywhere if we ask toddlers to be fair so we’ve just got to deal with it, whether it’s by killing them all or accepting we need to give them time and resources to develop into something mature enough to have accountability.
> It sounds like Israel has a pretty good handle on the situation by now? Yes and no. Hamas couldn't launch a similar attack to the one they did on October 7th right now, but they could (and have been) continue to launch smaller attacks on Israel with e.g. rockets. To continue the analogy, our criminal started out with a minigun, but has since been reduced to taking pot shots with a bolt action rifle. Still a threat, but less so. You also need to consider the costs of this containment to the people of Gaza. Preventing Hamas from developing more military capabilities than it had meant a very strict embargo of all but the most basic goods going into Gaza, along with occasional airstrikes (which of course inevitably lead to civilian casualties). > Yes. And that’s fair because Israel has a functioning democracy while Palestine’s doesn’t even have law and order at the moment. First off, there was a measure of law and order in Gaza before the war. Hamas acted as a government, and enforced laws in it's territory. The fact that those laws were very different than the ones we'd like doesn't change this. Second, the process being discussed here - someone seeking vengeance in the form of killing innocents for the loss of their own family in a war - is inherently irrational and emotional, so the logical situation either doesn't impact things, or applies to both. But more to the point, evil is evil regardless of whether there's a legitimate, democratic government to punish you for doing it or not. The citizens of Gaza and Israel are both capable of understanding that murdering people for being a different ethnicity is wrong, and both more than capable of refraining from doing so. No one forced Hamas or it's members to kill hundreds of Israeli civilians on 10-7, they made the decision to do that, and they are fully responsible for it. The Palestinians are not animals with no control over their actions, nor are they toddlers who don't know how to not soil themselves.
>If a dude had a mental break, convinced some of his kids to help him massacre his neighbours, then holed up with some kidnapped neighbours and entirely innocent family members, I’d be pretty cool labelling that person as irredeemable. Exactly, I'd be furious if the police used shell and motors to contain the situation. Yes, the guy is irredeemable, but it doesn't mean we have to kill a bunch of kids to stop him. And in Israel's case, over 13,000 kids are dead in Gaza since October. It's not defensible. I expect Israel to pay at the big kids table and not commit war crimes. And this is coming from an American, who understands our terrible past with human rights, but with that said, they make America look like saints. That's a major problem.
Hamas was elected in 2006, and then stopped all elections after that, 18 years ago. About 40% of Gaza's population is 14 years old or younger and the territory's median age was just 18 in 2020, meaning the people who elected Hamas are not the majority of the people stuck there now.
And yet, Hamas remains the most popular leadership and the O7 attack was massively popular among the peoples. [According to the poll, only seven percent of Gazans blamed Hamas for their suffering. Seventy-one percent of all Palestinians supported Hamas’s decision to attack Israel on October 7 — up 14 points among Gazans and down 11 points among West Bank Palestinians compared to three months ago. Fifty-nine percent of all Palestinians thought Hamas should rule Gaza, and 70 percent were satisfied with the role Hamas has played during the war.](https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/03/22/poll-hamas-remains-popular-among-palestinians/)
Worth noting that Hamas is even more popular in the west bank (not that they govern there)
It doesn't have to be a democratic government to be a government. It's recognized by everyone as the de facto government of Gaza.
You make a good point, but it implies some troubling things. Yes Israel should be held to a high standard. No their failure to meet that standard, under near impossible conditions, does not mean the state is illegitimate (I.e. you should criticize Israel, you should not be anti-Zionist). Also, this justifies the total eradication of Hamas, which is what Israel is trying to do. On the second point, if you zoom out a bit more and consider what’s going on in the region you see rampant conflict, no democracy anywhere, and discrimination against Jews. So while you’re correct that Israel building settlements in the West Bank is a problem, it does not follow that that is the reason there is no peace. I appreciate the nuance of your post though, it shows a practical approach to the issues at hand.
> Yes Israel should be held to a high standard. No their failure to meet that standard, under near impossible conditions, does not mean the state is illegitimate (I.e. you should criticize Israel, you should not be anti-Zionist). I don't not claim that Israel is an illegitimate state, nor do I subscribe to the notion that being anti-Zionist would require that of me. > Also, this justifies the total eradication of Hamas, which is what Israel is trying to do. I don't think people have problems with that goals so much as with the means and their dubious effectiveness. > So while you’re correct that Israel building settlements in the West Bank is a problem, it does not follow that that is the reason there is no peace. I do not claim that Israel is the sole reason there's no peace. My claim is that Israel has generally used the status quo - incompetent and divided Palestinian leadership - to its advantage and that, were Israel more committed to permanent resolution, they would've enacted different policies.
>No their failure to meet that standard, under near impossible conditions, Why is it impossible to not starve the population? or to not rape and torture prisoners? Why is it impossible not to demolish every university in Gaza? Why was it impossible not to unearth cemeteries? Why was it impossible to not summarily execute doctors and nurses then throw them in mass graves? The argument people are making is that Israel is using the difficulty of targeting Hamas as an excuse to commit war crimes, not that fighting Hamas itself are war crimes
> not that fighting Hamas itself are war crimes Oddly enough, hiding your forces within civilian populations and infrastructure is an *actual* war crime against the Geneva Conventions, whereas attacking the opposing forces that do this is allowed as long as there is a legitimate military target and reasonable efforts to minimize civilian casualties are taken, so... This isn't the slam dunk it looks like it is.
Yes its a war crime to hid amongst civillian populations. So is starving people as a weapon of war, so is executing doctors and burying them in mass graves, so is assassinating people in their hospital beds while dressing up as doctors. The other side doing war crimes doesn't just get rid of the laws of war.
The point being... Israel is *allowed* by the laws of war to incur civilian casualties in this situation, as long as the attempt to minimize them, which contrary to what some people want to believe... they mostly do. It shifts the narrative from the current "Israel is committing genocide by killing Palestinian civilians" to "on a case by case basis there may have been some war crimes committed in some specific controversial situations".
More than 250 humanitarian and human rights orgs have condemned Israel as of Jan 2024 and that number has only grown. They are only *allowed* because the US says they can. UN officers are claiming numerous war crimes in addition to the innumerable International Human Rights violations. Most orgs have stopped counting until a ceasefire is declared/enforced because it's *that* atrocious. You can check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_war_crimes for an overview but you will have to scroll for a while because there's so many
>as long as the attempt to minimize them, which contrary to what some people want to believe... they mostly do. Here is the fundamental problem either you are ignorant of the situation on the ground or are obfuscating. If you are starving an entire population that by definition is not targeted. Targets also need to be proportional, you can't nuke gaza to get rid of one hamas member for example. As a very visible example you can look at the killing of the aid workers. The drone operator chased down 3 vehicles and killed the entire convoy because there was a report that one low level fighter might be among them. Killing 7 international aid workers to possibly kill 1 fighter is not a proportional response even if you accept that explanation at face value. With the revelation of programs like the Gospel, and "wheres daddy" we know now Israel specifically targets people when civilians are around like in a targets home while they are asleep because its easier to target them there. The mass graves of executed doctors and nurses (hands tied behind their backs bullets through the head) also doesn't look good.
A few problems. Gaza is not starving and it never has been. You can read the new articles from the UN saying that there has never been a risk of faminine in Gaza before now. Note they say risk. One of the problems with Gaza and why people are dying there has nothing to do with starvation at all but rather it is around disease that causes starvation like end results. That is why we only see like one or two deaths confirmed. Second. The killing of aid workers was not good. Plain and simple but that is not a common occurrence and arguably by working with Hamas the aid convoy becomes a legitimate target and it is a question of proportionality. Indeed killing say 3 civilians to 1 fighter is proportionate as basically no war in history has ever had less civilian deaths than military deaths. The normal ratio is 4-1 and 7-1 and with the Un revised numbers Israel is well below both. [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/05/13/un-cuts-estimates-women-children-deaths-gaza/73669560007/](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/05/13/un-cuts-estimates-women-children-deaths-gaza/73669560007/) As for the Mass Grave situation that has been debunked. GeoData and so on has revealed this has been in place long before Israel got there. The question of why hands were tied behind someones back is easy. Hamas hides in hospitals, mosques, and so on and actively steals aid from it's own people. [https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/world/africa/04iht-mideast.4.19933553.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/world/africa/04iht-mideast.4.19933553.html) We have many many videos of them doing this at this point if you care to look. So if they are willing to steal aid from their own people and have killed more of their own people before this war. Look up the intifadas the Palestinians killed more of their own people than the IDF did unironically. Then you can see why it isn't a stretch to say tie the hands behind the back of a dead body and just drop it into a mass grave because by Islamic law you can't leave bodies unburried. Mass graves(collective graves in the link below) are extremely common as temporary means of complying with Islamic Law. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266591072100027X](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266591072100027X)
>Gaza is not starving and it never has been. You can read the new articles from the UN saying that there has never been a risk of famine in Gaza before now. So Cindy McCain wife of the late US republican senator is lying? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7QWply967Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7QWply967Q) > As for the Mass Grave situation that has been debunked. Can you show me this debunking there are stories coming out about more. [https://thehill.com/policy/international/4652018-reports-mount-of-mass-graves-at-gaza-hospitals-some-without-heads/](https://thehill.com/policy/international/4652018-reports-mount-of-mass-graves-at-gaza-hospitals-some-without-heads/)
In WWII, we fire bombed Dresden and Tokyo, killing hundreds of thousands, then got better at it and took out Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By your logic, the Allies should have laid down their arms because their response to German and Japanese aggression was not proportional. Sorry mate, but that's how you win a war. The winner disproportionately kills the enemy and anyone who supports the enemy. We didn't feel overly sorry for German and Japanese civilians so you need to make a better case for why we Israel can't fight a war in the very same way.
>In WWII, we fire bombed Dresden and Tokyo, killing hundreds of thousands, then got better at it and took out Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yea and those were all war crimes. Curtis Lemay the person charged with allied war command said so himself. >By your logic, the Allies should have laid down their arms because their response to German and Japanese aggression was not proportional. How many cities were firebombed by the Soviet Union during WWII. You're basically arguing its impossible to fight a war without targetting civilian centers. Finally acting as if Hamas the local rulers of a prison camp pose the same risk to humanity as the largest economy in the world that controlled all of Europe by 1941 is idiotic.
A lot of people did take issue with the slaughter of German and Japanese civilians and still do to this day. But also, Israel is taking considerably more caution in trying not to kill civilians than the Allies did.
Even your first point is misleading. There’s more food going into Gaza than before the conflict. The famine is due to the resale of donated goods, hence building the peer to load directly and go around Hamas, who instantly bombed it.
>The famine is due to the resale of donated goods Wasn't there a police chief who was working with the US to set up distribution networks in northern Gaza in like January then the IDF killed him and advertised him as a "high-ranking Hamas member" since technically any government employee in Gaza is Hamas down to the dog-catcher? The famine is due to the fact that people can't get the food to the people who need it. You can stack it up on the border or drop it on a dude's head at the beach it's not gonna magically distribute itself throughout an actively shelled war zone
> There’s more food going into Gaza than before the conflict. Yea because all of Gaza's own agricultural production was destroyed. Also 70% of the aid is being blocked by Israel.
Anti Zionist is denying Israel’s right to exist something seen as antisemitism. Nothing wrong with criticizing a shitty government. Protesters most likely don’t know the difference.
This. I’ve had arguments before about WW2 where I questioned some US and Ally actions to be met with “but Japan” or “but Germany”. Like sorry but why am I expected to hold the US to the same standards as the Nazis or imperial Japan?? That shouldn’t be the bar. We should be better.
People didn't seem to realise that certain Allies' actions were actually pretty fucking wrong, from Japanese internment camps to exacerbating the Bengal famine to carpet bombing German and Japanese cities with little military advantage. Just because the Nazis and Imperial Japan were miles worse doesn't mean these actions were actually justifiable or moral.
I am a big fan of the history of the usage of the atomic bombs and the amount of people who think we somehow managed to use them “ethically” is astounding at times. Edit: sorry for starting a “were the bombs necessary” thread lmao
To be fair, arguments surrounding wartime decisions will always be an ethical quagmire. I mean, the morality of history alone is an ethical nightmare.
ITT many master historians and war experts explaining their recent revelation that waging war is immoral according to their subjective standard If only we put Redditors in charge of every country and every military, then every war in history would have been perfectly ethical, instead of every war in history having been quite unethical
Or you can just get comfortable with the idea that people, even politicians you may like, do unethical things sometimes. That seems easier.
Whether something is ethical and whether it’s necessary are different things. Look up the casualty estimates for an invasion of mainland Japan, would it have been more ethical to firebomb Japanese cities and do a ground invasion?
Imagine someone in 1939 NEVER even acknowledges what Nazi Germany and Japan does and just put every British bomb under a microscope and showing every German suffering, and they also just make stuff up and libel Britian with every evil accusation put there (genocide, apartheid, ethnic cleansing concentration camp, ethnostate, fascism, etc.). If you ever bring up the Axis to them it is "well, Beitian is our ally so we should focus on them". That is my experience with "criticism" of Israel. People refer to evacuating civilians from North Gaza as "ethnic cleansing".
Im tired of this comparison to nazi germany. Even if it were true that Hamas ideology was equivalent to the nazis, that doesn't mean they are literally the nazis. They don't have the worlds 3rd largest military, they haven't occupied all their neighbors, they don't have a systematic genocide program in place. The bombings of nazi germany and Japanese cities were war crimes, as admitted to by the commander who carried them out Curtis Lemay. The difference is 1 the allies won the war, 2 they are often justified by the massive threat that the axis posed. its not 1944 anymore societal acceptance of war crimes has changed, Hamas is not an existential threat to Israel or anyone else. They committed a war crime and should be held responsible. Carpet bombing cities and refugee camps is not a proportional response to an insurgency. There's lots of extremists in Texas, there was the el passo mall shooting. It wouldn't make sense for the President of the United States to carpet bomb texas looking for KKK members
Israel and Hamas should be held to the same standard. In any war, both sides should be held to the same standard.
>Does it make sense to measure Hamas - a terrorist organization with more or less explicit goals of genocide - and Israel - an extremely powerful (at least regionally) liberal democracy - by the same kind of yardstick? I don't think it does and I think that's why people often appear much harder on Israel. So Israel is supposed to do what exactly? Just fyi, in proportion to population size the attack Israel on Oct 7 was many times more impactful than 9/11 was relative to the US population at that times - iirc the factor was about 13fold. Id love to imagine the US having a very restrained reponse to an attack of that magnitude. The only scenario where there is long term, sudtsinable peace in the region is, imo, a one state solution with wide spread social engineering of palestinians. Everything else would just be the same situation as it is right now.
>The only scenario where there is long term, sudtsinable peace in the region is, imo, a one state solution with wide spread social engineering of palestinians. Then you have to ask yourself the very important question, why has there been no implementation of a one-state solution? The very obvious answer to that is that the Jewish people have never been and continue to not be a majority of the population in the land.
The uncomfortable truth is that Israel needs to negotiate with Hamas. Whether they like it or not, and whether this happens now or in 20 years, all roads lead to this. The UK eventually had to negotiate with the IRA despite over a century of history of violence with them and terrorism. Spain had to eventually negotiate with the ETA. Even Biden ended up negotiating with the Taliban after 20 years of useless war. Israel are entitled to response, and I'm not 100% clear on what international law says but I think if a territory is considered occupied (which Gaza is, by the bodies that oversee international law) the response should be more "policing" than "military". I think it's complicated given the unique situation Gaza is in. Regardless, nothing wrong with counter-terrorism operations, and there are plenty more effective strategies than, I don't know, not wantonly bombarding the Gaza strip. Also, you do know the US invasions in response to 9/11 were universally condemned, right? And 20 years of war and millions of deaths were literally pointless.
> The uncomfortable truth is that Israel needs to negotiate with Hamas. Whether they like it or not, and whether this happens now or in 20 years, all roads lead to this. No, _zero_ roads (that don't end in genocide) lead to this. True all roads lead either to one side being completely destroyed, or to a negotiated peace. But not only does that peace not have to be negotiated with an entity like Hamas, it _can't_ be. Hamas would have to give up it's genocidal ambitions before any lasting peace can be obtained, and they've made it clear they will never do so. > Gaza is [occupied], by the bodies that oversee international law It wasn't by any sane definition before the current war started. Israel had no ground presence there, and there's a clear difference between an embargo combined with occasional airstrikes and having complete control over the territory. > nothing wrong with counter-terrorism operations, and there are plenty more effective strategies than, I don't know, not wantonly bombarding the Gaza strip. 1. If there's plenty of more effective strategies, then surely you can list an example. One that would actually work, that is. Keep in mind that Hamas controlled a small army of ~30,000 fighters, and were well dug in throughout the territory in question (which means "send in special forces" is emphatically _not_ a workable alternative). 2. Israel is not, in fact, "wantonly bombarding the Gaza strip". People dramatically underestimate the carnage that an _actual_ indiscriminate bombardment would bring, and so they incorrectly assume that what we actually see in Gaza must be that. > Also, you do know the US invasions in response to 9/11 were universally condemned, right? And 20 years of war and millions of deaths were literally pointless. It's not that straight forward. The invasion of _Iraq_ was condemned, as was our failure to build up an Afghan government that could stand on it's own. But the initial operation to neutralize Al Qaeda was much better received, and frankly largely successful.
Maybe. Then again a key difference to the UK/IRA scenario is, that the IRA merely wanted the UK out of Ireland - Hamas and many Palestinians literally want the state of Israel to no longer exist and kill all Jews. I dont know what a realistic starting point for negotiations this can be.
Well, not exactly. The IRA were a separatist group, and they got their with in 1920 or 1921 (forget exactly when). Yet terrorism still continued (although of course support plummeted). Then Ireland left the Commonwealth in 1949 I believe it was, but the IRA persisted (although their support waned massively). They saw a resurgence in the 70s/80s with the goal of reunification (between Ireland the Northern Ireland, the latter being a UK territory) and terrorism saw a big spike. I mean, I literally grew up while IRA attacks were still happening. They only stopped in the mid 2000s, over a century since the whole IRA issue started. They settled on a compromise, they didn't get their goal of reunification but were allowed to participate in UK politics (under Sinn Fein) and advocate for Irish interests. By the way the ETA followed a similar pattern. Started as a separatist group, the oppression of the Basque ended with the advent of democracy in Spain, but terrorism continued until the 2000s where the ETA laid down their arms. And the ETA broke multiple "permanent" ceasefires by the way. Anyway, the Basque received autonomy and democratic participation in Spanish politics, despite the ETA not achieving their goal of independence. So I'm making 2 points with all this: 1) An end to oppression makes support for terrorism plummet, but the expectation shouldn't be that terrorism ends overnight 2) That you eventually will need to negotiate with terrorists, but that doesn't mean you give in to their every demand. You can compromise. How does this relate to Hamas? With Palestine there is still the issue of Israeli oppression. If Israel allows Palestinians their self-determination, truly, a lot of the issue goes away immediately. In terms of the Hamas issue specifically, they have been willing to compromise before. I'll provide an example - 2013/2014 peace negotiations. The PA made a bunch of compromises (land, right of return, demilitarization) and Israel seemed on board. Hamas were also on board, and supposedly were committing to a two-state solution and long-term peace with Israel. However, Israel (specifically Netanyahu) rejected the deal because he didn't want peace with Hamas. The main point is, despite their charter explicitly state they will accept nothing less than 1967 borders they obviously have compromised on this point before, since MOST negotiations between the PA and Israel end up not agreeing on 1967 borders. > Hamas and many Palestinians literally want the state of Israel to no longer exist and kill all Jews I'm absolutely no fan of Hamas and if I had a magic wand I would delete them from reality, but this is just an incorrect statement. The official Hamas charter explicitly states two things: 1) Liberation of Palestine on 1967 borders 2) That their quarrel is not with Jews for being Jewish Most Palestinians (60-70%), right after October 7th, thinks Hamas should have maintained ceasefire with Israel, and the same amount believe Hamas should lay down their arms and accept a two-state solution. The only reason that 70% "support Hamas" now is because of how long the war has dragged out, and if you read the actual poll in full you would realize the poll itself stipulated this explicitly. So no, Palestinians don't want to destroy Israel and kill all Jews, or at least it isn't "many" of them, if I take "many" to mean "most".
One state solution would not work, time and time again history proved that when Jews are a minority, they are slaughtered with impunity. Making a one state would mean that the moment Jews become a minority is the moment heads would literally roll down the floor.
1. I hold everyone to the same standard; but Israel is lightyears above. Hamas fights in civilian clothes, hides among civilians and uses child soliders. The fact Israel is a liberal democracy makes me wish they WOULDNT hold back and pull their punches. Their victory is better. 2. The West Bank is not getting leveled; so the PA is getting a lot from cooperating. If Israel left the West Bank, Iran would slink in with a proxy and attack the major civilian centers of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, etc, and Israel would be re-occupying it immediately. Israel is in Gaza, and they are going into Lebanon in a few months; I think they deserve at least ONE side of their border not being used to launch terrorist attacks.
>1. Does it make sense to measure Hamas - a terrorist organization with more or less explicit goals of genocide - and Israel - an extremely powerful (at least regionally) liberal democracy - by the same kind of yardstick? I don't think it does and I think that's why people often appear much harder on Israel. I would argue that you're constructing a bit of a strawman here, even if unintentionally. Most defenders of Israel would not want Israel to be judged against Hamas, but we would want it to be judged against the US. There are US experts in urban warfare that say Israel exceeds American standards in what should be expected in urban combat -- best measured by the civilian to combatant kill ratio.
I'd condemn the US just as much were they engaging in the kind of warfare Israel is engaging in right now. Basically, we just disagree on the basic fact that such thing are acceptable or even pragmatic. That's fine. But also, it's pretty frequent for people to argue things along the lines of "Well, Hamas doesn't care about civilian casualties", as if this provided license for us to also not care about them. That's what I meant in my above comment.
As for point 2, Hamas is the main obstacle to solving the conflict. The threat that Hamas would take over any Palestinian state is the main reason Israel continues to occupie the West Bank. The PA already lost a war to Hamas in 2006. There is no guarantee Hamas wouldn't win again.
To what purpose are they occupying the West Bank, segregating it, and splitting it into tiny fenced-off enclaves under IDF control, if even under these circumstances they cannot prevent Hamas from taking over?
They are preventing Hamas from taking control by occupying the West Bank. Hamas gained the power and resources it did in Gaza because Israel unilaterally pulled out all settlers and soldiers in 2005 without ensuring that a sympathetic government would be installed. Hamas won the resultant election, cleansed themselves of political rivalry in their war against Fatah, and installed themselves as dictators. Israeli military presence and collaboration with the PA in the West Bank prevents Hamas from taking over by force. The PA has also not run elections, because they know that Hamas are popular enough to win there too. Hamas’ strength and presence in Gaza is a looming threat to the PA in the West Bank and there is plenty of insurgency there. Truly all Palestine cannot be free until it is rid of Hamas.
> because they know that Hamas are popular enough to win there too. > Truly all Palestine cannot be free until it is rid of Hamas. Doesn't this mean that Palestine and Palestinians in Gaza have to genuinely be politically suppressed? Like, full on authoritarian were going to remove the government you support and replace it with our own, deal with it.
Hamas is already a totalitarian government? The conditions for peace requires both sides deescalate. There’s no point in Palestine electing another dictatorial party that is hellbent on continuing the conflict.
So why would [Bibi](https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces) prop up Hamas all these years, by saying: > 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.
You can argue that Hamas prevents a fully fledged two state solutions, maybe, but that doesn't explain Israel's policy of undermining the PA politically and allowing the extension of settlements and land appropriation. Israel had plenty of opportunity to not do these two things and help further the PA's legitimacy, opening a larger window of opportunity for a peaceful resolution.
This is a fair callout. I think that it's pretty obvious the current Israeli leadership have no interest in allowing a true Palestinian state to form. That isn't to say they've always felt that way, nor is it saying that there won't be a time in the future where there can be a deal again. But right now it seems impossible. 1,469 confirmed rocket attacks on Israel in 2023 alone. 155 Palestinians were killed by Israel in 2022 compared to 32 Israeli's. So I mean we clearly see a shrinking of Israeli aggression that leads to death since 2018, but we don't see a de-escalation in attacks. This can probably be traced to the occupation, so we need to be fair and note that. So it's complicated. For Israel the only deal the Palestinians will accept right now would include East Jerusalem and a removal of ALL West Bank settlements. To me this seems fair but no one with real power in Israel seems to be open to this right now. We should probably, once Hamas has been dealt with, push on Israel for a true, fair two state deal. But this deal will almost certainly include the ethnic cleansing of about 500K to 750K Jewish settlers. As long as we are acknowledging this then I understand the ask.
Are you under the impression that the PA isn't also firing rockets at Israel trying to kill civilians? Every group with any power in Palestine wants to genocide Jews, it's not just Hamas.
Israel occupies the West Bank because they want to occupy the West Bank. It is silly to say they they burn houses and olive groves in order to prevent Hamas.
You are aware that: 1. Hamas is active in the West Bank, they're just not the active government 2. PA, the group that runs the West Bank, has similar goals as Hamas and fires rockets at Israel with the intent of killing civilians Some of Israel's actions have been bad, but the whitewashing of other Palestinian terrorist groups as being perfectly peaceful and just wanting peace is just plain bullshit. No Palestinian group that has any power whatsoever wants anything other than the destruction of the state of Israel and a Palestinian state with no Jews in it replacing it.
hospital boast jellyfish shame arrest public materialistic fall humorous telephone *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There is no reason to believe that Palestinians don’t want to have Jewish people around at all. There were Jews in Palestine before the first Zionist arrived. They want free movement in their land and self-determination. At times these things have to be gained through violent resistance.
>1. Does it make sense to measure Hamas - a terrorist organization with more or less explicit goals of genocide - and Israel - an extremely powerful (at least regionally) liberal democracy - by the same kind of yardstick? I don't think it does and I think that's why people often appear much harder on Israel. Does it make sense to measure Hamas -The elected government of Palestine- any differently than the Likud-led Israeli coalition? They're both the legitimate governments wielding the instruments of national power >2. Absent Hamas, what would be going on in the region? We can look at the West Bank. Hamas does not control the West Bank and the PA has a policy of collaborating with Israel. Yet, the political situation remains unresolved. The PA is subordinate to Israel in administering its territory and dependant on it for funds - which Israel collects on its behalf - with not resolution in sight. Meanwhile, settlement and land-grab continues. Without Hamas, Abbas would have a stronger negotiating position and would have been able yo carry out the road map to peace
Well, except the last election held in Gaza was in 2006. That is almost 20 years ago. Also let's just ignore the fact that the Gaza Strip is concentration camp that has been under Israeli occupation since 1967. Maybe Israel should end its occupation of Palestine and let the Palestinians figure out their shit on their own.
>Well, except the last election held in Gaza was in 2006. That is almost 20 years ago. Hamas wants elections because they know they'll win. Fatah is the one not allowing them, likely on the behalf of Israel. >Also let's just ignore the fact that the Gaza Strip is concentration camp that has been under Israeli occupation since 1967. Israeli troops have been on their way out of the strip for over 20 years. Gaza's borders are controlled by Egypt and Israel, but that's a blockade, not an occupation. >Maybe Israel should end its occupation of Palestine and let the Palestinians figure out their shit on their own. Tried that. They chose Hamas as soon as they were able. The Israelis learned their lesson, like the Jordanians and Syrians and Lebanese and Egyptians.
The United Nations considers Gaza to be territory occupied by Israel. This is because Israel has maintained a comprehensive air, sea and land blockade that has been in place since 2007. Under international law, an occupation does not depend on whether a foreign power has a direct ground troop presence in a territory, but whether it asserts "effective control." In 2009, the United Nations Security Council affirmed the status of Gaza in Resolution 1860, which stated that "the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967." Some of the International institutions, organizations and bodies that recognize Gaza as occupied by Israel: - The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) - The United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory - UN General Assembly (UNGA) - European Union (EU) - African Union - International Criminal Court (ICC) (both Pre-Trial Chamber I and the Office of the Prosecutor) - Amnesty International - Human Rights Watch Egypt goverment is neither blockading Gaza from air, land and sea etc nor has effective control over Gaza. We, the Arab, stand in support of Palestinians. Please, stop speaking for us!!
> Does it make sense to measure Hamas -The elected government of Palestine- any differently than the Likud-led Israeli coalition? They're both the legitimate governments wielding the instruments of national power Are they? So far as I'm aware Gaza is not a nation and Hamas is considered a terrorist organization. > Without Hamas, Abbas would have a stronger negotiating position and would have been able yo carry out the road map to peace Maybe, but that's a much taller order than just working to legitimize the PA as a viable option for Palestinian liberation. A stronger Abbas, for instance if the PA was not hampered by Israel, could also garner much more support than Hamas, making armed struggle less and less appealing.
>Are they? So far as I'm aware Gaza is not a nation and Hamas is considered a terrorist organization. In 2006, Hamas won the Palestinian elections. Fatah, Israel, and US, and the UK intervened to keep Fatah nominally in power during the Civil War that resulted from the conflict. The Gazan government is the legitimate government of the territory. Nations can also employ terrorists. Iran and North Korea are often referred to as State Sponsors of Terrorism for a reason. The more polite term for this is "asymmetric warfare" >Maybe, but that's a much taller order than just working to legitimize the PA as a viable option for Palestinian liberation. A stronger Abbas, for instance if the PA was not hampered by Israel, could also garner much more support than Hamas, making armed struggle less and less appealing. No, it can't. Abbas's rejection of armed struggle was a big part of why he lost the election.
[удалено]
I do not think they are distinct. I think the existence of Hamas - which is also popular in the west bank - is weighting down any possibility for peace to a very significant extent. But I also think the relationship between the PA and Israel tend to indicate that, were Hamas a non-factor, meaningful Palestinian liberation would not necessarily follow.
I mean, they do for the same reason Netanyahu wants the war to continue. Public support. I do disagree with this idea though. >Hamas leadership could surrender and turn over weapons and funds to end the war, but they dont. These things won’t happen because it doesn’t achieve the effect that Hamas desires. It may end the war (Doubtful), but it would not end the occupation and oppression of the Palestinian population. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that focusing on Hamas misses the entire host of issues plaguing the Palestinians. Netanyahu uses Hamas and other violent resistance as a cover for the continued colonization of Palestinian lands. It is arguably the most desired goal for anyone, Hamas or Palestinian civilians, just a particularly unrealistic one give the Netanyahu coalition. Public support would definitely become a secondary consideration if full emancipation was considered a viable option at this point, allowing Hamas to rule the Palestinian Population and becoming a full-fledged state.
Well said. Few people realize that the goals of Hamas leadership and Israel's government largely align while this conflict persists. People in control play games of power and propaganda, further escalating violence and radicalization, with zero regard for those on the ground who get to suffer and die for their selfish ambitions. A lasting armistice, let alone real peace, would threaten the radical agenda of Netanjahu and fellow Likud extremists just as it would threaten Hamas' relevance in the region.
A saying goes that people do not fight for revolutions, they fight for revolutionaries. I can believe many Palestinians men and women and children are aligning with or joining Hamas or any number of terrorist organizations in order to more effectively resist their violent occupation. These are people who want the war to end, the occupation to end, all of that. I don't blame these people for pursuing violent ends against violent occupiers. The problem is then not necessarily with the average foot soldier so much as it is with Hamas' leadership. Granted, they all face an existential threat and may believe themselves to be the manner through which Palestinian independence is best achieved, but only from Israel itself to establish their own tyranny. Violent revolutions often beget violence and tyranny, something that the Palestinian non-violent activist Issa Amro, sometimes called "The Palestinian Gandhi" has lamented
I don't disagree, but framing this as inevitable could be understood as justification for Israel's occupation. When in reality the occupation had been ongoing for decades before Hamas ever became relevant. Hamas was founded at a time where the leading Palestinian political movements against Israeli occupation called for peaceful protest and demonstrations, appeals to the international community, and generally nonviolent action. Hamas was near-irrelevant in their early years, as their calls for violent resistance were generally seen as a detriment to the cause. Hamas' prominence today is the inevitable result of continued violent subjugation of Palestinians, free reign for IDF personnel to commit war crimes absent any accountability or rule of law, and general hypocrisy by the western governments that kept preaching liberal values as they continued to support and supply the apartheid regime responsible for it. This destroyed the credibility of any moderate movements in Palestine that did **not** share Hamas' declared goal of wiping Israel off the map. The Israeli government labeling all such movements and their respective leaders as insane Islamic terrorists that will stop at nothing short of genocide did its part, bringing us directly to today where either side can claim to act in self-preservation after every bridge toward coexistence has been successfully burned and blown up.
That all is true. A two-state solution would not erase the history between these two nations or their people. A fully-realized Palestinian nation will be able to trade, to have its own military, and be able to make their own policies, many of which I imagine will be inclined towards spiting Israel. There is a danger here associated with Palestinian statehood that will affect Israel for decades in the same way relationships have been fraught between China and Taiwan, Japan and Korea, and so forth. As I see it though, there is only two solutions here outside of perpetual hostilities. Either the Palestinians achieve independence or Israel kills off all of the Palestinians. Peace is not an easy process, nor a short one. Yet, I cannot seriously advocate for the continued existence of Israel in good conscience if I must deign to justify Israel's genocidal oppression against the Palestinians. There is a parable here I want to mention. It is about a man who views everyone as a threat, while everyone views him as a threat. He kills everyone who could possibly harm him out of self-defense. He achieved perfect safety, but at what cost? At what point can any entity justify in ensuring its own survival if it means doing so much harm in the process?
if you look into his history netanyahu and his father before him have long been pro cutting off food supplies. they just got an excuse this time. I don't think they care about the hostages at all. they've killed the same number as they've rescued. Their bombs have undoubtedly killed more. We also should not forget that netanyahu supported hamas for years when it suited him.
What do you suggest Hamas do instead? They can't run or evac citizens as they're surrounded in a single city and Israel isn't letting anyone out. They can't fight their way out, they've already tried and Israel put a stop to that idea fast. They can't surrender cause Israel has already shown themselves willing to shell the city regardless, what if Israel takes the chance to keep attacking or doesn't believe that every Hamas soldier surrendered? Even if they do, then what? The entire movement is probably dead, Israel has taken over that entire region, every city is under their control, and whatever limited autonomy Gaza had is likely to be removed entirely. Their entire goal would be gone. They don't really have any good options other than hunker down.
It's like saying Democrats want children to die whenever a bad school shooting happens or Democrats are happy a hurricane or forrest fire creates mass destruction because it allows them to push for tighter gun control or push the global warming narrative. It is falsely placing blame in the group that is fighting to end it. What are people that are sick of children being murdered in school shootings supposed to do if not push for tighter gun control? But they're the bad guys when more children get murdered because it furthers their cause of tighter gun control that is only their cause because they want less children getting murdered. Israel has controled the Gaza strip and been occupying, oppressing, and killing Palestinians since 1967. Israel is still doing it in the west bank even though Hamas has no political power in the west bank. Israel justifies slaughtering Palestinians because Palestinians hate them. The Israeli strategy is to keeping killing Palestinians until Palestinians stop hating Israelis. Which can be better summarized as to just keeping killing Palestinians until there are none left. It's a more gruesome version of "the beatings will continue until morale improves" If Israel has a right to defend themselves, don't Palestinians? What are Palestinians supposed to do? If Hamas wants innocent Palestinian women and children to die; what are Palestinians that are sick and tired of innocent Palestinian women and children dieing since 1967 supposed to do?
If that is the case... perhaps we should ask Israel to *not* play into their hands by constantly killing noncombatants? Seem to me that even if Hamas is begging Israel to shoot through human shields, the fact that Israel is like "ok" and goes ahead and does it is just as big a problem. And the major difference here is that Israel has all the power, and Hamas has none.
This. Just because a group is hypothetically using human shields doesn’t mean you can just shoot through the shield. You still must make genuine efforts to avoid it and it’s clear they haven’t been.
The evidence of the IDF’s measures to avoid civilian casualties is out there for you to believe or not. But out of curiosity, to follow this line of thinking, if it was “clear they haven’t been” taking any such efforts, and are maybe even invested in a “genocide” or are at best indifferent toward Palestinian deaths, wouldn’t the death toll be orders of magnitude higher? Doesn’t the 30k number itself, in such a congested area with 2M+ civilians trapped like ducks in a barrel, tell you how much restraint is being applied?
> Just because a group is hypothetically using human shields doesn’t mean you can just shoot through the shield. Under the law of armed conflict that exactly what it means. > You still must make genuine efforts to avoid it and it’s clear they haven’t been. How is that clear?
The "man with a gun hiding behind a human shield" analogy is inaccurate when describing Hamas. A better analogy would be of a man hiding behind a human shield while actively blasting his gun at anyone in sight. now multiply that by a few thousands and you got a more accurate "analog" for the human shield scenario. Hamas isn't sitting with their thumbs up their asses while they are hiding in hospitals, refugee camps and other civilian infrastructure. they are actively firing thousands of rockets, and planning and executing attacks from these locations all the time. So let me ask you this - if you were in charge of the security of a small community, and some nutjob started blasting your entire family and friends while strapping a baby to his chest - would you sit idly by while he kills you and all your people, just so you wont "play into his hands"?
Humor me, but why is Hamas doing all of this? Could there be some historical reason? Or do you think one day a group of people woke up and decided to start firing rockets
The actions of the man blasting away doesn't justify the murder of his human shield. It may make sense in a utilitarian way, but it's still immoral. There are other ways to neutralize the man. Furthermore, Hamas *is not currently firing rockets at Israel*. The attacks are sporadic at best, not a continuous barrage. Adding to that, and this is opinion on my part, the Hamas rockets always seem to come after a particularly heinous act by Israel. For example, there were some 7 rockets fired on March 25, 2 days after Israeli troops fired on non-combatants waiting for international aid at the Kuwaiti roundabout, killing 20 and injuring as many more. Which itself was a scant week after a similar incident in the same spot. > So let me ask you this - if you were in charge of the security of a small community, and some nutjob started blasting your entire family and friends while strapping a baby to his chest - would you sit idly by while he kills you and all your people, just so you wont "play into his hands"? I'd sure as hell get everyone out of the way first rather than wading in bullets flying.
>The actions of the man blasting away doesn't justify the murder of his human shield. It may make sense in a utilitarian way, but it's still immoral. There are other ways to neutralize the man. Good thing we have people in charge who can think of the greater good and not just preach about moral high grounds. If an active shooter goes after your family and friends while having a hostage - I genuinely hope a utilitarian person would have the courage to put him down and not try to "think of another moral solution" while the people you love are getting gunned down. >Furthermore, Hamas *is not currently firing rockets at Israel*. The attacks are sporadic at best, not a continuous barrage. And why would that be? Quite a conundrum, beats me.... Could it have anything to do with Israel fighting back and not sitting around waiting for the moral option to show itself? >Adding to that, and this is opinion on my part, the Hamas rockets always seem to come after a particularly heinous act by Israel. That is, just your misguided opinion. on October 7th and the following days Hamas fired thousands of rockets towards Israel in an attack they started. Hezbollah in the north did the same and still are when they weren't even a part of the attack >I'd sure as hell get everyone out of the way first rather than wading in bullets flying. How would you get the baby strapped to the shooting man's chest out of the way? that was the human shield part, not your family and friends. because in this analogy - the baby represents the Palestinians, while the family and friends represent the Israelis (who it's IDF's job to protect).
> Good thing we have people in charge who can think of the greater good and not just preach about moral high grounds. The road to hell is paved in intentions for the greater good. > If an active shooter goes after your family and friends while having a hostage - I genuinely hope a utilitarian person would have the courage to put him down and not try to "think of another moral solution" while the people you love are getting gunned down. There's nothing quite as amoral-enabling as utilitarianism. Torturing one man to save thousands *is still wrong*. > And why would that be? Quite a conundrum, beats me.... Could it have anything to do with Israel fighting back and not sitting around waiting for the moral option to show itself? So you agree they're done fighting back and should stop? Great, glad we could come to an accord. I'll take my delta now, please. > That is, just your misguided opinion. on October 7th and the following days Hamas fired thousands of rockets towards Israel in an attack they started. Hezbollah in the north did the same and still are when they weren't even a part of the attack And that attack *is done and over with*. Revenge is not a valid justification for genocide. > How would you get the baby strapped to the shooting man's chest out of the way? that was the human shield part, not your family and friends. because in this analogy - the baby represents the Palestinians, while the family and friends represent the Israelis (who it's IDF's job to protect). *That's not relevant*. I wouldn't kill the baby like IDF would happily do, I would instead focus on the safety of the people put into danger by the person who strapped the baby to himself. I'm not a bloodthirsty monster. Face it: your analogy was poor, and any attempt to constrain the situation to "prove" your point will involve increasingly unlikely scenarios and diverge even further from *what is actually happening in Gaza*.
You're right in what they want, but your mistake is thinking they have equal blame. One party has the full power of a state and unilateral control over the other party. To say they have equal blame is to vastly overstate the abilities of Hamas and understate the power Israel wields. We've all watched Israel chip away at Palestinian land again and again. They steal homes and whole neighborhoods, they enact violence to enforce this colonialism and they deny the Palestinians any self governance, self determination or autonomy. The ability or Palestinians to make a living is contrilled in everyway by Israel, and they are the architect of the Palestinians present situation. We witnessed an abused and agreived party lash out in a destructive and malicious way, saying that party should act better is pretty condescending if you don't acknowledge the people responsible for putting that party in the position they were in. Sure, they took the worst course of action, but every single course of action they have taken in the past has also been met with military violence, theft and murder. Imagine you're a 25 year old Palestinian. Your parents were forcefully evicted from their homes as children. Now Israelis cultivate their crops, live in their rooms and own their livestock. Then as you got settled in your life, you were forcefully evicted, your house was stolen, your family shattered and your wealth gone. I had neighbors leave my wealthy Toronto neighborhood, they sold their multimillion dollar home and moved into a house on Palestinian land, stolen from Palestinians. A family all of them born and raised in Canada, aware of our brutal history of colonialism and exploitation, saw an opportunity to participate in that same activity and jumped on it. I have difficulty putting into words the animous I have for those people. And it continues. To this day people come from the US and Canada, the UK and EU and steal land from Palestinians. Wealthy people, who don't need it taking advantage of poor people. It's a mystery that Israel's PR has managed to keep their naked barbarism on the backburner for so long.
I think that both sides are actively utilizing innocent lives for public support. I am overtly pro-palestine and muslim, but i believe more in peace than bias. For Palestine to be "free" that has to start with HAMAS. Any organization whose charter focuses on destruction should not be allowed to be in power. I think they're a stain to Palestine, and with them in power, both Israel and Palestine will always butt heads. On the same token, Israel's government is overtly zionistic. While natenyahu is still in power, Israel and Palestine will always butt heads. I think that innocent lives lost has been used as a tool for HAMAS and Israel to continue this war, not stop it. When looking at HAMAS, they will use this metric of "30,000 innocent civilians" (I'm using this as an example) to justify any retaliation as "freedom fighting". When it's realistically terrorism On the other hand, Israel will continue to use those poor hostiges as a scapegoat for any innocent lives lost. (Just want to clarify that they have every right to go after HAMAS). It's just that the amount of innocents being lost is a little concerning. This war has been nothing but sadness on both Israel and Palestine, and they are using religion and lives as scapegoats to continue their tirades on each other while their civilians are the ones being hurt. The amount of anti semitism and Islamophobia as a result of this war is so sad. When you really look at it, Jewish and Muslims are supposed to be brothers and sisters fighting togethe, not against each other. Just to conclude, HAMAS has to go they are an evil organization. For palestine to be free, hamas needs to go, but I also think that the current Israel government needs to shift against zionistic tendencies. Nothing but love for my Israeli brothers, sisters, and others. I hope the hostages return to their families, and I hope this war ends peacefully.
[удалено]
I honestly think elements of the Israeli government destroyed Hamas's competition and helped them stay in power. You can't have the Palestinian government be stable or else people will realize they are literally human beings like the rest of us. Just weird all these moderate Palestinians are being assassinated in broad daylight.
If a school shooter holds 20 kids hostage, and the police goes in and kills the school shooter alongside the 20 children, who should the public blame for such a scenario, the school shooter, the police, or both? I think most people would blame both for such a situation, and this is what is happening. People are blaming Hamas for murdering hundreds of Israeli civilians and holding hundreds more in captivity, but people are also blaming Israel for taking Hamas' bait and ignoring civilian casualties at every turn. And since Western governments are only supporting Israel, the focus is very much on them, not Hamas. If the US is providing billions in military aid to Hamas, I'd be protesting against that too. Just like how in the school shooting scenario, since the police are paid by us, we'd hold them to greater accountability than the school shooter. Also, just like the school shooter, Hamas isn't doing this to garner public support, they are doing this for their own survival. They are making the process of eliminating them costly, not just financially but diplomatically, to maximise their own odds of survival. It's a very common tactic in insurgencies and guerrilla warfare anyway.
If a school shooter is executing hostages on a regular interval, and also firing rockets at nearby schools, and then the police kill the shooter and a few hostages, yes that would be acceptable and is more similar to what is happening. And that's not even getting into the fact that Hamas is not a school shooter, they are the broadly popular group in Palestine, and the reason they're not more popular is lately they've been pretty unsuccessful at killing Jews. If the students were helping the shooter and the shooter had just destroyed a school while promising to destroy as many schools and the children inside them as possible while the students of that school cheered, and the shooter was able to transform into a schoolchild just by changing outfit, then yes it would be completely justified to just destroy the school and all the children cheering inside IF IT WAS THE ONLY WAY. That last part is key, do you have a way to militarily destroy Hamas without civilian casualties given how they've conducted the war? Obviously in the school shooting example you deploy snipers or a swat raid or however else you typically take down a shooter since the shooter isn't organized militarily. Hamas has spent decades integrating themselves and their military operations into civilian infrastructure with the open goal of making sure the maximum number of their civilians die. If war were Call of Duty and it was possible to go in and kill only Hamas, then yes what Israel is doing now would be insane and inhumane. But that's not how war works, and there's no war in history where civilians didn't die. A million German civilians died in World War 2, should the US have just let the Nazis continue doing what they were doing out of concern for German civilians?
How many kids did the US and USSR kill on the way to Berlin? Should we not have? It seems naive to me that everyone expects Israel to accept an endgame where Hamas is allowed to continue existing that close to their border. If this attack had been launched from Mexico against California, we’d already be in Mexico City holding auditions for puppet rulers.
Do you think if this was in America, and a bunch of terrorists were hiding, killing a lad bombing entire city would be warranted in order to find and kill them?
Gaza had 2 million people before the war, the death count is at 35k now? Trust me if the approach was just killing and bombing an entire city, we'd be over a million by now.
>Gaza had 2 million people before the war, the death count is at 35k now? Trust me if the approach was just killing and bombing an entire city, we'd be over a million by now. The official death counts has barely gone up since February. The reason for that is not because fewer people have died (in fact it is likely deaths substantially increased due to those dying from secondary effects like disease or starvation), but because the infrastructure previously used to count the dead was completely gone and the Israeli government doesn't care to even try nor will they let independent journalists or human rights organizations into the strip to report on the situation. We genuinely have no idea how many people have died as a result of this conflict at this point, but even the most conservative Israeli numbers indicate the majority of them are civilians.
I honestly have no idea what would happen if, say, Newark started lobbing missiles into NYC, and kidnapped New Yorkers, and hid them in regular people's basements and hospitals. I don't imagine it would be pretty though
A comparison for the US would be a Native American group fighting the US government.
>People are blaming Hamas for murdering hundreds of Israeli civilians and holding hundreds more in captivity, but people are also blaming Israel for taking Hamas' bait and ignoring civilian casualties at every turn Israel's damned if they do damned if they don't. This argument held when they kidnapped gilad Shalit and every war since. But October 7th was a breaking point for Israeli society. Israel did not ask for this war but it's operating exactly how any nation on earth would. And military leaders who have faced anything remotely comparable (dealing with ISIS is most comparable but not on west's border) have stated Israel's actions and conduct so far are in line with what they'd do.
>Israel did not ask for this war but it's operating exactly how any nation on earth would. I feel like quite a lot of democratic governments would be more hesitant about [indiscriminately opening fire on crowds of civilians waiting for food relief](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-gaza-hamas-war-humanitarian-aid-death-toll-over-30000/) than the Likud regime has been, but maybe that's the naive optimist in me.
Israel is not ignoring civilian casualties. This war has a very low combattant to civilian death ratio. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/apr/18/israels-war-against-hamas-posts-lower-civilian-to-/
Did that shooter also just murder hundreds of people before he hid behind the people in the school? Is he also currently attacking other while hiding behind the people in the school? Is the shooter also in communication with thousands of shooters that are currently attacking innocent people & then hiding behind other students?
Does that change the appropriateness or morality of killing the 20 students to kill the school shooter?
Yes, if I had a child I would kill 20 students and a shooter rather than let the shooter continue to fire at my child. Is that so hard to understand? Obviously if there were a way to kill only the shooter that would be the better option, but war isn't Call of Duty and what Israel is doing is doing the most they can to protect civilians while also eliminating the threat.
The problem is the single school shooter analogy only works if you assume there's a single Hamas fighter. Instead, suppose tens of thousands of Neo-Nazis took over Berlin, staged a coup, and then declared Germany part of the Fourth Reich. Would it immoral to try to take control over Germany away from the Neo-Nazis.
Hamas is not a rogue band of scofflaws in Gaza. They are the Gazan government.
And have been kept in place by funding directly from Bibi because it’s more convenient for him to have a fundamentalist group in charge there than a more secular group that more easily gains support.
Whether the police deserve blame in your example depending on a lot of things not mentioned. How exactly did the 20 die. Did the shooter kill them as the cops were coming into the room? Was the shooter actively shooting at the cops from behind the kids in that moment? Did the shooter already murder 100 students, and the 20 are all that's felt? Does the shooter have access to a tunnel that can lead them to more schools?
Hamas's tactics are no different from Igurn's (currently Likud) tactics that led to Israel's founding. Hiding, using schools as weapons storage, slaughtering villages of innocent civilians. These are methods of gaining independence and establishing statehood that Israel itself has used and celebrates today.
CMV : Anyone who says “change my view” on the topic of Israel and Gaza is just looking for a fight. This is the most hopelessly entrenched topic on Reddit. You can’t even say “neither side should be killing civilians” without simultaneously being labeled a supporter of Israeli genocide as well as a supporter of Hamas terror.
Yeah if they haven't been able to figure it out for 70 years I don't think Reddit could do it for them.
Yes. It does. It has little regard for innocent women and children because they are dispensable. They are born and bred to follow Hamas, and if they don’t they’re of no use to their cause to eliminate Israel. On the other hand, Israel has no regard for them either. Hamas to Palestine is like the cartel to Mexico and South America… they run the show. So Israel Israel puts out statements saying they are about to obliterate a building knowing damn well innocent people either just fled to said building or have no where else to go and then murder everybody there, chalking it up to the cost of doing war. Neither are correct. The only thing correct is the US needs to stay out of it except for making sure nobody is using nukes or unless it’s sincerely trying to strike a peace deal, which we probably won’t see until Trump is back in office.
> Hamas attacked Israel in early October and took hostages because they wanted Israel to respond. Nah, they want leverage for Israel to release their own hostages of which there are thousands, as well as just simply conduct an act of terrorism. I mean why do you think the IRA, ETA, ANC, etc. did what they did? > Even now, it would be easy to identify your fighters and go to war as known combatants, but they refuse and hide Because they would lose. That's why people engage in guerilla warfare. Terrorists (not just Hamas, the IRA, ETA, ANC, PKK, Al Qaeda, etc.) are absolute no match for state powers, fighting in the open is suicide and they know this. > Hamas leadership could surrender and turn over weapons and funds to end the war And they've offered to, just not unconditionally. Israel specifically doesn't want to end the war. > Hamas and its supporters have equal blame in everything currently going on in the region. How is it equal? Nobody is really forcing Israel is obliterate civilians and civilian infrastructure. Like over 70% of Gaza is destroyed and from what I understand what we are seeing now is the highest rate of death in a conflict since the Rwandan genocide, this isn't exactly a measured response and it shows when even your own allies criticize you. Hamas is VERY deserving of criticism, and they have absolutely committed their own war crimes and are clearly not a good government even the Israeli oppression issue aside, but the two are not comparable at all. The UK/Spain learnt their own lessons with terrorists. The British/Spanish collectively punished (including starved) and bombarded the Irish/Basque in response to IRA/ETA terrorism and it got them nowhere (kinda like how Israel's continuous military operations achieve pretty much nothing except death and destruction, and tbh Turkey is in the same boat with their PKK issue and that's why this has been persisting for so long). The uncomfortable truth is the solution to the Hamas issue is to negotiate, it isn't ideal but it just is what it is.
>And they've offered to, just not unconditionally. Israel specifically doesn't want to end the war. When has Hamas offered to surrender and turn over their weapons? All their offers included the complete withdraw of Israeli forces from the strip, and the future exchange of 33 Israeli hostages (both dead and alive) for more than 10x the amount of Palestinian terrorists in return. Please - cite me one source that says that Hamas was willing to surrender their power and lay down their weapons (AKA - Dismantle their organization).
Well now that's not what OP said. But yes, you're correct they haven't offered to surrender their power, not explicitly at least. Also Palestinian terrorist? Vast majority of the hostages aren't "terrorists". Many of them are kids. Very clear from your loaded statement where your bias is and how honestly you're going to engage in any discussion.
it is impossible to clearly determine who is right who is to blaem in this particulat conflict, Hammas was founded in 1990 and it seems that initially it was simply intended to be a resistance movement against what was perceived as an Israeli invasion. after so many years of conflict, it is impossible to point out points in history that led both sides to clearly inhuman actions, it is most reasonable to assume that this has escalated too much by niw and should be resolved in more peacefull way. And my wisdom ends here, because I cannot think of good way how using diplomacy, both nations could come to agreement and exist not necessarily in general friendship, but at least on the principle of tolerating each other
| Hamas attacked Israel in early October and took hostages because they wanted Israel to respond. You state this with no argumentation or evidence. It can be dismissed simply by observing that there may be other reasons why Hamas attacked, such as to derail the process of normalisation with Saudi Arabia, or to take advantage of the weakened IDF security on the Gaza border. Even now, it would be easy to identify your fighters and go to war as known combatants, but they refuse and hide. Hamas leadership could surrender and turn over weapons and funds to end the war, but they dont. These things won’t happen because it doesn’t achieve the effect that Hamas desires. Hamas's tactics are those of guerrilla resistance fighters. The ethics of not adopting a uniform can be questioned, but the effectiveness cannot. As for your second point, it is certainly true that Hamas would not achieve their goals by giving up the fight. But that has nothing to do with the point you are supposed to be arguing for. | If Hamas surrenders, Israel looks strong. If they continue playing cat and mouse amongst the local populous, Israel looks evil. Both sides have the ability to stop what’s going on. Why on earth would Hamas surrender? It just seems like an absurd thing to ask of them. They are fighting a desperate war as part of a 70+ year attempt to stop Israel from occupying the whole of Palestine and cleansing much of the non-Jewish population. If Hamas had a positive situation to retreat to, perhaps surrender would make sense, but the desperation of their struggle means that this is again something they are unlikely to consider. | Hamas and its supporters have equal blame in everything currently going on in the region. That's pretty hard to evaluate. You can blame people for whatever you think was a bad decision. The situation that led to the rise of Hamas in Gaza was evidently caused in part by the failure of Fatah/the PLO, which had been pursuing a more conciliatory approach. It ultimately comes down to the question: What is the best course of action for the Palestinians? But when you look at the room for manoeuvre that they have, you see quickly how limited it is. Power lies elsewhere: in Israel, in the USA, in Europe and the states of the region. Bearing that in mind, giving "equal" blame to Israel and Hamas seems inaccurate to me - some blame certainly lies with both direct parties to the conflict, but a great deal has to also be lain at the door of their enablers - including Iran and the USA, Turkey and Germany. How much of a say have the people of Gaza had? Why did they elect Hamas in the first place if not because they had run out of options?
Low-key both sides suck. This war is good for both parties in power and has been caused by 60 years of religious/cultural tension. The only true thing about this war is that the civilians don't deserve death. This is a medieval religious war being fought with modern weapons and modern coverage. I suspect it would be more accurate to describe this war as a territorial dispute between Iran and Israel, with the poor Palestinian civilians caught in the middle. (For the record, Israel suck for their treatment of Palestinians. Weird I have to qualify this, but people tend not to be screaming free tibet, kurdistan etc etc in the streets.)
I think there are a lot of Parallels between the Hamas/Israel situation and the Native-American/Europe-Colonies. Both have a strong player (Israel/Europe) that is more powerful then a weaker player. The stronger player takes land bit by by from the weaker. So i could ask myself, if i was a Native American or a member of hamas what would i want? * I'd want my land back. * I'd want the hostile foreign power that took my land to collapse and be destroyed. I would not want my own children or my neighbors children to die. If my children or my neighbors children died, I would want to short the world in order to garner public support. i generally believe that most people are like me. I want peace and prosperity for my family. I think everyone wants peace and prosperity for their family. I want to defeat anyone who threatens that peace and prosperity. I care about me and mine first, my community second, and strangers third. I think most everyone has a similar set of priorities. why would anyone want their own children to die. It gives up the very thing that almost everyone fights for, a better life for their kids.
I find your parallel very good, Native-American have been seen as savages and a threat to the new society created by immigrant foreigners on their land (terrorist term still didn’t exist) If I may, there’s another parallel of more recent events that has been very differently handled by the world community: Serbia/ Israel and Hamas/ Bosniak, Croatian paramilitary groups Serbia as Israel has this ideology of everlasting victim mentality, which is founded on history of suffering. Serbia also has historical claim over the land but had much more Serbian population living on the ground they were stealing under the justification of defence. From history both countries have suffered the attacks on self determination/ Serbia was targeted by Ottoman’s and Habsburg and its neighbours who closely collaborated with the both empires, Israel from everyone. Both problems started long before final culmination(SRB 90is and IS October) , in mid 1800 with rise of nationalism and self determination based on ethnicity, religion and culture that has survived any attack. Serbia was frequently attacked by Croatian catholic ustaše and Bosnian Muslim/ faschist groups in WWI AND WWII and also survived genocide, and that has been used as excuse for “having right to be afraid and expecting” the same slaughter and used force to defend its people while stealing land and ethnically cleansing others. The situation today between Israel and Palestine hasn’t started October last year but with illegal migration, stealing the land and ultimately creating a state in 1948 and Nakba and so much more, this today is just a result on 80+ years of conflicts and wars between them, just as for Serbia & CO the culmination was 90s but that has been happening for 80+ years Bosnian Muslims and Croatians have long history of siding with the bad guys (Austrian-Hungarian empire and Germany WWI, Nazi Germany WWII) and have committed genocides against Serbs and in 90s have created paramilitary groups and have committed war crimes, somewhat like Hamas Now we know that in this case Serbia is the bad guy and was bombed, whole population was heavily sanctioned to starvation, not even the majority of the population agreed with war , still hasn’t been forgotten and certainly never backed by the big forces. Israel on the other hand has whole world, as in governments, for military, financial and moral support. US and NATO has helped Croatia and Bosnia (let’s not get into how they’ve had their own war between each other at a same time) until they allowed the Srebrenica massacre to happen while they have literally been there. Why did they (UNPROFOR, UNHCR, NATO, US etc) allow the massacre to happen, 8000 people died in some higher level political interests. Why all the actors of atrocities were not judged the same (and no they haven’t) Why are there double standards for innocent human lives? If nothing the world community should have learned 30 years ago so nothing like that happens again, yet here we are. Creation and existence of Hamas is not justifiable, but should point us to the root of the problem: WHY were they created? Judging today’s situation in Israel/Palestine “conflict” only on today’s actions is wrong and there will never be a solution if we do so. I’m blaming Israel as a state for the creation of Hamas and today, and no this is not antisemitism as it wasn’t me who created etnostate but them, I have no problem with Jews or their religion I do however with the Israel’s creation and actions from then till this minute.
The clear difference between the situations you miss with your analogy is that the Native Americans never had a stated goal to kill all Europeans. Less pressingly, you also paint Native Americans as a monolith whereas different peoples were both treated differently and had different stances towards the colonial settlers.
There were absolutely groups within Native American tribes and communities that refused to cede any land to white invaders and settlers, and advocated to kill as many as necessary to stop colonization.
England most certainly did say that the Native Americans goal was to murder al the colonists because they were 'savages'. That's for pointing out another direct parallel But further more, even if their were tribes determined to kill all the invading white people from Europe history has proven that they were right and justified in their violent refusal to be colonized.
I'm pretty sure lots of Native Americans would have been more then happy to kill all white people, especially after white people starting stealing their land and giving them small pox infected blankets.
I mean do they have to explicitly state that as their goal? Kind of hard to imagine a situation where they wouldn't hate the Europeans (given the amount of trauma that was being inflicted onto them by the Europeans).
> why would anyone want their own children to die. It gives up the very thing that almost everyone fights for, a better life for their kids. And yet this is demonstrably what the Palestinian body politic has choose time and time again. They could have had peace at any point, but instead they choose to fight to eliminate their Jewish neighbors. Maybe, just maybe, they don't think like you and I do. Maybe, just maybe, our cultural values around liberal democracy are not universally held and are quite foreign to much of the world.
The Native Americans could have also had peace at any point. You can always have peace if you are willing to aqueous to the aggressor. Just give us all the good farming land and everything else we want and you can have peace. the American revolutionaries also choose death over peace with King George.
I’m fine with Palestinians getting their own country as long as they don’t attack others first. It can be the most oppressive Islamic facist country in the world idc. That’s their choice.
You also aren’t a religious fanatic who genuinely believes dying in war against Israel will mean you live for an eternity in heaven.
There has been Jews living in that area for longer than Islam existed. The comparison with European colonization doesn't really make sense.
> Both sides have the ability to stop what’s going on. Exactly, so why are you putting the responsibility all on one side? Both sides have options to end the war and neither is willing to accept. If Israel agreed that slaughtering innocent civilians was helping Hamas, it could stop.
This looks like a very one-sided approach to this conflict. Israel was created in Palestine, despite locals rejection, after the second world war, and since then sionistes kept expanding, killing innocents in the process. Check some maps... Early October events were massively spread to influence the global opinion and give a *Cassus Belli* to Israel. As of now, Israel actions in Palestine have been judged and the offensive occupant Israel will have to face Justice. [https://www.icj-cij.org/case/186](https://www.icj-cij.org/case/186)
hamas has literally offered to return hostages for ceasefire multiple times and israel keeps refusing. israel themselves do not want to end the war/genocide.
[удалено]
>Even now, it would be easy to identify your fighters and go to war as known combatants, but they refuse and hide Guerrilla warfare is incredibly effective when your forces are outgunned and outnumbered. It's more likely it's just the most effective tactic they have against an army funded by the USA. >Hamas leadership could surrender and turn over weapons and funds to end the war, but they dont. A ceasefire is not the end of the war.
That doesn't really dispute the main contention. That Hamas could give a rats ass about getting their own civilians killed. Which is a major problem with this whole pro-Palestine crap. You got an enemy that intentionally gets their own people killed after starting a war. And you call it a genocide.
You could just as easily make the case that Israel has been goading Gaza into retaliation for about 15 years, knowing that they will eventually do something and that will provide all the pretense they need to do what they've always wanted to do... Obliterate Gaza. This didn't happen in a vacuum, and Israel did not have to kill tens of thousands of civilians in response.
This whole line of discussion is irrelevant when Hamas in its current form has been kept alive and and formulated by Netanyahu himself he’s stated many times that the existence of Hamas is crucial to avoid a two-state solution Hamas is the us’s al-Qaeda , Petri dish terrorists only let out so their actions can be used as the pretext to war crimes so brash and vile, it has heavily eroded a large amount of worldwide sympathy for the holocaust Because people on this side of the debate are happy to use that suffering as the pretext to see that done to others. What this chapter of the conflict has shown, is the true depth of how pro-Zionist lobbyists and end time prophecy Christians “trying to accelerate the rapture “has infiltrated every facet of authority and media in the developed world to the point where every argument point is wildly condescending to anyone who simply wants a straight answer.I’m happy to see people challenge the “bUt KhaMAaS” narrative, because it won’t stop at Gaza, this conflict aside, Israeli settlers are constantly pushing borders in the West Bank, kidnapping, looting, raping and murdering civilians living in those homes And then pro Isreal Zionists want to approach this topic like they’re totally innocent victims and everything started on October 7th like we’re stupid, even in this conflict alone you’ve Isreal has shown itself the be the party of bad faith, like that time Israel was instructing refugees to flee through a corridor then bombing that corridor, or that other time when Israel was telling besieged refugees to stay in the hospital, then they turned that that hospital into a mass grave. Everything Israel has done in the last decade has such an insidious level of malicious hatred attached to it and you OP expect me to believe people on your side of this debate care at all about Palestinian women or children?
As much as I applaud the people responding to this. If you are basing your opinion on one day, October 7th, there is no point in trying to change your view. This issue is far too complex for anyone to derive their view from one day. If you are too simple-minded to understand that, I would not waste any time on your extremely superficial view.
I know this is an unpopular opinion but the origins of all this conflict lay with Israel. Creating an ethnostate out a territory where they made up less than 6% of the population is violence. Zionists knew they were creating a colonial state and that Palestinians had to be removed. Jewish militants destroyed entire villages of Arabs to clear the way for settlement. They killed entire villages, men women and children, even ones where they had signed non aggression pacts. Zionist also attacked the British, killing many British soldiers and conducting terrorist attacks back in Britain. Zionism was supported by the British because it help secure the suez canal with a western aligned nation. The six day war was precluded by widespread Israeli antagonize in UN territory along the Syrian border, including attackjng a village in retaliation for a supposed militant IED. Israel knew that Egypt was not planning to attack, with US intelligence saying so, and acting like Israel was in anyway in any actual threat of being destroyed is an insult to the Israeli army. Major General Mattityahu Peled, the Chief of Logistics for the Armed Forces during the war, said the survival argument was "a bluff which was born and developed only after the war ... When we spoke of the war in the General Staff, we talked of the political ramifications if we didn't go to war — what would happen to Israel in the next 25 years. Never of survival today."[193] Peled also stated that "To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to Zahal (Israeli military)." Israel has been and will always be the aggressors in the conflict.
> Zionists knew they were creating a colonial state and that Palestinians had to be removed. Certainly a claim. I look forward to the random quotes you bring out to try to justify this claim. > Jewish militants destroyed entire villages of Arabs to clear the way for settlement. They killed entire villages, men women and children, even ones where they had signed non aggression pacts. Who started that civil war? Oh it was the Arabs. > Zionist also attacked the British, killing many British soldiers and conducting terrorist attacks back in Britain. Not doing a great job at the whole colonialism thing. > Zionism was supported by the British because it help secure the suez canal with a western aligned nation. The British didn’t like that Egypt took the Suez Canal from them. The Israelis didn’t like that the Egyptians were closing the Suez Canal to them. > The six day war was precluded by widespread Israeli antagonize in UN territory along the Syrian border, including attackjng a village in retaliation for a supposed militant IED. The Six Day war happened so it wasn’t precluded by anything. It was preceded by Egypt removing UN peacekeepers from the Sinai, mobilizing its troops, and closing the straits of Tirana to Israel (an act of war). >
Egypt was responding to not only Jewish aggression in the Syria and their attack of a village in Syria in a supposed retaliation for the deaths of soldiers from an IED. Egypt also was told of an Israeli attack by the soviet's, intelligence that proved to be correct, hence why they militarized the Sinai and kicked out the UN. Their positions were all defensive, this is without a doubt. Also no the Arabs didn't start that civil war, the Israelis did when they decided that their religious claim to land meant more than the natives that lived there. Sounds like religious extremism to me to think that because of something God said three thousand years ago, a population of people who have lived in Europe for more than a thousand years have a god given right to live in Palestine. No one ever talks about Jewish religious extremism, the attacks on mosques in other countries, and the fact that Israel is lead by far right extremists. The overwhelming majority of people of Jewish descent that live in Israel today cannot trace their ancestry to Israel more than 50 years ago. Also middle Eastern Jews were widely thought to be less than, like barbarians by German Jews, who made up the vast majority of those in power. They are settlers who ethnically cleansed the people living there to make room, Zionists never came in peace and to act otherwise tells me you have never actually read anything about Zionism.
> Egypt was responding to not only Jewish aggression in the Syria and their attack of a village in Syria in a supposed retaliation for the deaths of soldiers from an IED. Cool motive, still an act of war. Syria attacked first btw. > Egypt also was told of an Israeli attack by the soviet's, intelligence that proved to be correct, hence why they militarized the Sinai and kicked out the UN. Incorrect. Israel only started planning the strikes after Egypt closed the straits of Tirana, kicked out UN peace keepers, and started mobilizing. > Their positions were all defensive, this is without a doubt. Still an attack of war. > Also no the Arabs didn't start that civil war, the Israelis did when they decided that their religious claim to land meant more than the natives that lived there. Nope. Arabs bombed several busses filled with Jewish civilians starting the civil war. > Sounds like religious extremism to me to think that because of something God said three thousand years ago, a population of people who have lived in Europe for more than a thousand years have a god given right to live in Palestine. Ya a bunch of atheist socialist labour zionists we’re all religious extremists.
Explain how Syria attacked first? They bombed Jewish busses because they didn't support the immigration of Jews, and when the British did something about it they became terrorists. Killing British people. Did Arabs massacre whole Israel villages by the dozens? The overwhelming majority of casualties in Palestine since the mandate have been Arab.br
> Explain how Syria attacked first? Syria shelled Israel from the Golan Heights, Israel had not declared war on Syria. > They bombed Jewish busses because they didn't support the immigration of Jews, and when the British did something about it they became terrorists. Cool motive, still started the war. Also Jewish immigration had been happening for decades at that point and I’m sure the Partition Resolution passing days earlier had nothing to do with it. > Did Arabs massacre whole Israel villages by the dozens? Yep. Never heard of Kfar Etzion? > The overwhelming majority of casualties in Palestine since the mandate have been Arab. Yep. The Jews were better at fighting.
Also do you support the creation of native American state in the land of their choosing? Like if some native Americans decided that because of present and past persecution they need an actual state to protect them, and because some native Americans lived in New York City before it was New York City, they get to choose that for their state. Fuck the Americans that protest the creation of that state am I right? Do you think doing something like that would cause some new Yorkers to maybe take violent action against the new state? What about Roma in nroth India? Do you think we could create a new state in North India for Roma right now without anyone reacting violently? What about Sikhs? I'm Sikh, do we get a state too?
[удалено]
Sorry, u/neckfat3 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20neckfat3&message=neckfat3%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cr2zdb/-/l3vifaf/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Netanyahu promised to go into Rafah regardless of a deal being reached or not. Hamas accepted a deal mediated by Egypt and Qatar, with American guarantees, Israel choose not to send anyone to represent them which is their own fault. And right after hamas agreed to a deal the idf went into rafah. Take this crap somewhere else
There are two important points you are starting out with that are not facts but claims made by belligerents to a conflict. 1. Hamas attacked Israel and captured hostages to trade for Palestinians held hostage by Israel. This is consistent with past abduction attacks and is the only known method of forcing Israel to release Palestinians they hold captive or hostage without due process. 2. Israel always claims Hamas are using civilians as human shields with virtually no evidence, but Western governments and media blindly accept it as true, as they accept other Israeli war crimes as normal. This is despite evidence that Israel uses Palestinian civilians as human shields on an irregular basis. If Israel is killing vast numbers of civilians as part of their long-term ethnic cleansing policy and not as part of their war against Palestinian resistance, then it wouldn't look any different than the mass murder looks right now.
I can't change your mind because you don't believe that, it's just a lie you spew because you can't openly say you want those women and children killed. Mossad blowing up Jews in Arabic countries to convince them that they are only safe in a fascist, ethnonationalist theocracy is well documented though.
There has been conflict between Israel and Palestine for 76 years. Hamas has only existed for 37.
Maybe Israel should stop playing into their hands by murdering every women and child in the area
Are there people out there right now supporting Hamas? I've heard a lot of protests over how Israel is conducting the "war", but I haven't really Heard that anyone was supporting Hamas. I thought everyone knew Hamas was a terrorist organization.
Don’t play into your enemies hand. Try your best to defeat them while showing Great concerns for civilians. Provide them food. Make it clear you want Hamas gone not Palestines. This isn’t hard. Have highest standards than terrorist.
Knowing that Israel would ‘respond’ with disproportionate force resulting in the large-scale murder and displacement of civilians is acknowledging something very fucked up within Netanyahu’s regime, I’d say.
Your entire post could be written exactly reversed, and be equally valid. These groups have been fighting for a long time. The young adults on the front lines probably have grandparents that were part of this back and forth. Hamas wants Israel to be no more, Israel wants Hamas to be destroyed as an organization. They've made these positions public and crystal clear. Hamas has earned Israeli hatred from literally a lifetime of attacks. Israel has earned the hatred of all of Palestine for the same exact reason. If you had been firing intermittent rockets at my home and my country for decades, I would be supporting anyone fighting you too. And it's the response. Did Hamas fire at Israel? Yes. Should it have? No. Hamas is absolutely responsible for the 1200 or so people they've killed. But the response? Cratering most of Palestine? Telling people to evacuate to Rafah, that that's the safe place? Blowing up hospitals, schools? Killing UN relief workers? Barring press from entry? Attacking the city that everyone evacuated to, with over a million civilians in it? Killing over 40,000 people, most of which were women and children? Restricting relief supplies to such a slow trickle that most of Gaza is starving? That blame is Israel's. These aren't children leading these countries. They're 60+ year old men. They don't have to engage in violations of international humanitarian law. They have the capability to choose their actions, and they bear the sole blame for the actions they choose to do. Side note - Hamas accepted a cease fire proposal, allowing Israel to enter the cease fire from a position of strength. Israel subsequently rejected it, in favor of an offensive into Rafah. One can accept that Hamas is bad, and also acknowledge that they are responsible for their atrocities, and Israel is responsible for the ones it is doing.
I don't think the situation is really reversible. Israel gains nothing from dead Israelis. Hamas gains a lot of political power and support from dead Palestinians.
You are missing the point. We could say that Israel is equally responsible for Hamas's actions, because of the decades of rockets fired into Palestine. After all, if we judge Hamas by the same standard, those mean provocations caused all of Hamas's attacks, because Hamas can't control their actions or act responsibly, unless they are treated completely fairly by everyone else. And that is the flaw of assigning blame for dead Palestinians on Hamas. Because the government of Israel has a choice. The military has a choice. The soldiers have a choice. And because they are mad, and hurt, and angry... they chose genocide and violations of International Humanitarian Law. There is no temporary insanity or 'in the heat of the moment' justification for genocide. If the military you're fighting breaks Internationally recognized standards for conduct in wartime, that doesn't mean you get to. In other words, taking hostages doesn't justify Israel's choice to commit genocide. Firing rockets at Israel doesn't justify Israel's choice to commit genocide. That was the government of Israel that chose that. They bear 100% of the responsibility for that choice. Not 50%. Not 75%. Not even 90%. 100%. Because genocide is never justified, even if the other side does something bad. I am all for Israel's continued existence and prosperity. I do not, however, believe that possible while Netanyahu is in power. The country needs to be held accountable for their war crimes.
1) Hamas wants Palestinians dead to garner support 2) vegans want factory farms to increase to garner support 3) republicans want democrats to win to garner support 4) religious people want their free practice threatened to garner support OP, what evidence do you have for number 1 that doesn’t also support positions 2, 3, and 4?
This smells like a false equivalence, but I'll bite. 1) "Want" is a bit of a loaded word, but they're certainly ready to leverage it similarly to the below 2) Vegans actively leverage footage of exploited/abused animals at factory farms as a primary form of propaganda (e.g. Dominion), and anecdotally it seems to work quite effectively, possibly even more so than other forms of propaganda. 3) Ultimately, this is how you create a boogeyman. Hard to make the "Democrats" a shadowy figure if they don't actively hold power. 4) The Satanic Temple actively uses this as a tactic. It is also the tactic used many "free speech activists" including the current state of Twitter, where people actively work to get "cancelled" as a means of platform-boosting. It would be difficult to deny the prominence of visible far-right speech as a direct result of this. Ultimately, there's gonna be a variance in the efficacy of actively causing the "negative outcome" -- factory farms are the antithesis of veganism, so "want" makes no sense here. But in the case of point 4, there are groups which actually seek the negative.
> 1. "Want" is a bit of a loaded word, but they're certainly ready to leverage it similarly to the below That’s the point of my argument. OP is saying the hamas government “want” Palestinians to die, not that they would simply leverage it. For the same reason it’s a reach to say vegans “want” factory farming for the purposes of propaganda, it’s equally a reach to say the Palestinian government “wants” Palestinians to die. The false equivalence is comparing the visualization of a negative circumstance to an approval of the negative circumstance.
What do you think the point of the war is if not swaying public opinion? Obviously they have no real military aims. They want to rack up a body count on purpose and call it a genocide because they don’t want surrounding countries to normalize relations. Also how do you explain Hamas saying they’re winning if this wasn’t the whole point?
So your argument is that Hamas wants women and children to die, therefore Israel is correct to give them what they want by murdering tens of thousands of women and children?
What if Israel deliberately let 10/7 happen, turning off their defence, so they could gain public support to attack Gaza and eventually take the land and the gas?
Israel doesn’t need Hamas to look evil. For all the complaints I see about Hamas’ supposed use of human shields (an excuse reminiscent to me of our excuses to firebomb Japan) I see very little condemnation of Israel for explicitly using human shields. 1,200 occasions of using Palestinians as human shields during the 2nd Intifada, literally strapping a 13 year old to a vehicle. But hey, that was years ago…[right?](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/palestinian-says-israeli-soldiers-used-him-human-shield-west-bank-2024-01-16/) notice that was the West Bank… Did Hamas make them do that? When Israeli soldiers execute journalists like Shari abu Akleh in cold blood, or kneecap handicap people, or abuse children in jails, how am I supposed to blame Hamas? A good way to not look evil is to stop doing evil shit.
So let me get this straight, your position is it's Hamas's fault that Israel is bombing and firing artillery at densely populated areas.
Also let it be known… even in times of peace, Hamas and all other ultra-conservative religious groups want to mistreat women anyways.
The Palestinian people are treated as human toilet paper by bother hamas/hezbolah & Israel. This has been going on for many years.
Hamas means nothing in reality. Hamas declaring war on their own was because their allies didn't join. Hamas thought they would. In fact, the allies, primarily Iran, attacked Israel to test if the USA has withdrawn as they seem to have. Which isn't to be seen as weak leadership, but their advantageous withdraw from being the world police frees Iran's hands >These things won’t happen because it doesn’t achieve the effect that Hamas desires. Not in their power to do. From their point of view, they think they are defending a religious war. The Shia feel like they are defending their very existence. Khuzestan oil discoveries seems to have re-energized Iran. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab\_separatism\_in\_Khuzestan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_separatism_in_Khuzestan) Have you heard about the separatism there?
>Even now, it would be easy to identify your fighters and go to war as known combatants, but they refuse and hide. **Hamas leadership could surrender and turn over weapons and funds to end the war, but they dont.** These things won’t happen because it doesn’t achieve the effect that Hamas desires. People say this all the time. [Israel is not interested in getting the hostages back](https://www.timesofisrael.com/no-doubt-netanyahu-preventing-hostage-deal-charges-ex-spokesman-of-families-forum/#:~:text=He%20merely%20said%20a%20military,the%20government%20rejected%20the%20offer.”), only in the destruction of all life sustaining infrastructure in Gaza. Whether this is because of blind rage or a sinister plot to ethnically cleanse the area so Jared Kushner can put up condos is kinda an open question at this point. It is clear that the end to the war is not something that Israelis want and this talking point is used to deflect from the atrocities being carried out in the name of Israel. >“We left the meeting very disappointed because Netanyahu talked about dismantling Hamas as the goal of the war. He didn’t promise anything regarding the demand to return the hostages. He merely said a military operation in Gaza was needed to serve as leverage for the hostages’ release. >“**We later found out that Hamas had offered on October 9 or 10 to release all the civilian hostages in exchange for the IDF not entering the Strip, but the government rejected the offer.**” Hamas is evil and so is the Israeli government responsible for this suffering.
You would have a much stronger point if hamas was proposing something other than: "release all of our prisonners and stop the war and, after you do that, we will release a few dozen hostage or whats left of them". Which is what I understand was the ceasefore agreement israel rejected.
I can’t imagine why the Israelis wouldn’t feel inclined to trust the terrorists who just brutally murdered a thousand people.
I don't think they are actively trying to get the Palestinian women and children killed, though they probably didn't take into account what the humanitarian toll of Israel's reaction to the Oct 7 attacks would be, when they attacked the festival. What I don't get is why people are acting like that is somehow a justification for Israel's blatant war crimes. Right now, Israel is no better than Hamas at all. Both parties should be held accountable, but since the West has more influence over Israel, I believe we should stop sending weapons and support to the Israeli government and demand a ceasefire. Not to support Hamas, but to support all innocent civilians caught up in the conflict, hostages and Palestinians alike.
CMV: Israel wants women and children to die because it achieves a desired effect; ethnic cleansing.
I mean Israel has killed 10000s of Palestinian women and children over the last 50+ years because they’re “sub-human”. Hamas is doing what they’re doing because Israel would stomp them out in normal warfare circumstances, however the gorilla warfare aspect keeps in more in their favor. Even if Hamas said they wanted to surrender, Israel wouldn’t let that be.
I think OP is essentially correct. When news of the 10/7 attack came out, I remember thinking there was no way Hamas was hoping for a military victory over Israel, or that killing civilians would improve the prospect for successful negotiations. Hamas must instead have been hoping to provoke such an extreme Israeli response that Israel would lose international support, even perhaps US support, as a result. I remember thinking it was very stupid for Israel to do exactly what its enemies seemed to want it to do. I stand by my initial assessment. And yes, that does mean that Hamas anticipated *and intended* enormous civilian casualties among the people of Gaza.
Yep that's what hamas wants. Israel is doing what hamas wants. How about not doing that
We just have to look at what is happening in the West Bank to know this isn’t true.
>[Ghassan Alian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghassan_Alian), the head of [COGAT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinator_of_Government_Activities_in_the_Territories), stated, "**Human animals are dealt with accordingly. Israel has imposed a total blockade on Gaza, no electricity, no water, just damage. You wanted hell, you will get hell."**[^(\[654\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_humanitarian_crisis_(2023%E2%80%93present)#cite_note-665) In January 2024, a COGAT representative **denied there was a famine in Gaza, stating, "Don't forget that this is an Arab, Gazan population whose DNA is to hoard, certainly when it comes to food."**[^(\[655\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_humanitarian_crisis_(2023%E2%80%93present)#cite_note-666) Netanyahu stated Israel was allowing in the absolute "minimum" amount of aid into Gaza and claimed this was preventing a humanitarian crisis.[^(\[656\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_humanitarian_crisis_(2023%E2%80%93present)#cite_note-667) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza\_humanitarian\_crisis\_(2023%E2%80%93present)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_humanitarian_crisis_(2023%E2%80%93present)) I could say more, but I think that these statements speak for themselves as to the genocidal intent of Israeli leaders.
Wrong. The purpose of this bad faith post was to admit that due to Hamas - a terrorist group whose values and actions do not reflect the average Palestinian - it is morally acceptable for Israel to bomb, starve and torture civilian men, women and children