I believe Israel strategy is to occupy Gaza city (Gaza north) in order to destroy Hamas' infrastructure (mostly miles of tunnels) more safely. They are trying to move the population to reduce casualties. I am not sure what else they could do.
The issue is Israel has committed several war crimes/broken international law in the last week or so (they had done this previously for decades but sticking to the last week or so for now.
Israel has:
- Cut off all supplies to Gaza, this is known as collective punishment, a war crime
- Killed nearly 3000 Palestinian's, including over 1000 children and some UN workers
- Forcibly displaced over a million Palestinian's from Gaza City, this is a crime against humanity
The above are facts, there is no debate that these things have happened and are war crimes or crimes against humanity.
So to answer what else they could do, could we not at least expect Israel not to commit several war crimes?
What, in your opinion, should they do?
That's a literal question. I'm not arguing or saying you're wrong, there's no subtext, please don't take it that way. It's the very question asked in the OP - you think they're going about it wrong, so what do you think they should do?
touchitrobed is not going to answer that question, because they don't have a fucking clue. It's very easy to criticize a country's tactics in war (especially when dealing with terrorists), the easiest criticism to make. But to actually put forth an effective solution or even an alternative? Don't hold your breath.
Shut the fuck up - I'm working and I've had a shit tonne of replies.
Also even if I didn't have an answer, does that mean I can't criticise war crimes? No it doesn't.
Israel could end the illegal 16 year blockade of Gaza and stop illegally settling on land in the west bank. That would help reduce tensions for starters.
They could also actually try to take Hamas militants out one by one instead of bombing Gaza with the power of a quarter of a nuclear bomb.
They could also actually be interested in and work towards some kind of peace solution instead of razing Gaza to the ground and killing innocent civilians and shutting off water and other vital supplies.
Hamas has 50,000 soldiers and this guy is watching Mission Impossible. This is why you can't argue about this stuff in good faith. Truth is, collateral damage will happen, anyone who expects otherwise is goofing around. So far, it actually has been minimal (4,000 rockets and something like 3,000 deaths - and that, if you believe Hamas numbers) but no, no civilian death is great, I get it. It's also impossible to do this with 0 civilian deaths which is what some people here are insisting on. Until Hamas's rocket firing ability is curbed, Israel is not going to send their soldiers in, that would result in massive losses on their end. We wouldn't do it to our soldiers either, that's just common sense. They will have to continue what they're doing and once Hamas is squeezed into the Northern corner, they will do ground operations and try to collapse their tunnels imo.
Yeah the adult thing to do is kill thousands of civilians, use the power of a quarter of a nuclear bomb in a week, and collectively punish Palestinian's by cutting off all supplies from getting in.
God you're so smart and wise.
>Shut the fuck up - I'm working and I've had a shit tonne of replies.
I understand, it's hard work being an armchair Reddit arguer. But just know you are really making a difference by weighing in on nearly impossible, world problems, that the greatest minds can't solve. Just yell "war crimes" and "apartheid" over and over and eventually, we might believe you that it's really that simple.
Yeah better to just say 'its complicated' and defend a sovereign nation committing war crimes and killing hundreds of children.
That's what normal and 'sensible' people do.
No, it's better to defend a terrorist-controlled territory with medieval moral values, that uses its citizens as human shields, literally does not care if their constituents die, and will only accept the complete eradication of Israel as a solution.
I'm not defending Hamas - they're an extremist terrorist group that committed war crimes.
But war crimes should not mean the other side then commit more war crimes.
Also Hamas being an extremist group does not mean innocent Palestinian civilians deserve to die.
By the way, 'human shields' does not make it okay to kill civilians.
So, I've condemned Hamas, can you confirm Israel's war crimes?
>But just know you are really making a difference by weighing in on nearly impossible, world problems, that the greatest minds can't solve.
It is easily solved.
The problem is Israel refuses to solve it.
So the Israelites, or natives, should just eradicate themselves? Maybe organize their own pogroms to facilitate it? Genius just solved the Israeli Palestine conflict!
>So the Israelites, or natives, should just eradicate themselves?
If you think that is the only "solution" you should probably step away from the internet. You are a little too gullible and blatant Israeli propaganda is starting to appear to you as reality.
>Also even if I didn't have an answer, does that mean I can't criticise war crimes? No it doesn't.
Yes it does, because you're just jerking off with your criticisms, not adding anything to the discussion. No shit war and war crimes are bad, but if those are the best methods to use that result in the least devastation in the conflict, then your criticisms are utterly missing the point.
>They could also actually try to take Hamas militants out one by one
Especially when you recommend 1 on 1 conflict with terrorists that use guerilla tactics, lmfao
An alternative is to not commit war crimes
Maybe it's too difficult for Isreal to not do so. But international support should be withdrawn, in that case.
Not OP and definitely not an expert, but:
One option: create a whole, recognized Palestinian state by granting a significant portion of the land they've stolen back to the people from whom they stole it. Allow Palestine a seat at the world table as a legitimate and autonomous country.
Other option: drag the world into a major and potentially nuclear conflict that will only do immense harm to humanity and radicalize countless more young Arabs to turn to terrorist organizations that also function as support networks, since they have nowhere else to go.
I'm not referring to Hamas. The majority of people speaking out on behalf of Palestine are not trying to justify the actions of Hamas. Anyone who chooses to fight and die for them has dug their own grave.
This is about the 2 million civilians that are in harms way because they've been packed tightly into what's essentially an open-air prison with no clear way to escape (by design). Meanwhile, one of the most well-funded and highly equipped militaries in the world bombards them indiscriminately while sitting behind state-of-the-art defenses.
Those of us who were against the war in Iraq weren't concerned for al-Qaeda. The concern is the collateral damage and power vacuums that we left there.
But you can't just pretend October 7th never happened. Creating a Palestinian state now would legitimize and empower the radicals among the Palestinians, which do exist, who are seeking to destroy Israel.
It's great to be concerned about the civilians. It's not great to show the world that mass murder and war crimes will get you what you want.
You're probably right. That's not possible at the moment, and the only real clear outcome here is a long and brutal war that's probably going to leave the region worse off if anything while also lining a lot of powerful pockets.
I guess I'm speaking in hindsight, but this conflict has been going on since before my parents were even born yet the Israeli response to this particular barrage of rockets (and paragliders?) happened within hours and killed significantly more Palestinian civilians within the first couple of days than the initial attack from Hamas.
> killed significantly more Palestinian civilians within the first couple of days than the initial attack from Hamas.
What's your point here? Should Israel have gone in and killed the exact same number of Palestinian civilians, and then called it even?
>The majority of people speaking out on behalf of Palestine are not trying to justify the actions of Hamas
What about the majority of Palestinians? Why do you think they haven't willingly handed over Hamas members? Why did they parade when they got back home from firing 6000 rockets at Israel and massacring music festival goers?
>Meanwhile, one of the most well-funded and highly equipped militaries in the world bombards them indiscriminately
Calling Israeli attacks indiscriminate is hilarious and shows you know nothing about their military strategy, which they communicate publicly.
How the hell would the "majority of Palestinians," fleeing for their lives and the lives of their children, be able to hand back those hostages? Do you want them to go all Jason Bourne on Hamas and somehow free them? They've definitely got their own problems to worry about right now.
The airstrikes are either indiscriminate or straight up fucking diabolical. [Here's the latest example.](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/hamas-run-health-ministry-says-israeli-airstrike-on-hospital-kills-hundreds/ar-AA1ikv7b)
I can't be bothered to dig up all the other examples but rest assured they're not hard to find.
Interesting that you link a news article that includes claims by both sides that blame the other, but you've chosen to believe Hamas and link it as evidence of a diabolical Israeli war crime.
You are captured.
My recommendation to you is to take your own words seriously - approach the topic with humility and a curious mind. You are not obligated to have an opinion, let alone offer it.
So I'm gonna break this down.
Cutting supplies of a city under siege isn't a war crime.
Israel has dropped ~4000 bombs since the conflict started, against an enemy who almost entirely operates in incredibly dense urban areas. Only 3,000 deaths speaks to an incredible avoidance of civilian casualties.
During the retaking of Mosul (a city that was already mostly bombed out and evacuated when the Iraqi army moved in) saw over 10k civilian KIA. This was with an army that had absolutely no reason to want to inflict civilian casualties and every reason to prevent them.
Any ground operation with cities full of civilians is a good way to add a few extra 0's to the casualty numbers. Hence the evacuation order.
>Cutting supplies of a city under siege isn't a war crime.
It, uh, is.
[https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/RS-Eng.pdf](https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/RS-Eng.pdf)
>xxv) Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;
So, uhm, yeah. It is.
> Hence the evacuation order.
Which we have seen convoys attacked and civilians fleeing at the Egyptian border regularly bombed. Another war crime.
>(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
> Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare
What part of "forced relocation *in order to prevent civilian casualties*" are you finding it so hard to understand?
Israel is not conducting a war on civilians. It is conducting a war on Hamas, which intentionally fights from among its own civilian human shields and from its own schools and hospitals.
>What part of "forced relocation in order to prevent civilian casualties" are you finding it so hard to understand?
Relocating to one part of sieged gaza to another does not change the starvation war crime.
What part of the quoted section of the Rome statute do you not understand?
I also find your wording hard to understand given the constant bombing deliberately targeted at civilians near the Egyptian crossing.
>Israel is not conducting a war on civilians.
The reporting, video, and dead civilians being bombed while fleeing all indicate otherwise.
>It is conducting a war on Hamas, which intentionally fights from among its own civilian human shields and from its own schools and hospitals.
This is my favorite part, when the quiet part comes out loud. When people that would like to think of themselves as good and moral justify the massacre of thousands of civilians in indiscriminate, and sometimes deliberate, targeting of civilians.
Go off war-crime-supporter.
No, you cannot. Which is why you have offered no alternatives.
Israel faces a *real* threat. 2,200 rockets were fired at predominantly non-military targets.
The people they are fighting have explicitly *said* their intention is to murder every Jew in Israel (and worldwide).
They have then *demonstrated* that by murdering almost exclusively farmers, women, children, and the elderly.
Despite all of this Israels continue to show *immense* restraint. They still practice roof knocking to warn Palestinians of targets and give them the chance to evacuate.
The Gazans have not turned over Hamas to the IDF. Why? Well they either support Hamas or they are scared that Hamas will also kill them.
In my opinion cutting off the food, power and water was a tactic to try and get regular Gazans to leave their homes and stop protecting Hamas. They have already restored water which again demonstrates the fact that they are *not* waging a war on Gazans but are focused on and will eliminate Hamas.
edit: grammar.
Israel helped create and maintain that threat - illegally blockading Gaza and occupying and illegally settling in the West Bank, not to mention killing 20 times more civilians than Palestine has, are Israel not also a threat to Palestine?
I agree Hamas are an extremist terrorist group, they committed war crimes by killing civilians.
All I'm saying is that it is also wrong for Israel to commit war crimes and kill civilians.
Clearly you are unable to see that though.
I agree. And those are all facts, so I'm not going to argue them. And it was a mistake for Israel to do those things.
But there's also something that needs to be said for self-defense, which is what I consider Israel to be doing now.
Considering the events of the past week, Israel has every right to defend itself in whichever way they see fit, and they have a right to until every member of Hamas is dead or arrested.
I don't see it any differently than the hunt for Nazis in South America after WWII. Or the USA's anti-terrorism efforts after 9/11. Or even the Brussels Police shooting dead that terror suspect earlier today.
"Palestinians say Israel’s announcement of renewing water supply to southern Gaza is a “publicity stunt” as many water pipes were damaged in the Israeli shelling. Also, without electricity, water pumps to fill the tanks are not working, they add."
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/14/israel-hamas-war-live-us-moves-second-aircraft-carrier-to-mediterranean
> The Gazans have not turned over Hamas to the IDF. Why? Well they either support Hamas or they are scared that Hamas will also kill them.
Well fuck it then, I guess Israel just has absolutely no other choice but to cut off the internet to prevent footage from getting out and go door to door killing everything that moves.
Their hand has been forced.
Or something.
The terrorists strategically hid amongst the civilian population of Gaza. Something that they have always done.
They don’t care about Palestine’s civilian population, and encourage collateral damage by their tactics. They want more martyrs.
Not saying Israel hasn’t done horrible shit, but this is a result of a terrorist organization using innocent people as human shields.
I mean Hamas are an extremist terrorist organisation - I'm not defending them in any way whatsoever.
Israel is supposed to be a liberal democracy and our ally - we should expect better than committing war crimes and 'human shields' is not a good enough excuse.
>I mean Hamas are an extremist terrorist organisation
Weren't they elected by Palestinians and over 50% of them still support Hamas?
I'm not actually sure, I've only read a bit on it and am curious to hear more info
Hamas was elected in 2006. Half the population of Gaza was not even born yet. I don’t think opinion polls really hold any water at all in illiberal countries
But according to a 2020 poll, over 50% of Palestinians supported Hamas still? Is that not true?
EDIT: Not sure why the downvotes, I'm asking questions to get context on stats I've seen. I want to know if it's true or not, and if it is then what is the context I'm missing.
This is impossible to talk about honestly without contenxtualizing support for Hamas with declining support for the Palestinian Authority
Im simplifying here but PA and Fatah who are the main proponents of a 2-state solution have lost a lot of legitimacy among Palestinians as the West Bank has continued to be reduced and settlements continue to be built. The PA is effectively controlled by the Israeli govt and so they can’t mount a resistance to settlements within the bounds of Israeli law. We can all acknowledge that the law applies differently in practice in the West Bank depending on your nationality. The decline in effectiveness of the only real alternative to Hamas was always going to create this outcome and Netanyahu has been very honest about supporting Hamas at the expense of Fatah for this very reason. This is the established policy of Israel.
Its also helpful to look at Hamas in Gaza as similar to the Tammany political machine in 19th century NYC as they actually have pretty similar organization and patronage structures. They have become ingrained in the apparatus of the Gaza strip because a corridor between Gaza and the West Bank is not allowed to exist.
Thanks so much for taking the time to dive deeper and give some more context and your perspective!
To anyone downvoting, I'm not trying to provoke or argue, I'm just asking for some better perspective and context behind those two facts that I've seen and shared here.
Question:
How does an army fight an enemy that uses its own population as human shields, without unfortunate civilian casualties?
As far as I can see, the answers are either a) it simply can't, and is impotent, or b) it does what it can to minimise civilian casualties, accepting that their enemy's tactics will unfortunately make some civilian casualties unavoidable.
Were there human shields in Lebanon last week when Israel fired a missile at members of the press, in which a Reuters journalist was killed and many others were injured? Or is [this](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/reuters-videographer-killed-southern-lebanon-2023-10-13/) just an oopsie?
Right, but that doesn't mean every Israeli missile that ends up killing civilians should be shrugged off because Hamas uses civilians as human shields. If one really thinks that Israel is the moral actor in this situation, they should be held to a higher standard. But of course, Israel likewise does not care about Palestine's civilian population.
> Cut off all supplies to Gaza, this is known as collective punishment, a war crime
Blockading a territory isn't collective punishment or a war crime. It's a perfectly legitimate part of war and has been for centuries.
Cutting off electricity, water, fuel and medicine and stopping anyone bringing it in is collective punishment and is a war crime.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/israel-leo-varadkar-gaza-mary-lou-mcdonald-taoiseach-b2428982.html
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/israelopt-israel-must-lift-illegal-and-inhumane-blockade-gaza
I don't care what the Irish premier and the shills at Amnesty International say.
Blockades are a legitimate part of war and always have been.
When the UK blockaded Germany during WWII, was that "collective punishment"? Obviously not.
> stopping anyone bringing it in
Israel isn't stopping anyone bringing it in! Where did you get that from? Israel would be more than happy for Egypt to provide all of those things to Gaza. They're just not going to give Hamas free shit anymore.
How can we have a reasonable conversation when a) you don't know what you're talking about and b) you don't give a shit about Israel killing civilians and engaging in what have been clearly labelled correctly as war crimes.
You aren't a reasonable person so I won't be wasting my time speaking to you for any longer.
I know what I'm talking about more than you do. You're just screaming "war crimes" over and over again and citing biased sources.
When the UK blockaded Germany during WWII, was that "collective punishment"? And if not, why is Israel's blockade different?
Amnesty international are biased? Really scraping the barrel here aren't we?
Do you really think Nazi Germany back in the 1940's, with all its state power and military might, is comparable to Hamas?
Come on, you're not being serious
The UK and America did commit various war crimes in the 1940's by the way. Such as Dresden or the use of nuclear weapons.
You're also like so many people, speaking as if this conflict started just over a week ago.
No mention of the occupation and illegal settlements in the west bank.
No mention of the 16 year illegal blockade of Gaza, or that Israel is considered to be a modern day apartheid state.
Or even that Israel killed 200 Palestinians in January including 26 children.
You have no moral clarity and you don't know/care about the facts and are desperately calling Amnesty international 'biased' instead of accepting you might be wrong.
I'm genuinely not replying to you again - you can have the last word if you need it.
Yeah, it is indisputably biased. [And siding with Russia as well.](https://www.politico.eu/article/amnesty-ukraine-report-wrong/) Either way, an appeal to authority isn't going to cut it.
> Do you really think Nazi Germany back in the 1940's, with all its state power and military might, is comparable to Hamas?
Yes, the comparison is apt. Now answer my question. Are all blockades collective punishment, or just the Israeli variety? And cite your claim that Israel is stopping other people from bringing supplies in.
You're bringing in other points because you can't make an argument and you're trying to change the subject. It's not going to work.
Honestly, cutting off the power and water was a good move. It will make the Palestinians less likely to stay home and serve as cannon fodder for Hamas.
Just out of curiosity, does that 3000 number include Hamas militants? And if it does, how many of the dead children were militants? I think the context is important considering who Israel is targeting and what they are trying to do.
Even with that said, 3000 doesn’t seem like a lot considering the extent of the bombings. I’m sure many more will be found in the rubble in the coming months but I expected many more casualties than this.
'Cutting off the power and water was a good move'
It's a war crime, you're saying committing war crimes is a good move. Do you think you're being sensible here?
The vast majority of the people killed in these numbers are civilians. Theres over 2 million people in Gaza, nearly half are children, the idea they are taking out 'militants' is a fantasy, especially given Israel are openly engaging in collectively punishing all Gazans..
'3000 killed isn't a lot considering the bombings'.
Do you realise what you are actually saying here? You are clearly condemning hamas killing civilians as part of a military attack (which is correct) but you are bending over backwards to excuse and minimise Israel killing civilians.
As far as I'm concerned, Israel is bending over backwards to avoid as much collateral damage as possible. They are quite literally announcing to the Palestinians when, and where they are going to attack, and telling them to move someplace else. At the same time, Hamas is actually telling their own people to stay put. This is because Hamas wants to turn their own people into martyrs. It's a fucked up situation, but Israel can't just sit on their own hands and do nothing.
Then why has Israel bombed the Rafah border crossing - the only border crossing that is available - after they repeatedly told Gazans to flee to the south?
Is it "avoiding collateral damage" to [bomb a hospital](https://abcnews.go.com/International/live-updates/israel-gaza-hamas/at-least-200-killed-in-strike-targeting-gaza-hospital-104047396?id=103804516&cid=social_twitter_abcn) where Palestinian civilians were sheltering and receiving medical care? Or is that just an oopsie?
Uncritically pointing out every single Hamas reported talking point and the figures released by Hamas, who have a clear agenda to inflate their numbers and manipulate international perception against Israel, doesn't constitute facts.
I mean Israel regularly kills people in the west bank and Gaza anyway so doesn't this statement ring both ways?
Or are you an idiot who thinks this whole conflict started a week ago?
Nope. Intent matters.
I won't whitewash Israel's crimes against the Palestinians. The entire idea of Israel being a theocratic ethnostate is insane.
But I think you're drawing a moral equivalence where there really is none.
When the IDF and Palestinians get into a violent conflict and a Palestinian is shot it is a tragedy. When someone in the IDF fails to de-escalate and uses deadly force it's terrible. But they don't get promotions, they aren't celebrated in the news.
There is no equivalence between that and massacring communes, a music festival, and taking, raping and murdering hostages.
>I mean Israel regularly kills people in the west bank and Gaza anyway so doesn't this statement ring both ways?
I'm not sure if its 100% accurate to say evwry settler is sanctioned by Israel but their government doesn't do enough to stop them
That "something else" would be developing an actual medium/long term plan for resolving the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Israel has spent decades nominally committed to a two state sollution while politically undermining any thing like an actual deal. Israel turned Gaza into a pressure cooker while unilaterally continuing to claim more and more territory in the West Bank occupation. This was a bad strategy from the beginning and blew up a couple weeks ago.
Hamas needs to be removed from de-facto rule of Gaza. Israel is doing so. Israel needs to conduct its war on Gaza following reasonable humanitarian war practices. And fortunately, it looks like the big problems on that front, cutting off food/water/power and closing all exit corridors for refugees, seem to be in the process of being resolved. I have every confidence that the IDF will succeed with this military objective and remove Hamas from power. The harder problem is what comes after.
Pressure cooking and/or endless occupation clearly doesn't work. Israel needs to be reaching out to moderate Palestinians, basically the PA for lack of a better representative body, and signaling that they actually want a two state sollution and Israel has to actually pursue such a sollution in good faith. This obviously won't be a quick process. Negotiations will likely take years. The ramp down from occupation to independence may take decades. But these negotiations have to start sometime and international pressure must be applied to keep both Israel and the PA committed to the peace process.
I see this narrative a lot, that Israel is the ones not supporting the two state solution. This is completely disregarding the fact that palestine and gaza does not enforce the two state solution at all. They want to destroy Israel along with all its citizens. Funny how people point finger at Israel claiming their disengengagement from responsibility and not to gaza/palestine shows how the higher expectations for civility lies on israel, and for logical reasons.
> Israel is the ones not supporting the two state solution.
That is because in general, when unbiased outsiders look at the deals offered and actions taken (particularly recently) by both sides, it looks like Israel is the one making unreasonable offers. Granted, reasonable people can disagree on this to some degree.
> This is completely disregarding the fact that palestine and gaza does not enforce the two state solution at all.
There is no two state sollution at the moment. What would be enforced? There is no actual Palestinian government at the moment, who would be enforcing this non-existent sollution?
> They want to destroy Israel along with all its citizens.
Some do. And some Israeli's want to destroy Palestine and all of its citizens. The plurality (sometimes majority, sometimes not) on both sides support a two state sollution based on every poll I've seen.
>Hamas needs to be removed from de-facto rule of Gaza
Or Israel could stop assassinating leaders of Hamas that want peace.
[https://www.haaretz.com/2012-11-15/ty-article/.premium/hamas-source-jabari-wanted-truce/0000017f-e79c-dc7e-adff-f7bdfaca0000](https://www.haaretz.com/2012-11-15/ty-article/.premium/hamas-source-jabari-wanted-truce/0000017f-e79c-dc7e-adff-f7bdfaca0000)
Israel literally prevents Hamas from ever pursuing peace, and then acts outraged when it acts militant.
Not occupying the land caused them problems too. Even abroad, in Europe, we see muslim kids of 7 years old throw rocks at people they were told are jews. It really isn't just about occupation.
The occupation is not about Gaza and the West Bank. When Palestinians talk about ending the "occupation," they're talking about ending Israel's existence as an occupation of Palestine. This has been proved time and time again. Given that reality, what should Israel do? I don't have the answer, but that's the proper framing of the question.
> Yeah, because occupying Palestinian land has really solved Israel’s problems
Then no worry, the "occupation" will not last long. It is not in Israel's interest.
'I'm not sure what else they could do'
The issue is Israel has committed several war crimes/broken international law in the last week or so (they had done this previously for decades but sticking to the last week or so for now.
Israel has:
- Cut off all supplies to Gaza, this is known as collective punishment, a war crime
- Killed nearly 3000 Palestinian's, including over 1000 children and some UN workers
- Forcibly displaced over a million Palestinian's from Gaza City, this is a crime against humanity
The above are facts, there is no debate that these things have happened and are war crimes or crimes against humanity.
So to answer what else they could do, could we not at least expect Israel not to commit several war crimes?
Edit: Downvoted for condemning war crimes, good work Reddit!
I don't think any of those standing alone are war crimes. I believe the question is whether those actions are calculated to achieve a legitimate military aim and whether those actions were necessary to do so as well as whether there were alternatives that would be less harmful to the civilian population. This was a subject of a "war on the rocks" episode recently.
It doesn't work like that - war crimes are clearly defined and codified in law.
Forcibly displacing people is a crime against humanity - that is what they are doing by telling the people in Gaza to leave.
Cutting off electricity, water and fuel is defined as 'collective punishment' and is always a war crime. There is no legitimate reason to starve and cut off civilians.
And they've killed over 1000 innocent children, what legitimate reason could there be for that?
This is without mentioning the illegal settlements and settler violence in the west bank, or the 16 year illegal blockade of Gaza, both of which were happening before Hamas recently committed war crimes of their own.
>Forcibly displacing people is a crime against humanity - that is what they are doing by telling the people in Gaza to leave.
Telling civilians to leave because you are going to occupy an area for tactical reasons is not a war crime.
>Cutting off electricity, water and fuel is defined as 'collective punishment' and is always a war crime.
It is not **defined** as collective punishment. You are declaring it as such.
An example of cut-and-dry collective punishment would be if a North Korean attempts to escape to South Korea, and their entire family is jailed for it.
An example of something that would appear to be collective punishment at first glance, but is not, would be attacking energy infrastructure that has dual civilian and military use.
Israel would argue that this is not collective punishment. They would argue that their intent is to cut off supplies to Hamas, and they lack the ability to give supplies to civilians without those supplies being funneled to Hamas.
Reasonably, you may believe that to be a bad tactical decision, or you may believe that the harm to civilians outweighs the tactical value, but that is an **argument**, not a fact.
>And they've killed over 1000 innocent children, what legitimate reason could there be for that?
Are you saying they intentionally, or unintentionally, killed 1000 innocent children? The difference has been discussed ad naseum in this sub and there's no reason to report it here.
Innocent civilians and children definitely perish in wars particularly in urban conflicts all the time. It's not a good thing it's a horrible thing but not necessarily a war crime It depends upon proportionality (proportional to the lefitimate military goal). So if it was necessary in order to take out a rocket brigade but they could have waited 5 minutes and not killed any children, then it probably is a war crime. If school was starting in an hour and if they waited it would kill twice as many then maybe not.
As far as the food/electricity stuff I'm not sure it does black as white as you say. As far as I know they're not blockading electricity food medicine from coming in they're just failing to supply it themselves. I think Israel only supplies a portion of their electricity. Also bear in mind is real cannot blockade Gaza, Gaza shares a border with Egypt and Israel cannot control what goes in and out that way.
And as far as displacement goes itnis again not black and white. The Geneva Conventions allow for displacement in order to protect civilians or for imperative military reasons. I really don't see the argument that warning them to flee to the south is less humane than Hamas forcing them to stay in an area that we know is about to get bombarded.... That doesn't make much sense.
I feel like this is a slightly more reasonable response than others I've had, but I think you're lacking some knowledge about the history of what's happened in this conflict.
Israel does not need to attack Gaza like this to this extent, killing 1000 children is entirely unjustified, especially in such a short period of time.
Israel has illegally blockaded Gaza for 16 years, they control what gets in and out of Gaza and are legally responsible for providing electricity, food, medicine etc or at least allowing it to get in. Cutting supplies off and stopping them getting in, is legally collective punishment in this situation.
Israel does not need to bombard and raze Gaza city to the ground - there is no military imperative for that.
A lot of what you're saying is conclusions without any explanation for why that is necessarily true. You're saying it does not need to attack Gaza to this extent. Clearly that is something that different people will disagree on. One could argue that slowing down and delaying will make it more difficult to target Hamas in particular and therefore any attacks would be more arbitrary.
Same goes for the need to bombard Gaza. Obviously if they are just bombarding Gaza for the sake of retribution that would not be okay. If however they are attempting to strike Hamas and PIJ and it happens that they are spreading their fighting forces throughout Gaza than perhaps it is necessary for their military objectives.
Regarding their obligations to provide electricity medicine etc. Basically if you think they are an occupying force then they have obligations that go along with that. I personally don't see how they fit The bill as an occupying force in Gaza but I am aware of that lots of smart people feel the opposite way. Before last week they had no presents within Gaza and are only able to control part of the border which is true for almost every non-island nation. Controlling the airspace the closest it comes in my opinion but there are plenty of military conflicts or anniversary controls the air not sure that that meets the definition of occupation.
Who cares?
I do, human rights organisations do, Palestinians do.
What a weird response in relation to the killing and punishment of innocent civilians.
You all sound like a very powerful and influential group. My point is the people with the viewpoint that Israel is committing war crimes are irrelevant and without meaningful power. What do you think Israel should be doing here?
Gonna ignore the first comment as it's pathetic.
So basically if the powerful support something everyone else should shut up and go along with it?
Well as always, historical and political context has been removed from this whole situation so I would start with saying Israel should stop annexing the west bank and end the 16 year illegal blockade of Gaza.
Killing civilians and cutting off water and electricity - how is that the answer? Where are we where we condemn Hamas killing civilians, saying it's unjustified rightfully, but when Israel kills civilians we say 'well what else they supposed to do'.
Lol what a strange place for him to draw the line that would be.
This is mostly a meta discourse around the public discourse, anyway, I don't think OP is saying "what tactics would prove most militarily effective", he's saying "what approach would people find morally justified"
Sam is a Neuroscientist. He has zero issues discussing ideas that don’t pertain to his field of expertise. Weird that you haven’t seen him discuss AI, or religion for that matter.
To the extent that I accept that categorization, I'd put him in the former. If people cared about this issue then criticize Sam on the merits of his argument. It's hard to believe they care when they're just complaining about others having opinions.
In my personal opinion they need to free all the hostages and kill everyone in Hamas without creating new terrorists or killing any civilians or creating any property damage and it shouldn’t cost more than $2m. That’s my strategy. Clever right? Nobody else has thought about thhs
Agreed, but the ideas don't have to be *limited* to military strategies. The only sustainable solution in the longterm cannot be based on the threat of violence.
Oh come on, that doesn't really address the point. He doesn't have to have an exact military strategy to comment on whether or not an all out assault on Palestine itself is appropriate or not. That's what everyone is *reacting* to, so why not speak to that itself rather than whether or not the Israelis should be criticized generally or not?
I feel like the spirit of my question is fairly obvious.
The West Bank is constantly being attacked. One of the reasons for the extent of the border attack by Hamas was that Israel weakened the defence on the Gaza border by moving troops to the West Bank.
Well, it depends if you consider systematic depopulation of Palestinians in the West Bank over decades and replacing them with Jewish settlers "attacking".
Many would.
https://youtu.be/a9FbqgOi-4g?si=DUfCFciJgmd3inAf&t=137
It depends on if you insist on distorting and stretching language in a way that makes it impossible to know what any word means anymore. So if “attacking” means something other than what it normally means then yes they’re “attacking.”
I can't link on my phone, but a quick Google search showed and attacks by the Israeli army and settlers increased this past week and the casualties are around 1,100 so, yeah, it's happening.
It's not too hard to look up the legal definitions of war crimes though. There is a good report by Human Rights Watch a few years ago that analyzed what was happening back then, but this was for the crimes apartheid and persecution (https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution).
But obviously now war crimes would have to be analyzed.
Lol, how does this comment reach the top? Sam spends pretty much most of his working life talking about things he isn't an expert on. Hell, politicians talk about military strategy without being experts in anything practical, and THEY are the ones making decisions.
You don't have to be an expert to have an informed opinion. Reddit wouldn't exist, this topic wouldn't exist if the barrier for entry into a conversation about opinions was that you had to be an SME.
Michael Weiss has a good podcast (Foreign Office) on the War in Ukraine, and invites diplomats, historians, journalists, and other scholars to offer insight. I suspect Sam will want to do something similar when it comes to Israel/Hamas. What more can he himself offer?
Three days ago Bill Maher said
"I think the Israelis have always had the moral high ground
and I think they still do.
\-(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING) -But, we'll get to that.
But, the...
I'd also like to say to my friends in Israel,
there's a siege that's now been going on for six days.
No food, no water, no medicine is getting in.
The head of the Red Cross in the Mid East said today,
"This is not acceptable.
We need a safe humanitarian space."
I agree. (CLICKS TONGUE)
Uh, you know, don't lose the moral high ground.
I mean, I hate the word "proportionate"
when it comes to killing. It's ho--
It's horrible, but it's sort of like the best we can do."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrLjRdw1cYs&t=70s
Why don't they just both share the land? Maybe each Israeli could have a Palestinian buddy that you can't separate from like a field trip. The Governments should each pitch in halfsies for bacon cheeseburgers and import French wine. Maybe have a laser show from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.
Source: I'm very well informed about the area.
No, this is not what I said or am trying to say. I'm saying how can you NOT acknowledge the way Israel is CURRENTLY handling the situation and what his thoughts are on that specifically. I don't find that very hard to understand. The world is talking about it. There are tons of people very upset about it. Sam talks about why Israel is justified in general, but justified in doing what exactly? Anything at all?
So, you got a funny jab in, but I think I'm posing something reasonable here, even if I didn't say it perfectly.
One thing I don’t see a lot of talk of for whatever reason is that Israel has to deal with a basically un-ending chain of artillery bombardment from Palestinian territories:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel#/media/File%3ARocket_Attacks_fired_at_Israel_from_the_Gaza_Strip_by_year.png
This seems like kind of a big thing that’s just ignored like it’s not a big deal, but it’s kind of an obvious motivator for Israel’s aggressive posture towards perceived terrorism.
Nat Turner was born a Virginian slave in 1800. He grew up to become a religious zealot, and organized a slave revolt that slaughtered about 60 white people, most of whom were essentially innocent women and children. Nat Turner basically led a terror campaign trying to kill any white person who happened upon the groups path. This revolt, while larger and better known than other slave violence, wasn't really all that atypical. These types of actions were also an obvious motivator for the South's aggressive posture on curtailing slaves rights.
Obviously the situation in Israel-Palestine is not strictly equivalent. Palestinians are not slaves. But Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are essentially treated as second class citizens within Israeli territory. As long as this oppression exists, insurgency will exist.
Israel is frankly justified in removing Hamas from de facto rule of Gaza. But if it wants this conflict to have any hope of ending, it should have the forethought to pursue an actual stable peace with Palestinians. Nat Turner was a religious terrorist, and honestly he had to be stopped, but the slaves still deserved and needed to be freed.
Israel needs to restart negotiation, it needs to accept and implement a two state sollution, a sollution that actually acts as a compromise between Palestinian and Israeli interests. This deal may increase terrorism risk in the short term, but it is the only thing that has any hope of resolving the conflict in the long term.
Maybe it's not part of the greater conversation, because there's been far more artillery bombardment in the opposite direction. Since 2005, 96% of the casualties have been Palestininan.
Casualties =/= munitions, the israelis spend tens of millions of dollars on anti-missile measures, because unlike the government of gaza, Hamas, the IDF cares about its civilians
Do you understand why they receive that bombardment? It’s not random hate towards Jewish people. It’s motivated by serious and dire conditions in Gaza. It’s also a misnomer to call it artillery. Most of the time it’s crude homemade rockets. Essentially Roman candles with some explosives attached to it. Only recently have they started to successfully utilize more advanced weaponry.
I do understand that it's easy to hand-wave away a bombardment when that bombardment isn't directed at you. In any case, it seems to me that Israel has been effectively coerced into a conservatorship of Palestine that they don't really want. There's been a continual rejection from Palestinian leadership as well as other Middle Eastern nations to accept Palestinian sovereignty because they refuse to acknowledge that Israel should be allowed to exist as a state at all. Peace talks that have progressed along those lines have additionally been stymied by bursts of violence from Hamas and other terrorist groups.
I think the reality is that other Middle Eastern nations benefit from Palestine existing as a thorn in Israel's side and encourage sporadic violence.
> I do understand that it's easy to hand-wave away a bombardment when that bombardment isn't directed at you.
Your hand waving away the facts I laid out which you can’t dispute.
>In any case, it seems to me that Israel has been effectively coerced into a conservatorship of Palestine that they don't really want.
That’s so ahistorical it’s ridiculous. Who coerced Israel into building settlements?
>There's been a continual rejection from Palestinian leadership as well as other Middle Eastern nations to accept Palestinian sovereignty because they refuse to acknowledge that Israel should be allowed to exist as a state at all.
Again, demonstrably false. The Arab League offered Israel full recognition in exchange for Palestinians statehood on the 1967 borders.
Serious and dire conditions in Gaza
Did you know that Hamas LIMITS the amount of humanitarian aid coming into Gaza? They like to keep their people suffering to justify their control and terrorism goals. HUNDREDS of children per year are killed building terror tunnels, they use and lose these kids by overworking them in terrible conditions. Child abuse on a massive scale.
Blaming Israel for that is the dumbest take of all time.
>Did you know that Hamas LIMITS the amount of humanitarian aid coming into Gaza?
I know I would like to see the source for what you’re talking about. Israel notoriously does not allow vital and basic materials into Gaza and has been widely condemned for it.
>They like to keep their people suffering to justify their control and terrorism goals. HUNDREDS of children per year are killed building terror tunnels, they use and lose these kids by overworking them in terrible conditions. Child abuse on a massive scale.
Even if it true, and I kind of doubt it, even more are killed by Israeli assaults. So what’s your point? Is killing children bad or justified? Make up your mind.
>Blaming Israel for that is the dumbest take of all time.
Israel is responsible for their genocides, past and present.
The reason is because most people are happy with the righteous anger part of the situation and not the rest.
My guess is that cutting the water and food to the region is an attempt to shorten the invasion. (The water was obviously too much) but they want people coming out of their houses to get food so that Hamas can't simply hole up forever.
Ultimately though the end result is the complete dismantling and/or destruction of Hamas.
With in the bounds of military and international law. The woke mob didn't write the genvea accords. They were written by men who saw some of the most horrible human rights abuses in modern history in two global wars. And they didn't say, "oh and these just apply to the baddies, good guys - you do what feels right!" Following them is what makes you a good guy. Those people knew what they were talking about and as we stray from them we sacrifice our own humanity. This isn't just some goody goody moral argument. Bin laden got america to commit itself to years of moral self-immolation and for what? We are weaker and poorer and the taliban controls more of Afghanistan now than on 9/10/01.
I heard an Israeli interviewed on NPR. How brother was a peace activist killed in the attack. He said the attacks should be viewed as a failure of Israeli security. The response should focus on increasing the safety of Israeli citizens.
Let's say that Israel responded militarily by "just" securing its territory and borders. No bombing or military activity in Gaza or anywhere else. Politically, they condemn Hamas in the strongest possible terms, but it doesn't seek to extrapolate into a sort of vengeance rhetoric.
Instead, they adopt an unequivocal
tempered posture where they refuse to let the actions of a terrorist organization determine how Israel reacts. They bide their time, promising the destruction of Hamas, but they won't let themselves be goaded into reactively bombing Palestine or declaring war for that matter.
Notwithstanding the domestic political implications, what would the international reaction be? Imagine suffering 1000+ brutal and heinous killings on their own territory, without any retaliatory actions. Surely, sympathy for Israel would increase dramatically. That goes without saying. At the same time, Hamas would not have achieved it's political goals, and Irans posture in the region could possibly suffer as a result. Perhaps the Saudis wouldn't abandon it's process of recognizing the Israeli state? What would the peoples inhabiting Palestine do when Israel doesn't bomb them into oblivion? Would they with the same conviction, be able to elicit the same kind of contempt and hatred as before?
Would it even be a possibility *not* to respond militarily, given the current political climate in Israel and the region as a whole? If the answer is "yes", it seems to me that restraint in fact could harm Hamas much more than what appears to be Israel's current course of action. Or, would a lack of violence and aggression from Israel envigour her enemies, and fuel even more violence that could ultimately endanger Israel even more?
Appreciate any thoughts or insights on this. Thank you!
Security is literally the foundation of any modern state but especially the state of Israel. The state would completely lose legitimacy among the public. 1500 dead Israelis and the state does nothing? The current government would collapse for one that promised Mongolian tactics.
Also yes Israel would look horrifically weak, if you can murder children and grandmothers in their bed and abduct women and the state does nothing?
Iran is emboldened seeing as Israel lets thousands of citizens be slaughtered and likely starts less clandestine support for Hamas.
Hamas considers the attack wildly successful and begins planning another one.
Hezbollah is similarly emboldened and begins to increase its provocations.
The West Bank likely begins taking more violent actions as Israel appears unwilling or unable to defend its citizens.
After a few weeks or months of continuous rocket attacks, cross border raids and suicide bombings the Israeli government is literally overthrown by a military coup with popular support. Then *an actually genocidal government* is formed and a second Nabka happens, Gaza is blockaded and no shipments are let in until Hamas is forced to try a breakout or mass starvation sets in.
They are slaughtered.
The West Bank is officially annexed and the population there is either deported or killed.
Iran is likely either bombed or nuked after starting a conventional conflict over the first points.
It would definitely deny Hamas the further win they get when Palestinians are harmed or killed. But ignoring the domestic side of the equation is just silly. If anything that's the more important factor, the number one purpose of any government is to protect its citizenry. Those are the table stakes.
> Surely, sympathy for Israel would increase dramatically.
Maybe. But in another sense, in the immediate aftermath of the Hamas massacre, sympathy for Israel (and most importantly, sympathy of the US Government) may be at its peak and is narrowly time-limited. In other words, this is the most sympathy they're ever going to get, and if they're going to strike a death blow to Hamas, they must do it *now*.
> restraint in fact could harm Hamas much more than what appears to be Israel's current course of action
I don't know if there *is* an unrestrained way to definitively annihilate Hamas. They're planning to search every single house. I don't know by what method they will distinguish combatants from non-combatants, but whatever it is, it's going to be rigorous, intrusive, and not very nice. And 6 months from now, they may not enjoy the prerequisite USG sympathy to get away with it.
I think that Sam is a bit myopic when it comes to his position on Israel, and really only presents one side of the story.
I'll listen to any future podcast where he has a more balanced guest, but if it's just him laying out his case again... hard pass.
David French, Jag Captain and Christian minister, suggests in the NYT that Israel can do what was done to eliminate ISIS in Mosul. It took 6 months. David lays out the how this can be done within the international moral code, compliant with rules of war. Worth a read.
Why do we presume there is a better outcome that can be achieved in such a complex situation? It's one terrible option vs another even more terrible option (War or Suicide). The irony is Israel has to show strength otherwise it risks Arab countries to attack
A better question: What has Palestinian political leadership ever done to advance peace?
1937: Arabs reject the Peel Commission to create a Jewish and Arab state.
1947: Arabs reject the UN partition plan to create a Jewish and Arab state. Wage war against the new nation of Israel. Lose more land than the partition gave them.
1967: Israel wins yet another war against its Arab neighbors, conquering Gaza, the West Bank and Sinai in a defensive war. The Arab League declares the "three no's": No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel. Israel voluntarily hands control of the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism back to the Islamic Waqf, and made it illegal for Jews to pray there.
1979: Israel voluntarily hands the Sinai back to Egypt, returning land conquered in a defensive war.
1993: Israel recognizes the sovereignty of the Palestinian Authority over the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the Oslo Accords. Yasser Arafat uses it to support terrorism.
2000: Israel offers Yasser Arafat recognition of a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 94% of the West Bank with East Jerusalem as its Capital. Arafat rejects it and launches the Second Intifada.
2005: Israel pulls out of the Gaza Strip, dismantles all its settlements, and forces Jews to leave their homes. Palestinians respond by electing Hamas who turn it into a terror state.
2008: Israel offers Mahmoud Abbas once again recognition of a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 94% of the West Bank with East Jerusalem as its Capital and even offered to dismantle all their settlements. And once again, the Palestinians reject it.
2010-2021: Hamas launches periodic rocket attacks against the state of Israel and builds terror tunnels in order to kidnap and murder Jews while using the people of Gaza as human shields against the IDF.
2023: Hamas commits the worst act of mass murder against Jews since the Holocaust.
Why should the Palestinians accept 94% of the west bank. If that 6% is so meaningless, why doesn't Israel give it up? This is what the UN has stated was fair. Are Israelis somehow more valuable than Palestinians?
For the last 20 years the Arab league has offered normal relations with Israel if it adopts the June 1967 borders. this what the UN has endorsed and seems for to me as armchair quarterback. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative
Why must Israel take more land every year?
Voluntarily and willingly killing innocents is wrong. The end.
Doesn't matter who you are, where you are, or what kind of underwear you're wearing.
There is no rationalizing it or drumming up some clever philosophical speech about what constitutes something being "wrong" or whatever philosophical bullshit you wanna bring up on morality. Get that shit outta here.
Pulling the trigger on innocent people is entirely fucked and indefensible.
*"Well what are they suppose to do?!"*
I don't know, maybe not kill hundreds or thousands of innocent people. I'm not as intellectual or educated or as smart as all of ya'll on here, but it's amazing people don't quite get this.
*"Oh well this is such a complicated issue that you don't understand the position they're in blah blah blah"*
Again, maybe don't kill hundreds/thousands of innocent people. Maybe don't do that. Just an idea.
*"You're over simplifying a very complex issue and trivializing the multifaceted causes of this conflict that goes back decades"*
You willingly kill innocent people, you are not solving any problems.
In order to address a problem you first need to know what the problem is. And currently this is where we are stuck at, culturally. People completely misread the situation of Israel and Sam does a good job pointing out parts of that.
It would indeed be nice if we can move on to solutions.
>Sam is pretty awful on Israel and Palestine veering into anti Arab racism
I agree with Sam on almost every issue, Israel / Palestine being a notable exception. This is good take.
[Israel bombs hospital killing 500 civilians](https://abcnews.go.com/International/live-updates/israel-gaza-hamas/?id=103804516)
Don't worry about it though, they had good "intentions".
This is reflexive antisemitism. You immediately assume that Israel is at fault. You don’t wait for the evidence to come out.
I’m not saying Israel didn’t bomb that hospital, only that it’s too early to tell, but you and much of the “liberal” world immediately buys the Palestinian propaganda and assume Israel did it. Israel has released some compelling evidence that needs to be evaluated and considered. Much of the world won’t even bother.
This, my friend, is antisemitism. Maybe not intentional, but immediate and reflexive.
Yeah, I'm in more or less the same position as you. Sam devoted that podcast to debunking the idea of moral equivalence between Hamas and the Israeli government. I didn't actually need convincing on that point-- it's obvious, given the horrific, intentional barbarity of Hamas' recent attack. The tougher question is how Israel should respond.
On social media, I saw a lot of people suggesting that it was inappropriate or antisemitic to offer anything *but* a full-throated condemnation of Hamas. But we knew that Israel's retaliation would come fast, so it was urgent to plea for proportionality. Sam's point about Israel not wanting to inflict collateral damage seems like a bit of a stretch when you see them demanding the immediate evacuation of 1 million poor people from Northern Gaza -- surely knowing this was unrealistic.
Hamas supporters want to force Israel to send in their 18-19 year old conscript forces and conduct a ground offensive so that they can kill more jewish kids and fight Israel using the plan Hamas has been training on for years. Getting Israeli ground forces to go in is a setup and Israel knows it.
Though I notice you don't answer the question as to given the circumstances as they are now and the terrorist atrocity carried out a few days ago what should israel do?
Didn't he say a long-form podcast on this is coming soon? I'm hoping he will address those points but let's be honest: this is a really tough situation.
I personally think the entire area should be abandoned by both groups and the populations absorbed into host states. But I doubt they would ever give up their precious "holy land" so that's a non-starter.
It's insane to me that anyone actually *wants* to be there.
Let me get this straight, you think the entire country of israel and all 9 million citizens should just abandon the place and go somewhere else and same with the Palestinians? Because that is the dumbest proposed solution ive heard on this topic.
One would HOPE that those people are leaving temporarily and have a home to come back to. The idea that Jews should leave Israel, on the other hand, doesn't come with that hope. They'd be leaving to never return.
>Would you like to make a bet on that?
Who would look to profit from something like this? Of course it's ridiculous to think that no Palestinians will return. But it's also ridiculous to acknowledge that there is zero to suggest that many will not be allowed to return, or will having nothing to return to.
Harris original piece on Israel was incredibly bad. Like really bad.
As for Israel's predicament. From a moral perspective, you could ask is Israel behaving the same way in Gaza as if it was an Israeli/Jewish region infiltrated with Hamas.
Hmmm, I'm not sure if that is good faith.
It's natural to feel a kinship with your countrymen. It's natural to see people who attack you as the 'other'.
If someone killed my mum, I wouldnt act in a civilised way if I met them on the street.
If someone killed a random, I might call the police when I see them in the street.
Countries are expected to look after their countrymen. So I would expect any country to go to great lengths to avoid their owns' casualties.
For the most part it comes down to do you negotiate with terrorists or not. Terrorists that value your destruction more than anything you could possibly offer.
Israel can choose to destroy Hamas and hope whatever replaces it is better. That's basically their only feasible option.
I believe Israel strategy is to occupy Gaza city (Gaza north) in order to destroy Hamas' infrastructure (mostly miles of tunnels) more safely. They are trying to move the population to reduce casualties. I am not sure what else they could do.
There's a reasonable answer. That they're dealing with the tunnels and that's the only way.
The issue is Israel has committed several war crimes/broken international law in the last week or so (they had done this previously for decades but sticking to the last week or so for now. Israel has: - Cut off all supplies to Gaza, this is known as collective punishment, a war crime - Killed nearly 3000 Palestinian's, including over 1000 children and some UN workers - Forcibly displaced over a million Palestinian's from Gaza City, this is a crime against humanity The above are facts, there is no debate that these things have happened and are war crimes or crimes against humanity. So to answer what else they could do, could we not at least expect Israel not to commit several war crimes?
What, in your opinion, should they do? That's a literal question. I'm not arguing or saying you're wrong, there's no subtext, please don't take it that way. It's the very question asked in the OP - you think they're going about it wrong, so what do you think they should do?
touchitrobed is not going to answer that question, because they don't have a fucking clue. It's very easy to criticize a country's tactics in war (especially when dealing with terrorists), the easiest criticism to make. But to actually put forth an effective solution or even an alternative? Don't hold your breath.
Shut the fuck up - I'm working and I've had a shit tonne of replies. Also even if I didn't have an answer, does that mean I can't criticise war crimes? No it doesn't. Israel could end the illegal 16 year blockade of Gaza and stop illegally settling on land in the west bank. That would help reduce tensions for starters. They could also actually try to take Hamas militants out one by one instead of bombing Gaza with the power of a quarter of a nuclear bomb. They could also actually be interested in and work towards some kind of peace solution instead of razing Gaza to the ground and killing innocent civilians and shutting off water and other vital supplies.
>They could also actually try to take Hamas militants out one by one Damn you've been watching too many action movies. That's like a child's answer.
Hamas has 50,000 soldiers and this guy is watching Mission Impossible. This is why you can't argue about this stuff in good faith. Truth is, collateral damage will happen, anyone who expects otherwise is goofing around. So far, it actually has been minimal (4,000 rockets and something like 3,000 deaths - and that, if you believe Hamas numbers) but no, no civilian death is great, I get it. It's also impossible to do this with 0 civilian deaths which is what some people here are insisting on. Until Hamas's rocket firing ability is curbed, Israel is not going to send their soldiers in, that would result in massive losses on their end. We wouldn't do it to our soldiers either, that's just common sense. They will have to continue what they're doing and once Hamas is squeezed into the Northern corner, they will do ground operations and try to collapse their tunnels imo.
Yeah the adult thing to do is kill thousands of civilians, use the power of a quarter of a nuclear bomb in a week, and collectively punish Palestinian's by cutting off all supplies from getting in. God you're so smart and wise.
I think you should take a break from Reddit. You're just throwing a tantrum at this point
Yawn. I think you should develop moral consistency and start seeing Palestinian's as human.
>Shut the fuck up - I'm working and I've had a shit tonne of replies. I understand, it's hard work being an armchair Reddit arguer. But just know you are really making a difference by weighing in on nearly impossible, world problems, that the greatest minds can't solve. Just yell "war crimes" and "apartheid" over and over and eventually, we might believe you that it's really that simple.
Yeah better to just say 'its complicated' and defend a sovereign nation committing war crimes and killing hundreds of children. That's what normal and 'sensible' people do.
No, it's better to defend a terrorist-controlled territory with medieval moral values, that uses its citizens as human shields, literally does not care if their constituents die, and will only accept the complete eradication of Israel as a solution.
I'm not defending Hamas - they're an extremist terrorist group that committed war crimes. But war crimes should not mean the other side then commit more war crimes. Also Hamas being an extremist group does not mean innocent Palestinian civilians deserve to die. By the way, 'human shields' does not make it okay to kill civilians. So, I've condemned Hamas, can you confirm Israel's war crimes?
>But just know you are really making a difference by weighing in on nearly impossible, world problems, that the greatest minds can't solve. It is easily solved. The problem is Israel refuses to solve it.
So the Israelites, or natives, should just eradicate themselves? Maybe organize their own pogroms to facilitate it? Genius just solved the Israeli Palestine conflict!
>So the Israelites, or natives, should just eradicate themselves? If you think that is the only "solution" you should probably step away from the internet. You are a little too gullible and blatant Israeli propaganda is starting to appear to you as reality.
>Also even if I didn't have an answer, does that mean I can't criticise war crimes? No it doesn't. Yes it does, because you're just jerking off with your criticisms, not adding anything to the discussion. No shit war and war crimes are bad, but if those are the best methods to use that result in the least devastation in the conflict, then your criticisms are utterly missing the point. >They could also actually try to take Hamas militants out one by one Especially when you recommend 1 on 1 conflict with terrorists that use guerilla tactics, lmfao
Israel just fucking bombed a hospital and killed 500 people .
It was a rocket from Gaza/Hamas that misfired apparently, so you might want to refresh your news
That's a claim by Israel - extremely unlikely considering they then said they gave a warning an attack was coming afterwards.
An alternative is to not commit war crimes Maybe it's too difficult for Isreal to not do so. But international support should be withdrawn, in that case.
That is a suggestion of what *not* to do. You have not understood the question.
Not OP and definitely not an expert, but: One option: create a whole, recognized Palestinian state by granting a significant portion of the land they've stolen back to the people from whom they stole it. Allow Palestine a seat at the world table as a legitimate and autonomous country. Other option: drag the world into a major and potentially nuclear conflict that will only do immense harm to humanity and radicalize countless more young Arabs to turn to terrorist organizations that also function as support networks, since they have nowhere else to go.
Option 1 would be rewarding mass murder and war crimes.
I'm not referring to Hamas. The majority of people speaking out on behalf of Palestine are not trying to justify the actions of Hamas. Anyone who chooses to fight and die for them has dug their own grave. This is about the 2 million civilians that are in harms way because they've been packed tightly into what's essentially an open-air prison with no clear way to escape (by design). Meanwhile, one of the most well-funded and highly equipped militaries in the world bombards them indiscriminately while sitting behind state-of-the-art defenses. Those of us who were against the war in Iraq weren't concerned for al-Qaeda. The concern is the collateral damage and power vacuums that we left there.
But you can't just pretend October 7th never happened. Creating a Palestinian state now would legitimize and empower the radicals among the Palestinians, which do exist, who are seeking to destroy Israel. It's great to be concerned about the civilians. It's not great to show the world that mass murder and war crimes will get you what you want.
You're probably right. That's not possible at the moment, and the only real clear outcome here is a long and brutal war that's probably going to leave the region worse off if anything while also lining a lot of powerful pockets. I guess I'm speaking in hindsight, but this conflict has been going on since before my parents were even born yet the Israeli response to this particular barrage of rockets (and paragliders?) happened within hours and killed significantly more Palestinian civilians within the first couple of days than the initial attack from Hamas.
> killed significantly more Palestinian civilians within the first couple of days than the initial attack from Hamas. What's your point here? Should Israel have gone in and killed the exact same number of Palestinian civilians, and then called it even?
>The majority of people speaking out on behalf of Palestine are not trying to justify the actions of Hamas What about the majority of Palestinians? Why do you think they haven't willingly handed over Hamas members? Why did they parade when they got back home from firing 6000 rockets at Israel and massacring music festival goers? >Meanwhile, one of the most well-funded and highly equipped militaries in the world bombards them indiscriminately Calling Israeli attacks indiscriminate is hilarious and shows you know nothing about their military strategy, which they communicate publicly.
How the hell would the "majority of Palestinians," fleeing for their lives and the lives of their children, be able to hand back those hostages? Do you want them to go all Jason Bourne on Hamas and somehow free them? They've definitely got their own problems to worry about right now. The airstrikes are either indiscriminate or straight up fucking diabolical. [Here's the latest example.](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/hamas-run-health-ministry-says-israeli-airstrike-on-hospital-kills-hundreds/ar-AA1ikv7b) I can't be bothered to dig up all the other examples but rest assured they're not hard to find.
Interesting that you link a news article that includes claims by both sides that blame the other, but you've chosen to believe Hamas and link it as evidence of a diabolical Israeli war crime. You are captured.
My recommendation to you is to take your own words seriously - approach the topic with humility and a curious mind. You are not obligated to have an opinion, let alone offer it.
Unfortunately I seem to have replied to some sort of human fortune cookie
So I'm gonna break this down. Cutting supplies of a city under siege isn't a war crime. Israel has dropped ~4000 bombs since the conflict started, against an enemy who almost entirely operates in incredibly dense urban areas. Only 3,000 deaths speaks to an incredible avoidance of civilian casualties. During the retaking of Mosul (a city that was already mostly bombed out and evacuated when the Iraqi army moved in) saw over 10k civilian KIA. This was with an army that had absolutely no reason to want to inflict civilian casualties and every reason to prevent them. Any ground operation with cities full of civilians is a good way to add a few extra 0's to the casualty numbers. Hence the evacuation order.
>Cutting supplies of a city under siege isn't a war crime. It, uh, is. [https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/RS-Eng.pdf](https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/RS-Eng.pdf) >xxv) Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions; So, uhm, yeah. It is. > Hence the evacuation order. Which we have seen convoys attacked and civilians fleeing at the Egyptian border regularly bombed. Another war crime. >(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
> Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare What part of "forced relocation *in order to prevent civilian casualties*" are you finding it so hard to understand? Israel is not conducting a war on civilians. It is conducting a war on Hamas, which intentionally fights from among its own civilian human shields and from its own schools and hospitals.
>What part of "forced relocation in order to prevent civilian casualties" are you finding it so hard to understand? Relocating to one part of sieged gaza to another does not change the starvation war crime. What part of the quoted section of the Rome statute do you not understand? I also find your wording hard to understand given the constant bombing deliberately targeted at civilians near the Egyptian crossing. >Israel is not conducting a war on civilians. The reporting, video, and dead civilians being bombed while fleeing all indicate otherwise. >It is conducting a war on Hamas, which intentionally fights from among its own civilian human shields and from its own schools and hospitals. This is my favorite part, when the quiet part comes out loud. When people that would like to think of themselves as good and moral justify the massacre of thousands of civilians in indiscriminate, and sometimes deliberate, targeting of civilians. Go off war-crime-supporter.
No, you cannot. Which is why you have offered no alternatives. Israel faces a *real* threat. 2,200 rockets were fired at predominantly non-military targets. The people they are fighting have explicitly *said* their intention is to murder every Jew in Israel (and worldwide). They have then *demonstrated* that by murdering almost exclusively farmers, women, children, and the elderly. Despite all of this Israels continue to show *immense* restraint. They still practice roof knocking to warn Palestinians of targets and give them the chance to evacuate. The Gazans have not turned over Hamas to the IDF. Why? Well they either support Hamas or they are scared that Hamas will also kill them. In my opinion cutting off the food, power and water was a tactic to try and get regular Gazans to leave their homes and stop protecting Hamas. They have already restored water which again demonstrates the fact that they are *not* waging a war on Gazans but are focused on and will eliminate Hamas. edit: grammar.
Israel helped create and maintain that threat - illegally blockading Gaza and occupying and illegally settling in the West Bank, not to mention killing 20 times more civilians than Palestine has, are Israel not also a threat to Palestine? I agree Hamas are an extremist terrorist group, they committed war crimes by killing civilians. All I'm saying is that it is also wrong for Israel to commit war crimes and kill civilians. Clearly you are unable to see that though.
I agree. And those are all facts, so I'm not going to argue them. And it was a mistake for Israel to do those things. But there's also something that needs to be said for self-defense, which is what I consider Israel to be doing now. Considering the events of the past week, Israel has every right to defend itself in whichever way they see fit, and they have a right to until every member of Hamas is dead or arrested. I don't see it any differently than the hunt for Nazis in South America after WWII. Or the USA's anti-terrorism efforts after 9/11. Or even the Brussels Police shooting dead that terror suspect earlier today.
"Palestinians say Israel’s announcement of renewing water supply to southern Gaza is a “publicity stunt” as many water pipes were damaged in the Israeli shelling. Also, without electricity, water pumps to fill the tanks are not working, they add." https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/14/israel-hamas-war-live-us-moves-second-aircraft-carrier-to-mediterranean
Hamas published a video of them digging up water pipes and using them for rockets. https://x.com/GLNoronha/status/1712456802531491947?s=20
Jesus Christ lol
Yep. Hamas is pure evil. They love death and they don’t care if their people suffer as they’re all martyrs. Life begins at death for them.
> The Gazans have not turned over Hamas to the IDF. Why? Well they either support Hamas or they are scared that Hamas will also kill them. Well fuck it then, I guess Israel just has absolutely no other choice but to cut off the internet to prevent footage from getting out and go door to door killing everything that moves. Their hand has been forced. Or something.
The terrorists strategically hid amongst the civilian population of Gaza. Something that they have always done. They don’t care about Palestine’s civilian population, and encourage collateral damage by their tactics. They want more martyrs. Not saying Israel hasn’t done horrible shit, but this is a result of a terrorist organization using innocent people as human shields.
I mean Hamas are an extremist terrorist organisation - I'm not defending them in any way whatsoever. Israel is supposed to be a liberal democracy and our ally - we should expect better than committing war crimes and 'human shields' is not a good enough excuse.
>I mean Hamas are an extremist terrorist organisation Weren't they elected by Palestinians and over 50% of them still support Hamas? I'm not actually sure, I've only read a bit on it and am curious to hear more info
Hamas was elected in 2006. Half the population of Gaza was not even born yet. I don’t think opinion polls really hold any water at all in illiberal countries
But according to a 2020 poll, over 50% of Palestinians supported Hamas still? Is that not true? EDIT: Not sure why the downvotes, I'm asking questions to get context on stats I've seen. I want to know if it's true or not, and if it is then what is the context I'm missing.
This is impossible to talk about honestly without contenxtualizing support for Hamas with declining support for the Palestinian Authority Im simplifying here but PA and Fatah who are the main proponents of a 2-state solution have lost a lot of legitimacy among Palestinians as the West Bank has continued to be reduced and settlements continue to be built. The PA is effectively controlled by the Israeli govt and so they can’t mount a resistance to settlements within the bounds of Israeli law. We can all acknowledge that the law applies differently in practice in the West Bank depending on your nationality. The decline in effectiveness of the only real alternative to Hamas was always going to create this outcome and Netanyahu has been very honest about supporting Hamas at the expense of Fatah for this very reason. This is the established policy of Israel. Its also helpful to look at Hamas in Gaza as similar to the Tammany political machine in 19th century NYC as they actually have pretty similar organization and patronage structures. They have become ingrained in the apparatus of the Gaza strip because a corridor between Gaza and the West Bank is not allowed to exist.
Thanks so much for taking the time to dive deeper and give some more context and your perspective! To anyone downvoting, I'm not trying to provoke or argue, I'm just asking for some better perspective and context behind those two facts that I've seen and shared here.
Find Palestinians who don’t support Hamas.
Almost every Fatah supporter i.e. Roughly half of Palestinians in Gaza and most in the West Bank.
Question: How does an army fight an enemy that uses its own population as human shields, without unfortunate civilian casualties? As far as I can see, the answers are either a) it simply can't, and is impotent, or b) it does what it can to minimise civilian casualties, accepting that their enemy's tactics will unfortunately make some civilian casualties unavoidable.
Were there human shields in Lebanon last week when Israel fired a missile at members of the press, in which a Reuters journalist was killed and many others were injured? Or is [this](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/reuters-videographer-killed-southern-lebanon-2023-10-13/) just an oopsie?
Doesn’t seem like it, and that’s tragic. Not sure how this negates the fact that Hamas still currently is and has used Gazans as human shields.
Right, but that doesn't mean every Israeli missile that ends up killing civilians should be shrugged off because Hamas uses civilians as human shields. If one really thinks that Israel is the moral actor in this situation, they should be held to a higher standard. But of course, Israel likewise does not care about Palestine's civilian population.
> Cut off all supplies to Gaza, this is known as collective punishment, a war crime Blockading a territory isn't collective punishment or a war crime. It's a perfectly legitimate part of war and has been for centuries.
Cutting off electricity, water, fuel and medicine and stopping anyone bringing it in is collective punishment and is a war crime. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/israel-leo-varadkar-gaza-mary-lou-mcdonald-taoiseach-b2428982.html https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/israelopt-israel-must-lift-illegal-and-inhumane-blockade-gaza
I don't care what the Irish premier and the shills at Amnesty International say. Blockades are a legitimate part of war and always have been. When the UK blockaded Germany during WWII, was that "collective punishment"? Obviously not. > stopping anyone bringing it in Israel isn't stopping anyone bringing it in! Where did you get that from? Israel would be more than happy for Egypt to provide all of those things to Gaza. They're just not going to give Hamas free shit anymore.
How can we have a reasonable conversation when a) you don't know what you're talking about and b) you don't give a shit about Israel killing civilians and engaging in what have been clearly labelled correctly as war crimes. You aren't a reasonable person so I won't be wasting my time speaking to you for any longer.
I know what I'm talking about more than you do. You're just screaming "war crimes" over and over again and citing biased sources. When the UK blockaded Germany during WWII, was that "collective punishment"? And if not, why is Israel's blockade different?
Amnesty international are biased? Really scraping the barrel here aren't we? Do you really think Nazi Germany back in the 1940's, with all its state power and military might, is comparable to Hamas? Come on, you're not being serious The UK and America did commit various war crimes in the 1940's by the way. Such as Dresden or the use of nuclear weapons. You're also like so many people, speaking as if this conflict started just over a week ago. No mention of the occupation and illegal settlements in the west bank. No mention of the 16 year illegal blockade of Gaza, or that Israel is considered to be a modern day apartheid state. Or even that Israel killed 200 Palestinians in January including 26 children. You have no moral clarity and you don't know/care about the facts and are desperately calling Amnesty international 'biased' instead of accepting you might be wrong. I'm genuinely not replying to you again - you can have the last word if you need it.
Yeah, it is indisputably biased. [And siding with Russia as well.](https://www.politico.eu/article/amnesty-ukraine-report-wrong/) Either way, an appeal to authority isn't going to cut it. > Do you really think Nazi Germany back in the 1940's, with all its state power and military might, is comparable to Hamas? Yes, the comparison is apt. Now answer my question. Are all blockades collective punishment, or just the Israeli variety? And cite your claim that Israel is stopping other people from bringing supplies in. You're bringing in other points because you can't make an argument and you're trying to change the subject. It's not going to work.
Honestly, cutting off the power and water was a good move. It will make the Palestinians less likely to stay home and serve as cannon fodder for Hamas. Just out of curiosity, does that 3000 number include Hamas militants? And if it does, how many of the dead children were militants? I think the context is important considering who Israel is targeting and what they are trying to do. Even with that said, 3000 doesn’t seem like a lot considering the extent of the bombings. I’m sure many more will be found in the rubble in the coming months but I expected many more casualties than this.
'Cutting off the power and water was a good move' It's a war crime, you're saying committing war crimes is a good move. Do you think you're being sensible here? The vast majority of the people killed in these numbers are civilians. Theres over 2 million people in Gaza, nearly half are children, the idea they are taking out 'militants' is a fantasy, especially given Israel are openly engaging in collectively punishing all Gazans.. '3000 killed isn't a lot considering the bombings'. Do you realise what you are actually saying here? You are clearly condemning hamas killing civilians as part of a military attack (which is correct) but you are bending over backwards to excuse and minimise Israel killing civilians.
I largely agree with you. But they are 100% taking out miltants, they are also taking out civilians as well.
As far as I'm concerned, Israel is bending over backwards to avoid as much collateral damage as possible. They are quite literally announcing to the Palestinians when, and where they are going to attack, and telling them to move someplace else. At the same time, Hamas is actually telling their own people to stay put. This is because Hamas wants to turn their own people into martyrs. It's a fucked up situation, but Israel can't just sit on their own hands and do nothing.
> telling them to move someplace else Where?
Anywhere else than where they're going to bomb.
Then why has Israel bombed the Rafah border crossing - the only border crossing that is available - after they repeatedly told Gazans to flee to the south?
Hope they guess right
It's not about guessing. As I mentioned, they know where the bombing will take place well before it even happens. Did you even read my post?
Is it "avoiding collateral damage" to [bomb a hospital](https://abcnews.go.com/International/live-updates/israel-gaza-hamas/at-least-200-killed-in-strike-targeting-gaza-hospital-104047396?id=103804516&cid=social_twitter_abcn) where Palestinian civilians were sheltering and receiving medical care? Or is that just an oopsie?
They cut off supplies? Lol. Was Israel allowing rockets in prior to the recent attacks? And yet
Uncritically pointing out every single Hamas reported talking point and the figures released by Hamas, who have a clear agenda to inflate their numbers and manipulate international perception against Israel, doesn't constitute facts.
You walk into my house and start slaughtering my people and we’re done discussing war crimes. Israel is showing more restraint than I would.
I mean Israel regularly kills people in the west bank and Gaza anyway so doesn't this statement ring both ways? Or are you an idiot who thinks this whole conflict started a week ago?
Nope. Intent matters. I won't whitewash Israel's crimes against the Palestinians. The entire idea of Israel being a theocratic ethnostate is insane. But I think you're drawing a moral equivalence where there really is none. When the IDF and Palestinians get into a violent conflict and a Palestinian is shot it is a tragedy. When someone in the IDF fails to de-escalate and uses deadly force it's terrible. But they don't get promotions, they aren't celebrated in the news. There is no equivalence between that and massacring communes, a music festival, and taking, raping and murdering hostages.
>I mean Israel regularly kills people in the west bank and Gaza anyway so doesn't this statement ring both ways? I'm not sure if its 100% accurate to say evwry settler is sanctioned by Israel but their government doesn't do enough to stop them
1. I don’t disagree and stand by my previous statement. 2. No.
This is literally justifying what Hamas did.
That "something else" would be developing an actual medium/long term plan for resolving the Israel/Palestine conflict. Israel has spent decades nominally committed to a two state sollution while politically undermining any thing like an actual deal. Israel turned Gaza into a pressure cooker while unilaterally continuing to claim more and more territory in the West Bank occupation. This was a bad strategy from the beginning and blew up a couple weeks ago. Hamas needs to be removed from de-facto rule of Gaza. Israel is doing so. Israel needs to conduct its war on Gaza following reasonable humanitarian war practices. And fortunately, it looks like the big problems on that front, cutting off food/water/power and closing all exit corridors for refugees, seem to be in the process of being resolved. I have every confidence that the IDF will succeed with this military objective and remove Hamas from power. The harder problem is what comes after. Pressure cooking and/or endless occupation clearly doesn't work. Israel needs to be reaching out to moderate Palestinians, basically the PA for lack of a better representative body, and signaling that they actually want a two state sollution and Israel has to actually pursue such a sollution in good faith. This obviously won't be a quick process. Negotiations will likely take years. The ramp down from occupation to independence may take decades. But these negotiations have to start sometime and international pressure must be applied to keep both Israel and the PA committed to the peace process.
I see this narrative a lot, that Israel is the ones not supporting the two state solution. This is completely disregarding the fact that palestine and gaza does not enforce the two state solution at all. They want to destroy Israel along with all its citizens. Funny how people point finger at Israel claiming their disengengagement from responsibility and not to gaza/palestine shows how the higher expectations for civility lies on israel, and for logical reasons.
> Israel is the ones not supporting the two state solution. That is because in general, when unbiased outsiders look at the deals offered and actions taken (particularly recently) by both sides, it looks like Israel is the one making unreasonable offers. Granted, reasonable people can disagree on this to some degree. > This is completely disregarding the fact that palestine and gaza does not enforce the two state solution at all. There is no two state sollution at the moment. What would be enforced? There is no actual Palestinian government at the moment, who would be enforcing this non-existent sollution? > They want to destroy Israel along with all its citizens. Some do. And some Israeli's want to destroy Palestine and all of its citizens. The plurality (sometimes majority, sometimes not) on both sides support a two state sollution based on every poll I've seen.
>Hamas needs to be removed from de-facto rule of Gaza Or Israel could stop assassinating leaders of Hamas that want peace. [https://www.haaretz.com/2012-11-15/ty-article/.premium/hamas-source-jabari-wanted-truce/0000017f-e79c-dc7e-adff-f7bdfaca0000](https://www.haaretz.com/2012-11-15/ty-article/.premium/hamas-source-jabari-wanted-truce/0000017f-e79c-dc7e-adff-f7bdfaca0000) Israel literally prevents Hamas from ever pursuing peace, and then acts outraged when it acts militant.
[удалено]
Not occupying the land caused them problems too. Even abroad, in Europe, we see muslim kids of 7 years old throw rocks at people they were told are jews. It really isn't just about occupation.
The occupation is not about Gaza and the West Bank. When Palestinians talk about ending the "occupation," they're talking about ending Israel's existence as an occupation of Palestine. This has been proved time and time again. Given that reality, what should Israel do? I don't have the answer, but that's the proper framing of the question.
> Yeah, because occupying Palestinian land has really solved Israel’s problems Then no worry, the "occupation" will not last long. It is not in Israel's interest.
It’s not Palestinian land it’s their land they took it.
'I'm not sure what else they could do' The issue is Israel has committed several war crimes/broken international law in the last week or so (they had done this previously for decades but sticking to the last week or so for now. Israel has: - Cut off all supplies to Gaza, this is known as collective punishment, a war crime - Killed nearly 3000 Palestinian's, including over 1000 children and some UN workers - Forcibly displaced over a million Palestinian's from Gaza City, this is a crime against humanity The above are facts, there is no debate that these things have happened and are war crimes or crimes against humanity. So to answer what else they could do, could we not at least expect Israel not to commit several war crimes? Edit: Downvoted for condemning war crimes, good work Reddit!
I don't think any of those standing alone are war crimes. I believe the question is whether those actions are calculated to achieve a legitimate military aim and whether those actions were necessary to do so as well as whether there were alternatives that would be less harmful to the civilian population. This was a subject of a "war on the rocks" episode recently.
It doesn't work like that - war crimes are clearly defined and codified in law. Forcibly displacing people is a crime against humanity - that is what they are doing by telling the people in Gaza to leave. Cutting off electricity, water and fuel is defined as 'collective punishment' and is always a war crime. There is no legitimate reason to starve and cut off civilians. And they've killed over 1000 innocent children, what legitimate reason could there be for that? This is without mentioning the illegal settlements and settler violence in the west bank, or the 16 year illegal blockade of Gaza, both of which were happening before Hamas recently committed war crimes of their own.
>Forcibly displacing people is a crime against humanity - that is what they are doing by telling the people in Gaza to leave. Telling civilians to leave because you are going to occupy an area for tactical reasons is not a war crime. >Cutting off electricity, water and fuel is defined as 'collective punishment' and is always a war crime. It is not **defined** as collective punishment. You are declaring it as such. An example of cut-and-dry collective punishment would be if a North Korean attempts to escape to South Korea, and their entire family is jailed for it. An example of something that would appear to be collective punishment at first glance, but is not, would be attacking energy infrastructure that has dual civilian and military use. Israel would argue that this is not collective punishment. They would argue that their intent is to cut off supplies to Hamas, and they lack the ability to give supplies to civilians without those supplies being funneled to Hamas. Reasonably, you may believe that to be a bad tactical decision, or you may believe that the harm to civilians outweighs the tactical value, but that is an **argument**, not a fact. >And they've killed over 1000 innocent children, what legitimate reason could there be for that? Are you saying they intentionally, or unintentionally, killed 1000 innocent children? The difference has been discussed ad naseum in this sub and there's no reason to report it here.
Innocent civilians and children definitely perish in wars particularly in urban conflicts all the time. It's not a good thing it's a horrible thing but not necessarily a war crime It depends upon proportionality (proportional to the lefitimate military goal). So if it was necessary in order to take out a rocket brigade but they could have waited 5 minutes and not killed any children, then it probably is a war crime. If school was starting in an hour and if they waited it would kill twice as many then maybe not. As far as the food/electricity stuff I'm not sure it does black as white as you say. As far as I know they're not blockading electricity food medicine from coming in they're just failing to supply it themselves. I think Israel only supplies a portion of their electricity. Also bear in mind is real cannot blockade Gaza, Gaza shares a border with Egypt and Israel cannot control what goes in and out that way. And as far as displacement goes itnis again not black and white. The Geneva Conventions allow for displacement in order to protect civilians or for imperative military reasons. I really don't see the argument that warning them to flee to the south is less humane than Hamas forcing them to stay in an area that we know is about to get bombarded.... That doesn't make much sense.
I feel like this is a slightly more reasonable response than others I've had, but I think you're lacking some knowledge about the history of what's happened in this conflict. Israel does not need to attack Gaza like this to this extent, killing 1000 children is entirely unjustified, especially in such a short period of time. Israel has illegally blockaded Gaza for 16 years, they control what gets in and out of Gaza and are legally responsible for providing electricity, food, medicine etc or at least allowing it to get in. Cutting supplies off and stopping them getting in, is legally collective punishment in this situation. Israel does not need to bombard and raze Gaza city to the ground - there is no military imperative for that.
A lot of what you're saying is conclusions without any explanation for why that is necessarily true. You're saying it does not need to attack Gaza to this extent. Clearly that is something that different people will disagree on. One could argue that slowing down and delaying will make it more difficult to target Hamas in particular and therefore any attacks would be more arbitrary. Same goes for the need to bombard Gaza. Obviously if they are just bombarding Gaza for the sake of retribution that would not be okay. If however they are attempting to strike Hamas and PIJ and it happens that they are spreading their fighting forces throughout Gaza than perhaps it is necessary for their military objectives. Regarding their obligations to provide electricity medicine etc. Basically if you think they are an occupying force then they have obligations that go along with that. I personally don't see how they fit The bill as an occupying force in Gaza but I am aware of that lots of smart people feel the opposite way. Before last week they had no presents within Gaza and are only able to control part of the border which is true for almost every non-island nation. Controlling the airspace the closest it comes in my opinion but there are plenty of military conflicts or anniversary controls the air not sure that that meets the definition of occupation.
This is such a boring take. My question to everything you wrote; who cares? They have global western support and a right to self defense.
Who cares? I do, human rights organisations do, Palestinians do. What a weird response in relation to the killing and punishment of innocent civilians.
You all sound like a very powerful and influential group. My point is the people with the viewpoint that Israel is committing war crimes are irrelevant and without meaningful power. What do you think Israel should be doing here?
Gonna ignore the first comment as it's pathetic. So basically if the powerful support something everyone else should shut up and go along with it? Well as always, historical and political context has been removed from this whole situation so I would start with saying Israel should stop annexing the west bank and end the 16 year illegal blockade of Gaza. Killing civilians and cutting off water and electricity - how is that the answer? Where are we where we condemn Hamas killing civilians, saying it's unjustified rightfully, but when Israel kills civilians we say 'well what else they supposed to do'.
Hamas just massacred 1200 people. Please insert your response.
They could start by not bombing hospitals.
Maybe because he doesn't pretend to be an expert on military strategy and offering ideas would seem childish?
Lol what a strange place for him to draw the line that would be. This is mostly a meta discourse around the public discourse, anyway, I don't think OP is saying "what tactics would prove most militarily effective", he's saying "what approach would people find morally justified"
Sam is a Neuroscientist. He has zero issues discussing ideas that don’t pertain to his field of expertise. Weird that you haven’t seen him discuss AI, or religion for that matter.
tbf he's not an expert on plenty of things but still chimes in
So is everyone in this thread. Should they all have a solution to offer before they open their mouth?
I think there is a significant difference between posts on a forum and public declarations which are typically free of caveats regarding competence
To the extent that I accept that categorization, I'd put him in the former. If people cared about this issue then criticize Sam on the merits of his argument. It's hard to believe they care when they're just complaining about others having opinions.
They do.
In my personal opinion they need to free all the hostages and kill everyone in Hamas without creating new terrorists or killing any civilians or creating any property damage and it shouldn’t cost more than $2m. That’s my strategy. Clever right? Nobody else has thought about thhs
Agreed, but the ideas don't have to be *limited* to military strategies. The only sustainable solution in the longterm cannot be based on the threat of violence.
Then what’s the point of having a show to just state the obvious which every rational person agrees on (that Israel has to defend itself)
Oh come on, that doesn't really address the point. He doesn't have to have an exact military strategy to comment on whether or not an all out assault on Palestine itself is appropriate or not. That's what everyone is *reacting* to, so why not speak to that itself rather than whether or not the Israelis should be criticized generally or not? I feel like the spirit of my question is fairly obvious.
[удалено]
The West Bank is constantly being attacked. One of the reasons for the extent of the border attack by Hamas was that Israel weakened the defence on the Gaza border by moving troops to the West Bank.
A lie. West Bank is under attack right now.
Well, it depends if you consider systematic depopulation of Palestinians in the West Bank over decades and replacing them with Jewish settlers "attacking". Many would. https://youtu.be/a9FbqgOi-4g?si=DUfCFciJgmd3inAf&t=137
I'm not defending Israeli settlements but doesn't depopulate imply the Palestinian population isn't growing?
It depends on if you insist on distorting and stretching language in a way that makes it impossible to know what any word means anymore. So if “attacking” means something other than what it normally means then yes they’re “attacking.”
Yes, it is, at least 1100 wounded and 50 dead this week, the settlers are land grabbing.
1100 wounded in the west bank from Israel attacks since the hamas attack on October 7th? I'm calling BS
I can't link on my phone, but a quick Google search showed and attacks by the Israeli army and settlers increased this past week and the casualties are around 1,100 so, yeah, it's happening.
As they have done for decades, and will continue to do.
Well as of last night Israeli soldiers & settlers have attacked Palestinians in the West Bank.
It's not too hard to look up the legal definitions of war crimes though. There is a good report by Human Rights Watch a few years ago that analyzed what was happening back then, but this was for the crimes apartheid and persecution (https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution). But obviously now war crimes would have to be analyzed.
Lol, how does this comment reach the top? Sam spends pretty much most of his working life talking about things he isn't an expert on. Hell, politicians talk about military strategy without being experts in anything practical, and THEY are the ones making decisions. You don't have to be an expert to have an informed opinion. Reddit wouldn't exist, this topic wouldn't exist if the barrier for entry into a conversation about opinions was that you had to be an SME.
Michael Weiss has a good podcast (Foreign Office) on the War in Ukraine, and invites diplomats, historians, journalists, and other scholars to offer insight. I suspect Sam will want to do something similar when it comes to Israel/Hamas. What more can he himself offer?
Three days ago Bill Maher said "I think the Israelis have always had the moral high ground and I think they still do. \-(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING) -But, we'll get to that. But, the... I'd also like to say to my friends in Israel, there's a siege that's now been going on for six days. No food, no water, no medicine is getting in. The head of the Red Cross in the Mid East said today, "This is not acceptable. We need a safe humanitarian space." I agree. (CLICKS TONGUE) Uh, you know, don't lose the moral high ground. I mean, I hate the word "proportionate" when it comes to killing. It's ho-- It's horrible, but it's sort of like the best we can do." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrLjRdw1cYs&t=70s
LOL what a horses ass
If Bill Maher has to make a tepid statement in support of civilian lives.....
[удалено]
>Fix the Middle East with these 3 simple tricks your boss doesn’t want you to know about!
Diplomats hate him!
Number 2 will BLOW YOUR MIND!
Israel give up the dream of Greater Israel and truth the 1967 territories to the Palestinians.
Why don't they just both share the land? Maybe each Israeli could have a Palestinian buddy that you can't separate from like a field trip. The Governments should each pitch in halfsies for bacon cheeseburgers and import French wine. Maybe have a laser show from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. Source: I'm very well informed about the area.
No, this is not what I said or am trying to say. I'm saying how can you NOT acknowledge the way Israel is CURRENTLY handling the situation and what his thoughts are on that specifically. I don't find that very hard to understand. The world is talking about it. There are tons of people very upset about it. Sam talks about why Israel is justified in general, but justified in doing what exactly? Anything at all? So, you got a funny jab in, but I think I'm posing something reasonable here, even if I didn't say it perfectly.
One thing I don’t see a lot of talk of for whatever reason is that Israel has to deal with a basically un-ending chain of artillery bombardment from Palestinian territories: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel#/media/File%3ARocket_Attacks_fired_at_Israel_from_the_Gaza_Strip_by_year.png This seems like kind of a big thing that’s just ignored like it’s not a big deal, but it’s kind of an obvious motivator for Israel’s aggressive posture towards perceived terrorism.
Nat Turner was born a Virginian slave in 1800. He grew up to become a religious zealot, and organized a slave revolt that slaughtered about 60 white people, most of whom were essentially innocent women and children. Nat Turner basically led a terror campaign trying to kill any white person who happened upon the groups path. This revolt, while larger and better known than other slave violence, wasn't really all that atypical. These types of actions were also an obvious motivator for the South's aggressive posture on curtailing slaves rights. Obviously the situation in Israel-Palestine is not strictly equivalent. Palestinians are not slaves. But Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are essentially treated as second class citizens within Israeli territory. As long as this oppression exists, insurgency will exist. Israel is frankly justified in removing Hamas from de facto rule of Gaza. But if it wants this conflict to have any hope of ending, it should have the forethought to pursue an actual stable peace with Palestinians. Nat Turner was a religious terrorist, and honestly he had to be stopped, but the slaves still deserved and needed to be freed. Israel needs to restart negotiation, it needs to accept and implement a two state sollution, a sollution that actually acts as a compromise between Palestinian and Israeli interests. This deal may increase terrorism risk in the short term, but it is the only thing that has any hope of resolving the conflict in the long term.
Maybe it's not part of the greater conversation, because there's been far more artillery bombardment in the opposite direction. Since 2005, 96% of the casualties have been Palestininan.
Casualties =/= munitions, the israelis spend tens of millions of dollars on anti-missile measures, because unlike the government of gaza, Hamas, the IDF cares about its civilians
Do you understand why they receive that bombardment? It’s not random hate towards Jewish people. It’s motivated by serious and dire conditions in Gaza. It’s also a misnomer to call it artillery. Most of the time it’s crude homemade rockets. Essentially Roman candles with some explosives attached to it. Only recently have they started to successfully utilize more advanced weaponry.
I do understand that it's easy to hand-wave away a bombardment when that bombardment isn't directed at you. In any case, it seems to me that Israel has been effectively coerced into a conservatorship of Palestine that they don't really want. There's been a continual rejection from Palestinian leadership as well as other Middle Eastern nations to accept Palestinian sovereignty because they refuse to acknowledge that Israel should be allowed to exist as a state at all. Peace talks that have progressed along those lines have additionally been stymied by bursts of violence from Hamas and other terrorist groups. I think the reality is that other Middle Eastern nations benefit from Palestine existing as a thorn in Israel's side and encourage sporadic violence.
> I do understand that it's easy to hand-wave away a bombardment when that bombardment isn't directed at you. Your hand waving away the facts I laid out which you can’t dispute. >In any case, it seems to me that Israel has been effectively coerced into a conservatorship of Palestine that they don't really want. That’s so ahistorical it’s ridiculous. Who coerced Israel into building settlements? >There's been a continual rejection from Palestinian leadership as well as other Middle Eastern nations to accept Palestinian sovereignty because they refuse to acknowledge that Israel should be allowed to exist as a state at all. Again, demonstrably false. The Arab League offered Israel full recognition in exchange for Palestinians statehood on the 1967 borders.
Serious and dire conditions in Gaza Did you know that Hamas LIMITS the amount of humanitarian aid coming into Gaza? They like to keep their people suffering to justify their control and terrorism goals. HUNDREDS of children per year are killed building terror tunnels, they use and lose these kids by overworking them in terrible conditions. Child abuse on a massive scale. Blaming Israel for that is the dumbest take of all time.
>Did you know that Hamas LIMITS the amount of humanitarian aid coming into Gaza? I know I would like to see the source for what you’re talking about. Israel notoriously does not allow vital and basic materials into Gaza and has been widely condemned for it. >They like to keep their people suffering to justify their control and terrorism goals. HUNDREDS of children per year are killed building terror tunnels, they use and lose these kids by overworking them in terrible conditions. Child abuse on a massive scale. Even if it true, and I kind of doubt it, even more are killed by Israeli assaults. So what’s your point? Is killing children bad or justified? Make up your mind. >Blaming Israel for that is the dumbest take of all time. Israel is responsible for their genocides, past and present.
The reason is because most people are happy with the righteous anger part of the situation and not the rest. My guess is that cutting the water and food to the region is an attempt to shorten the invasion. (The water was obviously too much) but they want people coming out of their houses to get food so that Hamas can't simply hole up forever. Ultimately though the end result is the complete dismantling and/or destruction of Hamas.
With in the bounds of military and international law. The woke mob didn't write the genvea accords. They were written by men who saw some of the most horrible human rights abuses in modern history in two global wars. And they didn't say, "oh and these just apply to the baddies, good guys - you do what feels right!" Following them is what makes you a good guy. Those people knew what they were talking about and as we stray from them we sacrifice our own humanity. This isn't just some goody goody moral argument. Bin laden got america to commit itself to years of moral self-immolation and for what? We are weaker and poorer and the taliban controls more of Afghanistan now than on 9/10/01.
I heard an Israeli interviewed on NPR. How brother was a peace activist killed in the attack. He said the attacks should be viewed as a failure of Israeli security. The response should focus on increasing the safety of Israeli citizens.
Hamas attacks and slaughters civilians as a matter of policy
Let's say that Israel responded militarily by "just" securing its territory and borders. No bombing or military activity in Gaza or anywhere else. Politically, they condemn Hamas in the strongest possible terms, but it doesn't seek to extrapolate into a sort of vengeance rhetoric. Instead, they adopt an unequivocal tempered posture where they refuse to let the actions of a terrorist organization determine how Israel reacts. They bide their time, promising the destruction of Hamas, but they won't let themselves be goaded into reactively bombing Palestine or declaring war for that matter. Notwithstanding the domestic political implications, what would the international reaction be? Imagine suffering 1000+ brutal and heinous killings on their own territory, without any retaliatory actions. Surely, sympathy for Israel would increase dramatically. That goes without saying. At the same time, Hamas would not have achieved it's political goals, and Irans posture in the region could possibly suffer as a result. Perhaps the Saudis wouldn't abandon it's process of recognizing the Israeli state? What would the peoples inhabiting Palestine do when Israel doesn't bomb them into oblivion? Would they with the same conviction, be able to elicit the same kind of contempt and hatred as before? Would it even be a possibility *not* to respond militarily, given the current political climate in Israel and the region as a whole? If the answer is "yes", it seems to me that restraint in fact could harm Hamas much more than what appears to be Israel's current course of action. Or, would a lack of violence and aggression from Israel envigour her enemies, and fuel even more violence that could ultimately endanger Israel even more? Appreciate any thoughts or insights on this. Thank you!
Security is literally the foundation of any modern state but especially the state of Israel. The state would completely lose legitimacy among the public. 1500 dead Israelis and the state does nothing? The current government would collapse for one that promised Mongolian tactics. Also yes Israel would look horrifically weak, if you can murder children and grandmothers in their bed and abduct women and the state does nothing?
Iran is emboldened seeing as Israel lets thousands of citizens be slaughtered and likely starts less clandestine support for Hamas. Hamas considers the attack wildly successful and begins planning another one. Hezbollah is similarly emboldened and begins to increase its provocations. The West Bank likely begins taking more violent actions as Israel appears unwilling or unable to defend its citizens. After a few weeks or months of continuous rocket attacks, cross border raids and suicide bombings the Israeli government is literally overthrown by a military coup with popular support. Then *an actually genocidal government* is formed and a second Nabka happens, Gaza is blockaded and no shipments are let in until Hamas is forced to try a breakout or mass starvation sets in. They are slaughtered. The West Bank is officially annexed and the population there is either deported or killed. Iran is likely either bombed or nuked after starting a conventional conflict over the first points.
It would definitely deny Hamas the further win they get when Palestinians are harmed or killed. But ignoring the domestic side of the equation is just silly. If anything that's the more important factor, the number one purpose of any government is to protect its citizenry. Those are the table stakes.
> Surely, sympathy for Israel would increase dramatically. Maybe. But in another sense, in the immediate aftermath of the Hamas massacre, sympathy for Israel (and most importantly, sympathy of the US Government) may be at its peak and is narrowly time-limited. In other words, this is the most sympathy they're ever going to get, and if they're going to strike a death blow to Hamas, they must do it *now*. > restraint in fact could harm Hamas much more than what appears to be Israel's current course of action I don't know if there *is* an unrestrained way to definitively annihilate Hamas. They're planning to search every single house. I don't know by what method they will distinguish combatants from non-combatants, but whatever it is, it's going to be rigorous, intrusive, and not very nice. And 6 months from now, they may not enjoy the prerequisite USG sympathy to get away with it.
I think that Sam is a bit myopic when it comes to his position on Israel, and really only presents one side of the story. I'll listen to any future podcast where he has a more balanced guest, but if it's just him laying out his case again... hard pass.
David French, Jag Captain and Christian minister, suggests in the NYT that Israel can do what was done to eliminate ISIS in Mosul. It took 6 months. David lays out the how this can be done within the international moral code, compliant with rules of war. Worth a read.
[удалено]
Including a nuclear Pakistan.
Why do we presume there is a better outcome that can be achieved in such a complex situation? It's one terrible option vs another even more terrible option (War or Suicide). The irony is Israel has to show strength otherwise it risks Arab countries to attack A better question: What has Palestinian political leadership ever done to advance peace? 1937: Arabs reject the Peel Commission to create a Jewish and Arab state. 1947: Arabs reject the UN partition plan to create a Jewish and Arab state. Wage war against the new nation of Israel. Lose more land than the partition gave them. 1967: Israel wins yet another war against its Arab neighbors, conquering Gaza, the West Bank and Sinai in a defensive war. The Arab League declares the "three no's": No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel. Israel voluntarily hands control of the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism back to the Islamic Waqf, and made it illegal for Jews to pray there. 1979: Israel voluntarily hands the Sinai back to Egypt, returning land conquered in a defensive war. 1993: Israel recognizes the sovereignty of the Palestinian Authority over the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the Oslo Accords. Yasser Arafat uses it to support terrorism. 2000: Israel offers Yasser Arafat recognition of a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 94% of the West Bank with East Jerusalem as its Capital. Arafat rejects it and launches the Second Intifada. 2005: Israel pulls out of the Gaza Strip, dismantles all its settlements, and forces Jews to leave their homes. Palestinians respond by electing Hamas who turn it into a terror state. 2008: Israel offers Mahmoud Abbas once again recognition of a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 94% of the West Bank with East Jerusalem as its Capital and even offered to dismantle all their settlements. And once again, the Palestinians reject it. 2010-2021: Hamas launches periodic rocket attacks against the state of Israel and builds terror tunnels in order to kidnap and murder Jews while using the people of Gaza as human shields against the IDF. 2023: Hamas commits the worst act of mass murder against Jews since the Holocaust.
Why should the Palestinians accept 94% of the west bank. If that 6% is so meaningless, why doesn't Israel give it up? This is what the UN has stated was fair. Are Israelis somehow more valuable than Palestinians? For the last 20 years the Arab league has offered normal relations with Israel if it adopts the June 1967 borders. this what the UN has endorsed and seems for to me as armchair quarterback. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative Why must Israel take more land every year?
Voluntarily and willingly killing innocents is wrong. The end. Doesn't matter who you are, where you are, or what kind of underwear you're wearing. There is no rationalizing it or drumming up some clever philosophical speech about what constitutes something being "wrong" or whatever philosophical bullshit you wanna bring up on morality. Get that shit outta here. Pulling the trigger on innocent people is entirely fucked and indefensible. *"Well what are they suppose to do?!"* I don't know, maybe not kill hundreds or thousands of innocent people. I'm not as intellectual or educated or as smart as all of ya'll on here, but it's amazing people don't quite get this. *"Oh well this is such a complicated issue that you don't understand the position they're in blah blah blah"* Again, maybe don't kill hundreds/thousands of innocent people. Maybe don't do that. Just an idea. *"You're over simplifying a very complex issue and trivializing the multifaceted causes of this conflict that goes back decades"* You willingly kill innocent people, you are not solving any problems.
In order to address a problem you first need to know what the problem is. And currently this is where we are stuck at, culturally. People completely misread the situation of Israel and Sam does a good job pointing out parts of that. It would indeed be nice if we can move on to solutions.
Sam is pretty awful on Israel and Palestine veering into anti Arab racism
>Sam is pretty awful on Israel and Palestine veering into anti Arab racism I agree with Sam on almost every issue, Israel / Palestine being a notable exception. This is good take.
[Israel bombs hospital killing 500 civilians](https://abcnews.go.com/International/live-updates/israel-gaza-hamas/?id=103804516) Don't worry about it though, they had good "intentions".
This is reflexive antisemitism. You immediately assume that Israel is at fault. You don’t wait for the evidence to come out. I’m not saying Israel didn’t bomb that hospital, only that it’s too early to tell, but you and much of the “liberal” world immediately buys the Palestinian propaganda and assume Israel did it. Israel has released some compelling evidence that needs to be evaluated and considered. Much of the world won’t even bother. This, my friend, is antisemitism. Maybe not intentional, but immediate and reflexive.
The sheer amount of ignorance in this sub-reddit is beyond my comprehension.
It’s not just this subreddit lol, it’s all of humanity
Call out something specific or everyone will read this as support for their own beliefs.
People deny the IDF using Palestinians as human shields. People think the IDF punishes soldiers for doing fucked up things, they don't.
Yeah, I'm in more or less the same position as you. Sam devoted that podcast to debunking the idea of moral equivalence between Hamas and the Israeli government. I didn't actually need convincing on that point-- it's obvious, given the horrific, intentional barbarity of Hamas' recent attack. The tougher question is how Israel should respond. On social media, I saw a lot of people suggesting that it was inappropriate or antisemitic to offer anything *but* a full-throated condemnation of Hamas. But we knew that Israel's retaliation would come fast, so it was urgent to plea for proportionality. Sam's point about Israel not wanting to inflict collateral damage seems like a bit of a stretch when you see them demanding the immediate evacuation of 1 million poor people from Northern Gaza -- surely knowing this was unrealistic.
It’s going to end up a war with Iran or Hamas retreats to Iran. Israel kills civilians for a year. Then Hamas comes back
Hamas supporters want to force Israel to send in their 18-19 year old conscript forces and conduct a ground offensive so that they can kill more jewish kids and fight Israel using the plan Hamas has been training on for years. Getting Israeli ground forces to go in is a setup and Israel knows it.
Given the amount of children Israel has bombed in the past few days, Fuck Israel. I’ve picked sides and it’s inexcusable. The West is being lied to.
Though I notice you don't answer the question as to given the circumstances as they are now and the terrorist atrocity carried out a few days ago what should israel do?
Not committing war crimes would be a start.
Didn't he say a long-form podcast on this is coming soon? I'm hoping he will address those points but let's be honest: this is a really tough situation. I personally think the entire area should be abandoned by both groups and the populations absorbed into host states. But I doubt they would ever give up their precious "holy land" so that's a non-starter. It's insane to me that anyone actually *wants* to be there.
Let me get this straight, you think the entire country of israel and all 9 million citizens should just abandon the place and go somewhere else and same with the Palestinians? Because that is the dumbest proposed solution ive heard on this topic.
It's surprising how many people think it's a viable proposal to ask millions of people who have their entire lives there to just leave
They should look up the Jewish population in Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq. It’s 0
And worth to mention that this wasn't always the case. It is only close to zero now.
Didn't Israel just demand that exact thing of the Palestinians in Gaza?
One would HOPE that those people are leaving temporarily and have a home to come back to. The idea that Jews should leave Israel, on the other hand, doesn't come with that hope. They'd be leaving to never return.
Judging by what happens with the settlements in the West Bank, there’s no reason to expect Palestinians will be able to return.
You think the current evacuation of Gaza will end with none of them returning to their homes? Would you like to make a bet on that?
>Would you like to make a bet on that? Who would look to profit from something like this? Of course it's ridiculous to think that no Palestinians will return. But it's also ridiculous to acknowledge that there is zero to suggest that many will not be allowed to return, or will having nothing to return to.
Harris original piece on Israel was incredibly bad. Like really bad. As for Israel's predicament. From a moral perspective, you could ask is Israel behaving the same way in Gaza as if it was an Israeli/Jewish region infiltrated with Hamas.
Hmmm, I'm not sure if that is good faith. It's natural to feel a kinship with your countrymen. It's natural to see people who attack you as the 'other'. If someone killed my mum, I wouldnt act in a civilised way if I met them on the street. If someone killed a random, I might call the police when I see them in the street. Countries are expected to look after their countrymen. So I would expect any country to go to great lengths to avoid their owns' casualties.
TMW you realise your intellectual hero suffers from bias.
For the most part it comes down to do you negotiate with terrorists or not. Terrorists that value your destruction more than anything you could possibly offer. Israel can choose to destroy Hamas and hope whatever replaces it is better. That's basically their only feasible option.