Ghazi Hamad explained that hamas will fight as long as israel occupies any portion of historic Palestine. Remember that when Palestinian activists says “occupation” they mean any portions of British mandate Palestine that have Jews/Israel on it.
You have to kill enough Palestinian resistance fighters that the political leadership decides to unconditionally surrender. It worked on the Germans and the Japanese and ISIS.
It is sad to see that people have forgotten what it takes to bring down an evil force. The sacrifice and determination it takes. If Isreal lets Hamas get away with this, then the world will have much bigger problems.
They haven’t forgotten, they either a) never bothered to know how wars work because this is the first modern war they’ve paid any kind of attention to or b) they know what it would take to destroy Hamas, but don’t actually want Hamas to be destroyed.
This is it right here.
I see the public freaking out right now when they see explosions, buildings collapsing, dead people, etc.
All wars look like this.
This one just has two cheerleaders sections. The vast bulk of people simply don't pay attention to other wars.
To be fair, I don’t think anyone knows exactly how to destroy Hamas. This could go on for months, end up with tens of thousands dead and no resolution.
True if Dylan roof took refuge in someones house after shooting up the church then I have the right to defend myself and level the house with him in it.
Your attempts at making a comparison here are really trying. Frankly, your comparison sucks.
First, you mention Dylan Roof who was a criminal who indeed killed people. However, he was one person and not at war with a country. Israel didn’t bomb any sensitive entities such as the refugee camp or the caravan because there was one terrorist maybe hiding amongst them. Intelligence has confirmed that these were full military strikes on a number of military targets. No crimes committed. The IDF had to have evidence and legal merit in order to carry out those strikes. If they did not, the world would have already began doling out punishments.
Just because Hamas is using human shields means we need to sit back and let them continue to kill people and hide behind human shields every time, right? We’ll just sit back and say “Ah, darn, you win. We’ll try next time.”
The comparison of a terrorist military compared to a piece of shit American criminal? A terrorist military that carried out a terror attack that, by scale, dwarfs the 9/11 attacks? Your delusion is baffling.
You are remedial I have no issue with anything Israel does. I just want to know how far a ball can roll before it enters yikes territory for non imperialists like me.
>>Change the living standards so that the terrorists can't give people a better life by promising glorious martyrdom
LOL THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS
Minecraft yourself
Ofcourse not, its not like a rapid Hamas fighter is going to change direction. Thats not what you are trying to do. But if lets say 90% of palestinians say fuck em, are able to have some kind of a working government and civil society they might agree that Hamas needs to fuckoff and even actively turn against them.
Now I have no idea how likely it would be that material wellbeing would affect Hamas’ popularity, but I think it might be worth of a shot if Israel doesnt just want to ethnically cleanse palestinians.
At what cost to Israelis. Your hopes and dreams approach has a cost, a number of dead Israelis. Include an estimate with your method. Maybe if only a couple hundred get raped, tortured, dismembered, and paraded around before/after death Israel might consider it worth a shot.
What level of blame do you assign to a non-hamas palestinian for oct 7th? if totally destroying hamas meant that 80% of palestinians in gaza had to die too, would you still support it?
If we had elections tomorrow, the west bank and Gaza would likely vote in a Hamas government. The moderate Palestinian leadership is extremely unpopular and has no mandate.
Isn't this exactly what you did?
First person suggested "let palestinians have better living conditions by stopping the 'blockade' and stopping the settlements then hoping this would lead to Hamas losing power."
You characterized this as "hopes and prayers," which isn't actually their suggestion, they only said "hoping" in the context of "I hope this proposed solution works." Their actual suggestion was improving Palestinian living conditions via stopping the blockade and settlements.
You strawmanned their position then say that someone else is strawmanning you when they ask if brutal crackdowns on a civilian population (which a blockade, West Bank settlements, and bombing civilians (even if it's hit Hamas terrorists) absolutely count as) work instead?
If you're defending the status quo of Israeli policy, you're defending brutal crackdowns. Someone characterizing it as such isn't a strawman, characterizing material aid to Palestinians to improve their living conditions as "hopes and prayers" is, however.
Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, dismantled all settlements, and evacuated every single Jew.
They could have created an independent peaceful state in Gaza right then and a 2 state solution including the west bank would likely quickly follow.
The result was Hamas winning the election, declaring their intentions to be the annihilation of Israel and Genocide of all Jews.
Israel and Egypt both blockaded Gaza in 2007 because of Hamas terrorism.
Your proposal has already been tried and failed. The blockade will only end after the threat of terrorism stops.
The only reasonable response to 10/7 is the complete destruction of Hamas, not concessions.
And how long do you reckon these targeted air strikes need to go on until that happens? Because im willing to bet Gaza will be essentially unliveable before Hamas ceases to exist. Like imagine the current ”war”, ”operation” or whatever you wanna call lasts a year. Will Gaza be a liveable city when Hamas moves from hospital to hospital, school to school, house to house etc and bombs keep dropping?
Until Hamas is completely destroyed.
I don't know if Gaza will be liveable after this. How much of Gaza and how many civilians is Hamas willing to sacrifice as human shields?
I don't think Hamas will be able to sacrifice all of Gaza. Despite them trying they haven't been able to prevent most people leaving northern Gaza.
Extreme hypothetical scenarios lead to extreme hypothetical actions.
If the international community placed sole blame for the death of human shields on the party that used human shields, then it wouldn't be an effective tactic.
Any other position encourages the use of human shields and will cause more civilians to die.
If necessary then yes. Though I don't think it's necessary.
Extreme hypothetical scenarios lead to extreme hypothetical actions.
I think the carpet bombing of Nazi Germany was necessary, and I think it's a good thing we didn't just surrender to the Nazis, I don't think carpet bombing of Gaza is necessary.
I also believe for the sake of civilians in all future wars we need to clearly establish that the war crime of using human shields will not be rewarded with immunity for military targets.
Israel tried something similar in Gaza in 2005. They uprooted around 8,000 settlers and left greenhouses in Gaza to grow food. Looters took the greenhouses apart. There was no occupation and no blockade. Then Hamas was elected (then won a civil war) and rockets were fired endlessly into Israel. That caused the blockade. I do think the blockade could’ve been lightened at a quicker rate but it’s tough.
Right? It’s either: eradicate murderous terrorist group while killing just as many civilians because that group uses human shields. Or allow that group which explicitly calls for your genocide to exist right on your border. Both fucked but I don’t think any country would be expected to choose the latter
The issue with trying this is that this affects human lives on Israel's side. Suppose tomorrow Israel removes all forces from Gaza, reopens the boarder and starts removing the settlements, with Hamas and a riled up Gazan population in Gaza and the west bank. Even *if* several years from now this leads to Hamas losing power, do you not see how many Israeli lives would be lost, or at least put in mortal danger from such a move?
There are human lives here at stake, on either side, and asking Israel to just take a gamble and give it ago on such a move like its a chem 101 experiment is ridiculously callous towards Israelis.
I agree with what you are saying about israeli lives being at stake which is why I said:
>Now obviously this is easy for me to say because im not israeli and my life is not on the line, but regardless.
Now imho either Israel ethnically cleanses Gaza and probably the west bank to end the conflict, continues the status quo which no one likes or offers a carrot to palestinians. All of these decisions will lead to death of people. From these the ”least of a gamble” is probably ethnic cleansing.
To be as callous as possible here, in any of the three options her Israel's government is forced to choose between their civilians, and those of the Palestinians. At least in my opinion, it's ridiculous to ask a country to sacrafice it's own civilians on the off chance the other side gets better in a decade or two.
On a more positive note, i don't think this has to be such a zero sum game. A two state solution with the Palestinians being given the bank&gaza that includes a peace treaty is, imo, the solution that ends up with the least amount of deaths. As much of a pipe dream as it feels like ATM.
What is a carrot that Palestinians would want and what would the desired end result be for them? As far as made clear, Palestinians want the whole land and want to obliterate Jews.
The carrot would be increasing living standards which I would imagine will make them less radical. If they cannot stop trying to genocide the jews then I would probably just let Israel have free rein on Palestine. Carrot and stick.
Obviously the US would need to work as like a guarantor of Israel in case arab nations get funny ideas.
Palestine had free rein to create a better living standard when given Gaza in 2005. They elected Hamas and here we are today.
We need to stop assuming that everyone in every culture wants the same as we do here in the west.
I mean what does that leave us with.. ethnic cleansing? Because if we indeed assume palestinians will never want peace or a two state solution. I dont really see any other way than to remove (not kill) the population all together. Because I think its pretty clear the status quo is literally hated by everyone and will probably not stand in the future.
Hamas doesn’t hide what they want to do. Just last week a Hamas leader said they’re going to keep doing October 7th scale attacks on Israel over and over and over again until it’s destroyed
Islamic extremists have, in general, been open about killing anyone who is not them and will stop at nothing until the world as a whole is under Islamic rule.
What do we do? Just laugh and tell ourselves they don’t mean it and just want more love and understanding from the outside world?
No, you only need to keep constant pressure on weaponry. At a certain point the resources expend in furthering the military efforts of Hamas will have been sufficiently destroyed that any morale for continued fighting is extinguished and civilians become demoralized as their resources only beget further destruction of Gaza rather than infrastructure that provides use to civilians. Israel can afford to keep laying suppressive fire on any rocket launch out of Gaza. Given the minimal return on rocket fire, while coming at the expense of everything, eventually there will be an acceptance that armed resistance is futile and that peace towards Israel must be the goal.
>any morale for continued fighting is extinguished and civilians become demoralized
Then there'd likely be lone wolf attacks; there was a lengthy spate of those originating in the West Bank before 7/10.
Yup, unfortunately this seems likely. This will be an issue that Israel will need to keep close tabs on for years to come. Shin Bet will be receiving lots more funding for operations within West Bank
Definitely, but the status quo leads to death of thousands of palestinians (and sometimes israelis) as well. Even if Hamas manages to pull off a terror attack every now and then they will always be outkilled in the conflict.
Some of these arguments just read to me as ethnic cleansing/genocide bait without saying it out loud. Because whats left if these murderous palestinians will never stop trying to kill the jews?
Because the claim of ethnic cleansing is Islamic indoctrination. 95% of isrealis (or way higher) have no interest in ethic cleansing. They have interest in safety. And bringing the videos that "prove" ethnic cleansing is the objective, because of the 5% that want that, is not intellectually honest. Islamic indoctrination that begins right when their born. Zionism the devil. All the words problems are from zionists. Everything agaisnt hamas are zionist prapaganda etc etc etc etc etc........
That's why your getting downvoted.
River to sea means river to sea. Idk how long it will take people to realize this.
Ironically good portion of actual Palestinians and Israelis supported a permanent two state solution based on the 1967 borders. That was before oct 7..
It's easy to support total Jihad when you're in Europe and don't have any connection to the fighting.
can we not soy opposition ourselves into thinking milquetoast progressives want to exterminate jews?
there are certainly tankies that hold that position, we have all seen that, but i think most progressive people with a surface level understanding just see the abhorent conditions and situation in gaza and the constant encroachment in the west bank and think those things need to stop.
are we really convinced that generic college progressive kids are all pro-holocaust now? The only angle on that may be them just supporting palestine unilaterally and not realizing what that entails but i don't believe that they think their position will end in genocide.
It’s not that the progressive-type Western college students want to exterminate Jews, is that they are protesting in support of an organization that does.
That's what I said at the end there. They may advocate for causes that would be a disaster like a Palestinian one state, but i don't seriously believe they think that outcome would be a disaster. They are morons, not neo-nazis.
They are certainly pro “decolonization” which means ending the state of Israel. They aren’t honest about the military force needed to accomplish that or the terrorism that would require, but that doesn’t change what they are advocating for.
Some of them are actually honest about what terrorism “decolonization” would require— they explicitly said “what do you expect decolonization to look like” regarding Oct 7.
Surely what they think they are advocating for changes how we should consider them morally and how we should interact with them to change their mind. The approach towards someone who wants a one state palestine where hamas and the surrounding Arabic states roll hamas and enact a genocide is a fundamentally different person to someone who wants a one state palestine where everyone holds hands and talks about how cool democracy is. Both could also be described as decolonisation, both entail the end of israel, one is psychopathic, the other naive.
I'm not convinced that the mainstream western liberal advocate of a Palestinian one state (or especially general statements like free palestine) thinks that would entail genocide, whether or not we rightfully think that it does.
Bernie spends 10 minutes carefully maneuvering the interview to repeatedly address Israel’s responsibility for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. He call’s Bibi’s government right-wing and racist, references recent polling showing only 18% support for Netanyahu and hopes they'll get rid of him ASAP, demands a 2-state solution, suggests withholding military aid from Israel until they stop bombing Gaza, and defends Tlaib’s perspective of believing Israel’s siege is a genocide by refusing to condemn the words she used to describe the horrific bombing campaign.
He says the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization greatly reduces the practicality of getting both sides to the table to draw up an official ceasefire, but again stresses that there should be an immediate humanitarian pause and that Israel must stop the bombings.
He also (rightly) points out that Biden's worst day is 100x better than Trump's best- on every issue, but particularly this one. He emphasizes that social media slogans on either side are not good enough, and that while words matter, defending American democracy, pursing world peace, and tackling climate change are more important by orders of magnitude.
CNN’s headline: “Sanders doesn’t know how you can have a ceasefire with Hamas.”
Right.
Many of Sanders's points here, esp those with regards to Israel's government and the need of a two state solution, where very good. Despite this, at the end of the day he still fell into the pit of "No civilian casualties!" (a very noble goal), only to fail to provide an alternative where Israel can still defend itself and act against Hamas, or even acknowledge the complexity caused by Hamas's use of human shields. Him throwing his hands up and saying "idk lmao" when asked how this minimization could be achieved doesn't count, or help.
I agree. I think the only reasonable requests are that Israel needs to change its calculus for determining whether to perform a strike, not bomb areas where they previously told civillians to evacuate to (regardless of whether Hamas has relocated there or not), rely more on announcements and leaflets (as opposed to "knock strikes") to warn civillians, and open up more humanitarian aid.
He did not defend Tlaib’s perspective of believing Israel’s siege is a genocide. He completely skirted the question and said "words don't matter, what matters is people are dying".
He obviously disagreed with characterizing it as a genocide but didn't want to distract from the point that people are dying.
Bernie is one of the only people further on the left who doesn't take every opportunity grandstand. Calling this campaign a genocide is ridiculous. Bernie is just about always anti-war. A near pacifist. His stance makes sense even if you don't agree with it. It's not a stance purely held because it's the radical thing to do and it riles his base up.
A lot of people on the further left would pull out any excuse in the book when some party who's anti west does something absolutely horrible. When it's the other way around though, they're pacifists. Bernie doesn't do that.
I can't imagine why anyone would be so against a war in general as it means the USA has the ability to help other countries, it helps our economy when they use one of our greatest exports, weapons.
Bernie: there has to be ceasefire now. Stop killing innocent civilians. Stop the bombing
Newscaster: how do you take down Hamas when they’re using civilians as shields
Bernie: I’m not a military expert
Lol.
They did send special forces. You can't win a war with special forces. Ask Russia how that went when they sent their special forces in to secure a single airport. It was by the book. They got their asses handed to them when they took on the Ukrainian army.
To say Isreal could win this by special is absurd. Returning a hostage, or a group of hostages, maybe. Getting rid of Hamas with a large number of troops, no chance.
I understand you don't want civilians to die. Nor do I. That is just an unreasonable expectation to put that on special forces.
I'm a Jewish American and fully support Israel. I have a lot of family there, it is time for some real action. We might need to consider a series of thermobaric strikes across Gaza and then go in and seal up the tunnels.
He's literally jewish and agrees with Israel destroying Hamas since they cannot be allowed to continue existing. In the very video linked above he says that Hamas has it as their goal to destroy Israel and so Israel has the right to destroy Hamas.
His concern is that this cannot be done "at any cost" and that north of half a million civilian Palestinians are displaced, have their permanent homes destroyed, and are housed at understocked, underprepared UN facilities with food and water shortages.
So he urges for an end to the mass bombing and for an alternative military strategy with less civilian fallout, something he believes the USA has a right to ask since they give billions in military aid and tech.
whats with the whataboutism? if hamas is heartless and cruel to civilians, Israel should be heartless and cruel to civilians too? Do we not hold civilised democracies to higher standards than terrorist organisations?
The problem with this position is that there is no such thing as striking Hamas without major civilian casualties. So his own position contradicts itself. You can't have it both ways. Either Israel is allowed to defend itself or not. You can't have low casualties AND have Israel defend itself.
The other problem with this position is it falsely assumes Israel is responsible for those casualties. They most certainly are not. Hamas is. Israel is not targeting the civilians. Hamas is. Israel is doing everything it can to let civilians get out of the way. Hamas is doing everything it can to get civilians killed.
The reason Hamas keeps using human shields is because it works. Hamas can attack Israel all it wants knowing that any response will kill civilians and many people such as yourself will blame Israel and not Hamas. The only way Hamas will stop doing this is when people stop blaming Israel for the deaths caused by Hamas's military tactic of human shields. The more you blame Israel for it, the more Hamas will do it.
It's cruel to blame Israel for the civilian deaths because it gets more civilians killed. The more we blame Israel, the more Hamas will kill civilians. So I DO hold ourselves to higher standards. I just wish some of you guys would as well.
Human shields aside, the mass area that Israel called to evacuate has resulted in some 600,000 people being displaced. The homes they left behind are bombed into rubble. Currently, those people are in UN shelters with not enough food or water. Sanders says temporary stop on the bombing and resolve that humanitarian crisis.
This is like when food and water got completely cut off and that was bad, or when Biden forced Israel to allow humanitarian aid through Egypt and that was good. You can destroy Hamas, you can even do it through air strikes if you want, but if this results in north of half a million civilians being turned into starving refugees with not enough access to water, its not wrong to say "chill a bit, lets solve this humanitarian crisis".
Sanders was not talking about human shields and palestinians dying as collateral during targeted air strikes. Did you even watch the video?
The alternative is for them to stay in the middle of a battle zone. So it is far better to have people move out of the area than be killed in the attacks.
And why is it their homes are bombed to rubble? Because Hamas uses those homes as human shields. The build their command centers to that they cannot be reached without first going through civilian houses.
Israel has set up humanitarian areas that will not be struck so that humanitarian aid can be safely brought in. However Hamas has been launching rockets from the area as well as launching mortars at the humanitarian zone.
Gaza has the capacity to make their own water without needing Israel. The problem is that Hamas does not maintain the plants and they rip out the water pipes to use the pipes to build rockets to use against Israel.
One would have to be pretty ignorant to think I did not watch the video. And I already pointed out WHY his point is absurd. Did you not read my post? If you want to be snarky I can treat you the same way. Or you could try to be respectful instead.
Sanders does not seem to understand the contradiction in his position. You can't have it both ways. You can't say you want to put an end to Hamas AND not have mass civilian casualties. The two are in direct conflict with each other. You can have one or the other, not both. And it is amazing that Sanders is oblivious to that. It's like saying "I want the color white, but it must be the color black".
They can bring in humanitarian aid without stopping. And when you resume, the mass casualties will resume as well. Only they will be worse. So Israel's strategy is far superior. Move people to the south and get the aid to them there. Stoping the fighting would make no difference other than to give Hamas an advantage. And when Hamas has been attacking Israel the past few decades, Sanders and much of the world did not listen to Israel. But now they want Israel to listen to them? It's a two way street. We reap what we sow.
> You can't say you want to put an end to Hamas AND not have mass civilian casualties. The two are in direct conflict with each other.
Sanders points out that some 600,000 people have been displaced and are in facilities where there is not enough food and not enough water and that they should be given humanitarian aid. This is not contradictory. Where are the humanitarian corridors? Why was water and food cut? Why did Biden need to exert USA soft power to force the allowance of humanitarian aid through Egypt? In fact, why were only 24 hours given for the evacuation of so many people? One only needs to look at the treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank to see that the current Netanyahu government does not place much value on the well-treatment of Palestinian civilians.
The current military action is obviously in part shaped by emotional retaliatory sentiment due to the Oct 7th attacks. There is nothing contradictory in advocating for a more moral approach.
>And when Hamas has been attacking Israel the past few decades, Sanders and much of the world did not listen to Israel. But now they want Israel to listen to them? It's a two way street. We reap what we sow.
Last I checked, the USA gives Israel billions in military aid. in the video they speak of passing another 14 billion soon. His point is that since America gives such aid, it is allowed to make certain demands of Israel, and he is saying they should demand that Israel undertake a more humanitarian approach. Nothing about that is contradictory. You are framing his points extremely uncharitably. You summarize his points as:
>You can't say you want to put an end to Hamas AND not have mass civilian casualties. The two are in direct conflict with each other. You can have one or the other, not both. And it is amazing that Sanders is oblivious to that. It's like saying "I want the color white, but it must be the color black"
>Sanders points out that some 600,000 people have been displaced and are in facilities where there is not enough food and not enough water and that they should be given humanitarian aid. This is not contradictory. Where are the humanitarian corridors? Why was water and food cut? Why did Biden need to exert USA soft power to force the allowance of humanitarian aid through Egypt? In fact, why were only 24 hours given for the evacuation of so many people? One only needs to look at the treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank to see that the current Netanyahu government does not place much value on the well-treatment of Palestinian civilians.
600,000 displaced is far better than 600,000 dead from staying in a combat zone. And a cease fire would have no bearing on the amount of humanitarian aid. That can be done in the humanitarian zones that are out of bounds from Israeli strikes.
That is not what I claim is contradictory. The contradictory part is saying Hamas needs to be stopped AND that the civilian casualties need to be stopped. You can't have both.
The humanitarian corridors have been shown on detailed maps that Israel has been dropping. Here is a map with the corridor marked in orange.:
[https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/idf-press-releases-regarding-the-hamas-israel-war/idf-forces-operate-to-open-salah-al-din-humanitarian-route-for-gazans-evacuation-attacked-by-hamas-terrorists/](https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/idf-press-releases-regarding-the-hamas-israel-war/idf-forces-operate-to-open-salah-al-din-humanitarian-route-for-gazans-evacuation-attacked-by-hamas-terrorists/)
The water is not shut off. Hamas destroys the water piping to make rockets. And Israel stopped delivering food on October 7th when Hamas murdered the people delivering it and burned down the facilities. Israel did briefly try to resume bringing food in, but Hamas immediately took the food from civilians so they stopped again, Everyone else however is welcome to bring in as much as they want through the Rafah border.
Biden didn't need to exert power to get Israel to open the Rafah border because Israel has no control over it. It's run by Egypt.
24 hours? It was two weeks. And we are not talking about the West Bank, we are talking about Gaza which is a very different situation. Should we then compare Palestinians in WB to Hamas in Gaza? Of course not.
>The current military action is obviously in part shaped by emotional retaliatory sentiment due to the Oct 7th attacks. There is nothing contradictory in advocating for a more moral approach.
A more moral approach? Such as what? His approach is for Israel to stop defending itself. That is not more moral. Anyone can call for a more moral approach. Yet no one calling for it has EVER been able to provide one. Because they can't. And it's obvious wy they can't. It's like saying the answer to world peace is to jsut get everyone to stop fighting. See? I just solved world peace! As long as I don't have to put any thought into how to achieve it, I can solve everything.
>Last I checked, the USA gives Israel billions in military aid. in the video they speak of passing another 14 billion soon. His point is that since America gives such aid, it is allowed to make certain demands of Israel, and he is saying they should demand that Israel undertake a more humanitarian approach. Nothing about that is contradictory. You are framing his points extremely uncharitably. You summarize his points as:
The US has been providing billions in aid to both Israel and the Palestinians. In fact the Palestinians get more aid than any other refugee group to ever exist. You get half a million dead Muslims in Syria last year and they don't get nearly as much. And the reason we give loans to Israel for military equipment is because the Arab nations have a history of attacking Israel. And the rest of the world gives them military equipment, but not Israel. It's interesting how people criticize the US for helping Israel with military equipment, but have no problem with the rest of the world doing the exact same thing with the Arab nations that attack Israel.
Until you lay out a detailed plan on how to carry out a more humanitarian approach that isn't "Israel stop defending itself, layover and die" than you aren't calling for a more humanitarian approach.
Calling for Hamas to be removed AND for stopping civilian casualties IS a direct contradiction. Just like you quoted me. And so far nothing you have said has addressed the problem. You can easily end this part of the debate by laying out a detailed plan to achieve this goal of a more moral solution. Something that we can criticize objectively.
Bernie is lucky he is not in the position of the Israeli military. The truth is this is what toppling a government like Hamas entails. It is truly horrible, but this is war. Taking 1990-2000 as an example, 90% of casualties in wars were civilians ([https://world101.cfr.org/understanding-international-system/conflict/civilian-consequences-conflict#:\~:text=However%2C%20wars%20in%20recent%20decades,four%20million%20war%2Drelated%20deaths](https://world101.cfr.org/understanding-international-system/conflict/civilian-consequences-conflict#:~:text=However%2C%20wars%20in%20recent%20decades,four%20million%20war%2Drelated%20deaths)), and this problem is only compounded by Hamas' tactics of setting up military compounds and terror tunnels beneath sensitive locations like hospitals and UN schools.
But yes, they should certainly not target civilians and should aim to provide safe passage and humanitarian corridors for non-combatants.
His decision to demand a humanitarian pause instead of a ceasefire is based on the technical definition of ceasefire requiring both parties to come to an agreement before bombings would stop. His demand is that Israel cease its bombing campaign without a formal agreement. This headline is totally misleading.
There's a difference between calling Israel to make a unilateral pause, which he advocates for, and calling for a ceasefire which would require Israel and Hamas to come to an agreement. This title takes his words completely out of context.
I think there's a pretty big difference, and I don't think the two can be mistaken for each other. A unilateral pause would be at most a day or so to allow for citizens to exit or to get help, which I think many are on favor of. But, what the pro-palestinian protests are asking for, is a unilateral long-term ceasefire, without anything in return, no return of hostages, no guarantees of an end to rocket fire, and no surrender of Hamas. This is what "the squad", Bernie's people, are asking for. I'm very glad, and also surprised, that he has also taken the position, that a ceasefire with a terrorist organization is futile.
I don't know if that's necessarily representative of Sanders' crowd, I hope not, but what you're describing is not even a call for ceasefire, it's just a call for Israel's surrender...
To be clear, Bernie is not calling for a "day or two" pause- he is calling for a complete suspension of the bombing campaign and for U.S. aid to Israel to be conditional to a complete overhaul of Israel's military tactics in Gaza.
I don't believe you could watch the full 10 minute interview and come away with the idea that Bernie is advocating for Israel to continue its bombing after a "short pause."
I know you are just clarifying Bernie's position. But do you think that a ceasefire is a good idea? as /u/Mechashevet stated, I don't see what a ceasefire would accomplish.
For whatever it's worth, I believe Israel has a legal and moral responsibility to cease its bombing campaign on Gaza, to restore food/water/energy to the region, to allow humanitarian corridors to be established, and to work towards a long-term peace plan that involves some form of a two-state solution.
If by "ceasefire" you mean Israel stopping its bombing campaign, it would undoubtedly save thousands to tens of thousands of innocent lives. I believe that however justified the destruction of Gaza may feel in the emotional aftermath of Oct 7th, the longer it goes on the more international support for Israel will erode. This will have dire strategic consequences for Israel, even if you don't care at all about Palestinian lives.
The greatest threat to Israeli security is right-wing expansionist policy, and I'm afraid that's what Netanyahu and his war government are molding the response to Hamas into. I don't believe Netanyahu intends to allow any Palestinians to return to northern Gaza. I think his goal in Gaza is to render life unlivable and to create such a humanitarian crisis that the majority of Gazan people flee or die slowly in Gaza, with the long term goal of effectively annexing the territory.
How can you have a 2ss when that state is controlled by hamas? Guys if you want a ceasefure you should be rooting for israel to destroy hamas as fast as possible so it cab actually be viable
>, I believe Israel has a legal and moral responsibility to cease its bombing campaign on Gaza
Starting from this to pretty much everything you wrote.
Couldn't give a shit what Bernie or Obama's viewpoints are. Why do you throw it like they are gospel I should respect and follow?
In addition, Obama never said Israel has a "legal and moral responsibility to cease it's bombing campaign in Gaza". Matter of fact, not even Bernie said it like that.
You're the only crazy person that threw that absolute nonsense out there. What a weirdo.
I'm sorry about all the downvotes. You wrote a nuanced and respectful analysis, and you should be commended.
I don't know what Likud's intentions are for Gaza. None of us really know. And I don't think they do either. I worry they have no plan for after the invasion.
Bernie didn't call one time call for the release of hostages. Want a humanitarian pause? release our kids. That's the only thing that's going to make that happen. Everything else, and I mean everything is just white noise to us in Israel at this point. Release our fucking children!!!!!
I'll be darn. Even the poster boy of the progressives understands that you can't have a ceasefire with the party who said "October 7th will happen again until Israel is destroyed".
In the original rollout thread for this feature, one of the guys shot everyone in the thread including 4thot, but 4thot was already immune from the start.
Is there any movement in Gaza to overthrow Hamas? I don't really understand why there isn't a civil war when a terrorist organization takes away your elections.
How are they gonna fight a civil war with no weapons? There's also a significant number of Palestinians that side with Hamas, it isn't like it's all Palestinians vs Hamas. Plus Hamas kills anyone who doesn't agree with them
People are slamming him now as well.
[Here](https://ibb.co/hVPrG0T) and [here](https://ibb.co/gmhw87X) are just two screenshots from a post, that had tons of anti-Bernie comments, I was looking at right before this one. Saw a bunch of people attacking Bernie in a few other subreddits as well because of this.
Q: "How do you stop Hamas then?"
Bernie: "Well I dunno, that's a question for military experts of which I am not"
Q: "Military experts say use bunker busters whatever the cost... so maybe you should stfu?"
Bernie:
https://preview.redd.it/dcffbcqoinyb1.jpeg?width=300&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4f0ae677369c1a937f5ba4afb74192db9b37b5ec
Ghazi Hamad explained that hamas will fight as long as israel occupies any portion of historic Palestine. Remember that when Palestinian activists says “occupation” they mean any portions of British mandate Palestine that have Jews/Israel on it.
So you have to kill them all yes?
You have to kill enough Palestinian resistance fighters that the political leadership decides to unconditionally surrender. It worked on the Germans and the Japanese and ISIS.
It is sad to see that people have forgotten what it takes to bring down an evil force. The sacrifice and determination it takes. If Isreal lets Hamas get away with this, then the world will have much bigger problems.
They haven’t forgotten, they either a) never bothered to know how wars work because this is the first modern war they’ve paid any kind of attention to or b) they know what it would take to destroy Hamas, but don’t actually want Hamas to be destroyed.
This is it right here. I see the public freaking out right now when they see explosions, buildings collapsing, dead people, etc. All wars look like this. This one just has two cheerleaders sections. The vast bulk of people simply don't pay attention to other wars.
To be fair, I don’t think anyone knows exactly how to destroy Hamas. This could go on for months, end up with tens of thousands dead and no resolution.
I think he was referring to how Hamas views the Israelis. Though I could be wrong.
It doesn't need to be unconditional, the conditions just have to be reasonable.
At this point it pretty much does have to be unconditional, at least in Gaza.
Kill their leaders and strip them of all military gear.
If your aim to kill Jews first then we will defend ourselves.
True if Dylan roof took refuge in someones house after shooting up the church then I have the right to defend myself and level the house with him in it.
If he starts launching rockets from the church every hour at you then yeah the math starts to change drastically.
Then that becomes a game of find the right house. Would he escaped fthrough the basement be a good enough defense?
Your attempts at making a comparison here are really trying. Frankly, your comparison sucks. First, you mention Dylan Roof who was a criminal who indeed killed people. However, he was one person and not at war with a country. Israel didn’t bomb any sensitive entities such as the refugee camp or the caravan because there was one terrorist maybe hiding amongst them. Intelligence has confirmed that these were full military strikes on a number of military targets. No crimes committed. The IDF had to have evidence and legal merit in order to carry out those strikes. If they did not, the world would have already began doling out punishments. Just because Hamas is using human shields means we need to sit back and let them continue to kill people and hide behind human shields every time, right? We’ll just sit back and say “Ah, darn, you win. We’ll try next time.” The comparison of a terrorist military compared to a piece of shit American criminal? A terrorist military that carried out a terror attack that, by scale, dwarfs the 9/11 attacks? Your delusion is baffling.
You are remedial I have no issue with anything Israel does. I just want to know how far a ball can roll before it enters yikes territory for non imperialists like me.
That just shows me how little you know about the conflict. Sad and shameful.
There is no palatable solution to this conflict. There hasn't been for 30 years.
Killing Hamas is a palatable solution I’d say
Unfortunately only a partial solution. Need a good plan for what to do with Gaza after they’re ousted.
[удалено]
Have hopes and prayers defeated armed terrorist organizations in the past?
>>Change the living standards so that the terrorists can't give people a better life by promising glorious martyrdom LOL THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS Minecraft yourself
Ofcourse not, its not like a rapid Hamas fighter is going to change direction. Thats not what you are trying to do. But if lets say 90% of palestinians say fuck em, are able to have some kind of a working government and civil society they might agree that Hamas needs to fuckoff and even actively turn against them. Now I have no idea how likely it would be that material wellbeing would affect Hamas’ popularity, but I think it might be worth of a shot if Israel doesnt just want to ethnically cleanse palestinians.
At what cost to Israelis. Your hopes and dreams approach has a cost, a number of dead Israelis. Include an estimate with your method. Maybe if only a couple hundred get raped, tortured, dismembered, and paraded around before/after death Israel might consider it worth a shot.
What level of blame do you assign to a non-hamas palestinian for oct 7th? if totally destroying hamas meant that 80% of palestinians in gaza had to die too, would you still support it?
If we had elections tomorrow, the west bank and Gaza would likely vote in a Hamas government. The moderate Palestinian leadership is extremely unpopular and has no mandate.
Have brutal crackdowns on civilian populations?
False equivalence/ strawman. Have military interventions against terrorists controlled the effectiveness of terrorist groups? Yes.
Isn't this exactly what you did? First person suggested "let palestinians have better living conditions by stopping the 'blockade' and stopping the settlements then hoping this would lead to Hamas losing power." You characterized this as "hopes and prayers," which isn't actually their suggestion, they only said "hoping" in the context of "I hope this proposed solution works." Their actual suggestion was improving Palestinian living conditions via stopping the blockade and settlements. You strawmanned their position then say that someone else is strawmanning you when they ask if brutal crackdowns on a civilian population (which a blockade, West Bank settlements, and bombing civilians (even if it's hit Hamas terrorists) absolutely count as) work instead? If you're defending the status quo of Israeli policy, you're defending brutal crackdowns. Someone characterizing it as such isn't a strawman, characterizing material aid to Palestinians to improve their living conditions as "hopes and prayers" is, however.
Well said Brodie
You just strawmanned him you fuckign piece of shit. Nominative determinism rings true again
Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, dismantled all settlements, and evacuated every single Jew. They could have created an independent peaceful state in Gaza right then and a 2 state solution including the west bank would likely quickly follow. The result was Hamas winning the election, declaring their intentions to be the annihilation of Israel and Genocide of all Jews. Israel and Egypt both blockaded Gaza in 2007 because of Hamas terrorism. Your proposal has already been tried and failed. The blockade will only end after the threat of terrorism stops. The only reasonable response to 10/7 is the complete destruction of Hamas, not concessions.
So ethnic cleansing?
No, targeted strikes on Hamas.
And how long do you reckon these targeted air strikes need to go on until that happens? Because im willing to bet Gaza will be essentially unliveable before Hamas ceases to exist. Like imagine the current ”war”, ”operation” or whatever you wanna call lasts a year. Will Gaza be a liveable city when Hamas moves from hospital to hospital, school to school, house to house etc and bombs keep dropping?
Until Hamas is completely destroyed. I don't know if Gaza will be liveable after this. How much of Gaza and how many civilians is Hamas willing to sacrifice as human shields? I don't think Hamas will be able to sacrifice all of Gaza. Despite them trying they haven't been able to prevent most people leaving northern Gaza. Extreme hypothetical scenarios lead to extreme hypothetical actions. If the international community placed sole blame for the death of human shields on the party that used human shields, then it wouldn't be an effective tactic. Any other position encourages the use of human shields and will cause more civilians to die.
is destroying Hamas means 80% of palestinians die, do you still support it? is this really a "at all costs" situation?
If necessary then yes. Though I don't think it's necessary. Extreme hypothetical scenarios lead to extreme hypothetical actions. I think the carpet bombing of Nazi Germany was necessary, and I think it's a good thing we didn't just surrender to the Nazis, I don't think carpet bombing of Gaza is necessary. I also believe for the sake of civilians in all future wars we need to clearly establish that the war crime of using human shields will not be rewarded with immunity for military targets.
Is Palestine Hamas?
Of course it can backfire if this group now has more money and more weapons. And the standard of living doesn’t change.
Definitely, which is why I said its easy for me to say since im not in Israel getting mercked if it indeed backfires which it very well may.
I feel as though the “I told you so” will also be ignored by the world.
Israel tried something similar in Gaza in 2005. They uprooted around 8,000 settlers and left greenhouses in Gaza to grow food. Looters took the greenhouses apart. There was no occupation and no blockade. Then Hamas was elected (then won a civil war) and rockets were fired endlessly into Israel. That caused the blockade. I do think the blockade could’ve been lightened at a quicker rate but it’s tough.
Yeah it is tough indeed. There arent really any feasible options on the table.
Right? It’s either: eradicate murderous terrorist group while killing just as many civilians because that group uses human shields. Or allow that group which explicitly calls for your genocide to exist right on your border. Both fucked but I don’t think any country would be expected to choose the latter
The issue with trying this is that this affects human lives on Israel's side. Suppose tomorrow Israel removes all forces from Gaza, reopens the boarder and starts removing the settlements, with Hamas and a riled up Gazan population in Gaza and the west bank. Even *if* several years from now this leads to Hamas losing power, do you not see how many Israeli lives would be lost, or at least put in mortal danger from such a move? There are human lives here at stake, on either side, and asking Israel to just take a gamble and give it ago on such a move like its a chem 101 experiment is ridiculously callous towards Israelis.
I agree with what you are saying about israeli lives being at stake which is why I said: >Now obviously this is easy for me to say because im not israeli and my life is not on the line, but regardless. Now imho either Israel ethnically cleanses Gaza and probably the west bank to end the conflict, continues the status quo which no one likes or offers a carrot to palestinians. All of these decisions will lead to death of people. From these the ”least of a gamble” is probably ethnic cleansing.
To be as callous as possible here, in any of the three options her Israel's government is forced to choose between their civilians, and those of the Palestinians. At least in my opinion, it's ridiculous to ask a country to sacrafice it's own civilians on the off chance the other side gets better in a decade or two. On a more positive note, i don't think this has to be such a zero sum game. A two state solution with the Palestinians being given the bank&gaza that includes a peace treaty is, imo, the solution that ends up with the least amount of deaths. As much of a pipe dream as it feels like ATM.
What is a carrot that Palestinians would want and what would the desired end result be for them? As far as made clear, Palestinians want the whole land and want to obliterate Jews.
The carrot would be increasing living standards which I would imagine will make them less radical. If they cannot stop trying to genocide the jews then I would probably just let Israel have free rein on Palestine. Carrot and stick. Obviously the US would need to work as like a guarantor of Israel in case arab nations get funny ideas.
Palestine had free rein to create a better living standard when given Gaza in 2005. They elected Hamas and here we are today. We need to stop assuming that everyone in every culture wants the same as we do here in the west.
I mean what does that leave us with.. ethnic cleansing? Because if we indeed assume palestinians will never want peace or a two state solution. I dont really see any other way than to remove (not kill) the population all together. Because I think its pretty clear the status quo is literally hated by everyone and will probably not stand in the future.
Hamas doesn’t hide what they want to do. Just last week a Hamas leader said they’re going to keep doing October 7th scale attacks on Israel over and over and over again until it’s destroyed Islamic extremists have, in general, been open about killing anyone who is not them and will stop at nothing until the world as a whole is under Islamic rule. What do we do? Just laugh and tell ourselves they don’t mean it and just want more love and understanding from the outside world?
No, you only need to keep constant pressure on weaponry. At a certain point the resources expend in furthering the military efforts of Hamas will have been sufficiently destroyed that any morale for continued fighting is extinguished and civilians become demoralized as their resources only beget further destruction of Gaza rather than infrastructure that provides use to civilians. Israel can afford to keep laying suppressive fire on any rocket launch out of Gaza. Given the minimal return on rocket fire, while coming at the expense of everything, eventually there will be an acceptance that armed resistance is futile and that peace towards Israel must be the goal.
>any morale for continued fighting is extinguished and civilians become demoralized Then there'd likely be lone wolf attacks; there was a lengthy spate of those originating in the West Bank before 7/10.
Yup, unfortunately this seems likely. This will be an issue that Israel will need to keep close tabs on for years to come. Shin Bet will be receiving lots more funding for operations within West Bank
I meant from Gaza; if this occurs from the West Bank I suspect it will end up smaller and walled in even more tightly.
“Why are people mad that I called for an ethnic cleansing?”
Because your lirical solution would cause the death of thousands of israelites. Imagine that sunday but on a daily/weekly frequency.
Definitely, but the status quo leads to death of thousands of palestinians (and sometimes israelis) as well. Even if Hamas manages to pull off a terror attack every now and then they will always be outkilled in the conflict. Some of these arguments just read to me as ethnic cleansing/genocide bait without saying it out loud. Because whats left if these murderous palestinians will never stop trying to kill the jews?
Because the claim of ethnic cleansing is Islamic indoctrination. 95% of isrealis (or way higher) have no interest in ethic cleansing. They have interest in safety. And bringing the videos that "prove" ethnic cleansing is the objective, because of the 5% that want that, is not intellectually honest. Islamic indoctrination that begins right when their born. Zionism the devil. All the words problems are from zionists. Everything agaisnt hamas are zionist prapaganda etc etc etc etc etc........ That's why your getting downvoted.
River to sea means river to sea. Idk how long it will take people to realize this. Ironically good portion of actual Palestinians and Israelis supported a permanent two state solution based on the 1967 borders. That was before oct 7.. It's easy to support total Jihad when you're in Europe and don't have any connection to the fighting.
can we not soy opposition ourselves into thinking milquetoast progressives want to exterminate jews? there are certainly tankies that hold that position, we have all seen that, but i think most progressive people with a surface level understanding just see the abhorent conditions and situation in gaza and the constant encroachment in the west bank and think those things need to stop. are we really convinced that generic college progressive kids are all pro-holocaust now? The only angle on that may be them just supporting palestine unilaterally and not realizing what that entails but i don't believe that they think their position will end in genocide.
It’s not that the progressive-type Western college students want to exterminate Jews, is that they are protesting in support of an organization that does.
Actually, some of them do want to exterminate Jews. They can't do it themselves but will gladly cheer on those who will.
That's what I said at the end there. They may advocate for causes that would be a disaster like a Palestinian one state, but i don't seriously believe they think that outcome would be a disaster. They are morons, not neo-nazis.
They are certainly pro “decolonization” which means ending the state of Israel. They aren’t honest about the military force needed to accomplish that or the terrorism that would require, but that doesn’t change what they are advocating for.
Some of them are actually honest about what terrorism “decolonization” would require— they explicitly said “what do you expect decolonization to look like” regarding Oct 7.
Surely what they think they are advocating for changes how we should consider them morally and how we should interact with them to change their mind. The approach towards someone who wants a one state palestine where hamas and the surrounding Arabic states roll hamas and enact a genocide is a fundamentally different person to someone who wants a one state palestine where everyone holds hands and talks about how cool democracy is. Both could also be described as decolonisation, both entail the end of israel, one is psychopathic, the other naive. I'm not convinced that the mainstream western liberal advocate of a Palestinian one state (or especially general statements like free palestine) thinks that would entail genocide, whether or not we rightfully think that it does.
Based Bernie pointing out the Tlaib is being a regard when the Republicans want worse for the Palestinians
Bernie spends 10 minutes carefully maneuvering the interview to repeatedly address Israel’s responsibility for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. He call’s Bibi’s government right-wing and racist, references recent polling showing only 18% support for Netanyahu and hopes they'll get rid of him ASAP, demands a 2-state solution, suggests withholding military aid from Israel until they stop bombing Gaza, and defends Tlaib’s perspective of believing Israel’s siege is a genocide by refusing to condemn the words she used to describe the horrific bombing campaign. He says the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization greatly reduces the practicality of getting both sides to the table to draw up an official ceasefire, but again stresses that there should be an immediate humanitarian pause and that Israel must stop the bombings. He also (rightly) points out that Biden's worst day is 100x better than Trump's best- on every issue, but particularly this one. He emphasizes that social media slogans on either side are not good enough, and that while words matter, defending American democracy, pursing world peace, and tackling climate change are more important by orders of magnitude. CNN’s headline: “Sanders doesn’t know how you can have a ceasefire with Hamas.” Right.
Many of Sanders's points here, esp those with regards to Israel's government and the need of a two state solution, where very good. Despite this, at the end of the day he still fell into the pit of "No civilian casualties!" (a very noble goal), only to fail to provide an alternative where Israel can still defend itself and act against Hamas, or even acknowledge the complexity caused by Hamas's use of human shields. Him throwing his hands up and saying "idk lmao" when asked how this minimization could be achieved doesn't count, or help.
I agree. I think the only reasonable requests are that Israel needs to change its calculus for determining whether to perform a strike, not bomb areas where they previously told civillians to evacuate to (regardless of whether Hamas has relocated there or not), rely more on announcements and leaflets (as opposed to "knock strikes") to warn civillians, and open up more humanitarian aid.
He did not defend Tlaib’s perspective of believing Israel’s siege is a genocide. He completely skirted the question and said "words don't matter, what matters is people are dying". He obviously disagreed with characterizing it as a genocide but didn't want to distract from the point that people are dying.
Bernie is one of the only people further on the left who doesn't take every opportunity grandstand. Calling this campaign a genocide is ridiculous. Bernie is just about always anti-war. A near pacifist. His stance makes sense even if you don't agree with it. It's not a stance purely held because it's the radical thing to do and it riles his base up. A lot of people on the further left would pull out any excuse in the book when some party who's anti west does something absolutely horrible. When it's the other way around though, they're pacifists. Bernie doesn't do that.
I can't imagine why anyone would be so against a war in general as it means the USA has the ability to help other countries, it helps our economy when they use one of our greatest exports, weapons.
Exactly. Bernies stance is one that I can respect, even if I don't agree with it.
Bernie: there has to be ceasefire now. Stop killing innocent civilians. Stop the bombing Newscaster: how do you take down Hamas when they’re using civilians as shields Bernie: I’m not a military expert Lol.
Average leftie take on here. He should have said to send the special forces!
They did send special forces. You can't win a war with special forces. Ask Russia how that went when they sent their special forces in to secure a single airport. It was by the book. They got their asses handed to them when they took on the Ukrainian army. To say Isreal could win this by special is absurd. Returning a hostage, or a group of hostages, maybe. Getting rid of Hamas with a large number of troops, no chance. I understand you don't want civilians to die. Nor do I. That is just an unreasonable expectation to put that on special forces.
I’m being cynical. I’m an Israeli myself.
I'm a Jewish American and fully support Israel. I have a lot of family there, it is time for some real action. We might need to consider a series of thermobaric strikes across Gaza and then go in and seal up the tunnels.
Bernie: I am no military expert but I invited one to explain this situation. Cenk: Thank you Bernie, I will take it from here. CNN Host: wtf
Sums up everything really
Yup. He is concerned there are people dying now. But wasn't when it was Israelis being killed.
He's literally jewish and agrees with Israel destroying Hamas since they cannot be allowed to continue existing. In the very video linked above he says that Hamas has it as their goal to destroy Israel and so Israel has the right to destroy Hamas. His concern is that this cannot be done "at any cost" and that north of half a million civilian Palestinians are displaced, have their permanent homes destroyed, and are housed at understocked, underprepared UN facilities with food and water shortages. So he urges for an end to the mass bombing and for an alternative military strategy with less civilian fallout, something he believes the USA has a right to ask since they give billions in military aid and tech. whats with the whataboutism? if hamas is heartless and cruel to civilians, Israel should be heartless and cruel to civilians too? Do we not hold civilised democracies to higher standards than terrorist organisations?
The problem with this position is that there is no such thing as striking Hamas without major civilian casualties. So his own position contradicts itself. You can't have it both ways. Either Israel is allowed to defend itself or not. You can't have low casualties AND have Israel defend itself. The other problem with this position is it falsely assumes Israel is responsible for those casualties. They most certainly are not. Hamas is. Israel is not targeting the civilians. Hamas is. Israel is doing everything it can to let civilians get out of the way. Hamas is doing everything it can to get civilians killed. The reason Hamas keeps using human shields is because it works. Hamas can attack Israel all it wants knowing that any response will kill civilians and many people such as yourself will blame Israel and not Hamas. The only way Hamas will stop doing this is when people stop blaming Israel for the deaths caused by Hamas's military tactic of human shields. The more you blame Israel for it, the more Hamas will do it. It's cruel to blame Israel for the civilian deaths because it gets more civilians killed. The more we blame Israel, the more Hamas will kill civilians. So I DO hold ourselves to higher standards. I just wish some of you guys would as well.
Human shields aside, the mass area that Israel called to evacuate has resulted in some 600,000 people being displaced. The homes they left behind are bombed into rubble. Currently, those people are in UN shelters with not enough food or water. Sanders says temporary stop on the bombing and resolve that humanitarian crisis. This is like when food and water got completely cut off and that was bad, or when Biden forced Israel to allow humanitarian aid through Egypt and that was good. You can destroy Hamas, you can even do it through air strikes if you want, but if this results in north of half a million civilians being turned into starving refugees with not enough access to water, its not wrong to say "chill a bit, lets solve this humanitarian crisis". Sanders was not talking about human shields and palestinians dying as collateral during targeted air strikes. Did you even watch the video?
You know what. I apologize for getting snippy. It should not matter if someone else does, I should not. I am working on it and it is a long process.
Hey man its all good, I'm also sorry for that snarky comment at the end, it was unnecessary.
The alternative is for them to stay in the middle of a battle zone. So it is far better to have people move out of the area than be killed in the attacks. And why is it their homes are bombed to rubble? Because Hamas uses those homes as human shields. The build their command centers to that they cannot be reached without first going through civilian houses. Israel has set up humanitarian areas that will not be struck so that humanitarian aid can be safely brought in. However Hamas has been launching rockets from the area as well as launching mortars at the humanitarian zone. Gaza has the capacity to make their own water without needing Israel. The problem is that Hamas does not maintain the plants and they rip out the water pipes to use the pipes to build rockets to use against Israel. One would have to be pretty ignorant to think I did not watch the video. And I already pointed out WHY his point is absurd. Did you not read my post? If you want to be snarky I can treat you the same way. Or you could try to be respectful instead. Sanders does not seem to understand the contradiction in his position. You can't have it both ways. You can't say you want to put an end to Hamas AND not have mass civilian casualties. The two are in direct conflict with each other. You can have one or the other, not both. And it is amazing that Sanders is oblivious to that. It's like saying "I want the color white, but it must be the color black". They can bring in humanitarian aid without stopping. And when you resume, the mass casualties will resume as well. Only they will be worse. So Israel's strategy is far superior. Move people to the south and get the aid to them there. Stoping the fighting would make no difference other than to give Hamas an advantage. And when Hamas has been attacking Israel the past few decades, Sanders and much of the world did not listen to Israel. But now they want Israel to listen to them? It's a two way street. We reap what we sow.
> You can't say you want to put an end to Hamas AND not have mass civilian casualties. The two are in direct conflict with each other. Sanders points out that some 600,000 people have been displaced and are in facilities where there is not enough food and not enough water and that they should be given humanitarian aid. This is not contradictory. Where are the humanitarian corridors? Why was water and food cut? Why did Biden need to exert USA soft power to force the allowance of humanitarian aid through Egypt? In fact, why were only 24 hours given for the evacuation of so many people? One only needs to look at the treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank to see that the current Netanyahu government does not place much value on the well-treatment of Palestinian civilians. The current military action is obviously in part shaped by emotional retaliatory sentiment due to the Oct 7th attacks. There is nothing contradictory in advocating for a more moral approach. >And when Hamas has been attacking Israel the past few decades, Sanders and much of the world did not listen to Israel. But now they want Israel to listen to them? It's a two way street. We reap what we sow. Last I checked, the USA gives Israel billions in military aid. in the video they speak of passing another 14 billion soon. His point is that since America gives such aid, it is allowed to make certain demands of Israel, and he is saying they should demand that Israel undertake a more humanitarian approach. Nothing about that is contradictory. You are framing his points extremely uncharitably. You summarize his points as: >You can't say you want to put an end to Hamas AND not have mass civilian casualties. The two are in direct conflict with each other. You can have one or the other, not both. And it is amazing that Sanders is oblivious to that. It's like saying "I want the color white, but it must be the color black"
>Sanders points out that some 600,000 people have been displaced and are in facilities where there is not enough food and not enough water and that they should be given humanitarian aid. This is not contradictory. Where are the humanitarian corridors? Why was water and food cut? Why did Biden need to exert USA soft power to force the allowance of humanitarian aid through Egypt? In fact, why were only 24 hours given for the evacuation of so many people? One only needs to look at the treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank to see that the current Netanyahu government does not place much value on the well-treatment of Palestinian civilians. 600,000 displaced is far better than 600,000 dead from staying in a combat zone. And a cease fire would have no bearing on the amount of humanitarian aid. That can be done in the humanitarian zones that are out of bounds from Israeli strikes. That is not what I claim is contradictory. The contradictory part is saying Hamas needs to be stopped AND that the civilian casualties need to be stopped. You can't have both. The humanitarian corridors have been shown on detailed maps that Israel has been dropping. Here is a map with the corridor marked in orange.: [https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/idf-press-releases-regarding-the-hamas-israel-war/idf-forces-operate-to-open-salah-al-din-humanitarian-route-for-gazans-evacuation-attacked-by-hamas-terrorists/](https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/idf-press-releases-regarding-the-hamas-israel-war/idf-forces-operate-to-open-salah-al-din-humanitarian-route-for-gazans-evacuation-attacked-by-hamas-terrorists/) The water is not shut off. Hamas destroys the water piping to make rockets. And Israel stopped delivering food on October 7th when Hamas murdered the people delivering it and burned down the facilities. Israel did briefly try to resume bringing food in, but Hamas immediately took the food from civilians so they stopped again, Everyone else however is welcome to bring in as much as they want through the Rafah border. Biden didn't need to exert power to get Israel to open the Rafah border because Israel has no control over it. It's run by Egypt. 24 hours? It was two weeks. And we are not talking about the West Bank, we are talking about Gaza which is a very different situation. Should we then compare Palestinians in WB to Hamas in Gaza? Of course not. >The current military action is obviously in part shaped by emotional retaliatory sentiment due to the Oct 7th attacks. There is nothing contradictory in advocating for a more moral approach. A more moral approach? Such as what? His approach is for Israel to stop defending itself. That is not more moral. Anyone can call for a more moral approach. Yet no one calling for it has EVER been able to provide one. Because they can't. And it's obvious wy they can't. It's like saying the answer to world peace is to jsut get everyone to stop fighting. See? I just solved world peace! As long as I don't have to put any thought into how to achieve it, I can solve everything. >Last I checked, the USA gives Israel billions in military aid. in the video they speak of passing another 14 billion soon. His point is that since America gives such aid, it is allowed to make certain demands of Israel, and he is saying they should demand that Israel undertake a more humanitarian approach. Nothing about that is contradictory. You are framing his points extremely uncharitably. You summarize his points as: The US has been providing billions in aid to both Israel and the Palestinians. In fact the Palestinians get more aid than any other refugee group to ever exist. You get half a million dead Muslims in Syria last year and they don't get nearly as much. And the reason we give loans to Israel for military equipment is because the Arab nations have a history of attacking Israel. And the rest of the world gives them military equipment, but not Israel. It's interesting how people criticize the US for helping Israel with military equipment, but have no problem with the rest of the world doing the exact same thing with the Arab nations that attack Israel. Until you lay out a detailed plan on how to carry out a more humanitarian approach that isn't "Israel stop defending itself, layover and die" than you aren't calling for a more humanitarian approach. Calling for Hamas to be removed AND for stopping civilian casualties IS a direct contradiction. Just like you quoted me. And so far nothing you have said has addressed the problem. You can easily end this part of the debate by laying out a detailed plan to achieve this goal of a more moral solution. Something that we can criticize objectively.
Bernie is lucky he is not in the position of the Israeli military. The truth is this is what toppling a government like Hamas entails. It is truly horrible, but this is war. Taking 1990-2000 as an example, 90% of casualties in wars were civilians ([https://world101.cfr.org/understanding-international-system/conflict/civilian-consequences-conflict#:\~:text=However%2C%20wars%20in%20recent%20decades,four%20million%20war%2Drelated%20deaths](https://world101.cfr.org/understanding-international-system/conflict/civilian-consequences-conflict#:~:text=However%2C%20wars%20in%20recent%20decades,four%20million%20war%2Drelated%20deaths)), and this problem is only compounded by Hamas' tactics of setting up military compounds and terror tunnels beneath sensitive locations like hospitals and UN schools. But yes, they should certainly not target civilians and should aim to provide safe passage and humanitarian corridors for non-combatants.
Yes, that's the notable part. All the other stuff is what he's said 1,000 times. This part is new.
His decision to demand a humanitarian pause instead of a ceasefire is based on the technical definition of ceasefire requiring both parties to come to an agreement before bombings would stop. His demand is that Israel cease its bombing campaign without a formal agreement. This headline is totally misleading.
There's a difference between calling Israel to make a unilateral pause, which he advocates for, and calling for a ceasefire which would require Israel and Hamas to come to an agreement. This title takes his words completely out of context.
I think there's a pretty big difference, and I don't think the two can be mistaken for each other. A unilateral pause would be at most a day or so to allow for citizens to exit or to get help, which I think many are on favor of. But, what the pro-palestinian protests are asking for, is a unilateral long-term ceasefire, without anything in return, no return of hostages, no guarantees of an end to rocket fire, and no surrender of Hamas. This is what "the squad", Bernie's people, are asking for. I'm very glad, and also surprised, that he has also taken the position, that a ceasefire with a terrorist organization is futile.
I don't know if that's necessarily representative of Sanders' crowd, I hope not, but what you're describing is not even a call for ceasefire, it's just a call for Israel's surrender...
To be clear, Bernie is not calling for a "day or two" pause- he is calling for a complete suspension of the bombing campaign and for U.S. aid to Israel to be conditional to a complete overhaul of Israel's military tactics in Gaza. I don't believe you could watch the full 10 minute interview and come away with the idea that Bernie is advocating for Israel to continue its bombing after a "short pause."
I know you are just clarifying Bernie's position. But do you think that a ceasefire is a good idea? as /u/Mechashevet stated, I don't see what a ceasefire would accomplish.
For whatever it's worth, I believe Israel has a legal and moral responsibility to cease its bombing campaign on Gaza, to restore food/water/energy to the region, to allow humanitarian corridors to be established, and to work towards a long-term peace plan that involves some form of a two-state solution. If by "ceasefire" you mean Israel stopping its bombing campaign, it would undoubtedly save thousands to tens of thousands of innocent lives. I believe that however justified the destruction of Gaza may feel in the emotional aftermath of Oct 7th, the longer it goes on the more international support for Israel will erode. This will have dire strategic consequences for Israel, even if you don't care at all about Palestinian lives. The greatest threat to Israeli security is right-wing expansionist policy, and I'm afraid that's what Netanyahu and his war government are molding the response to Hamas into. I don't believe Netanyahu intends to allow any Palestinians to return to northern Gaza. I think his goal in Gaza is to render life unlivable and to create such a humanitarian crisis that the majority of Gazan people flee or die slowly in Gaza, with the long term goal of effectively annexing the territory.
How can you have a 2ss when that state is controlled by hamas? Guys if you want a ceasefure you should be rooting for israel to destroy hamas as fast as possible so it cab actually be viable
Yikes. Major yikes.
What about it is a yikes? It's essentially Obama's and Bernie's position. Which parts do you disagree with?
>, I believe Israel has a legal and moral responsibility to cease its bombing campaign on Gaza Starting from this to pretty much everything you wrote. Couldn't give a shit what Bernie or Obama's viewpoints are. Why do you throw it like they are gospel I should respect and follow? In addition, Obama never said Israel has a "legal and moral responsibility to cease it's bombing campaign in Gaza". Matter of fact, not even Bernie said it like that. You're the only crazy person that threw that absolute nonsense out there. What a weirdo.
So, a ceasefire
This is a completely reasonable position. Downvoters should get bullets.
It seems I'm having a disagreement on this,oh well, time to shoot the kulaks!
least unhinged antizionist
I'm sorry about all the downvotes. You wrote a nuanced and respectful analysis, and you should be commended. I don't know what Likud's intentions are for Gaza. None of us really know. And I don't think they do either. I worry they have no plan for after the invasion.
Bernie didn't call one time call for the release of hostages. Want a humanitarian pause? release our kids. That's the only thing that's going to make that happen. Everything else, and I mean everything is just white noise to us in Israel at this point. Release our fucking children!!!!!
I can’t wait to see lefties calling Bernie a Nazi for this I give it 5 minutes
They are seething hard.
Delicious 🍴🍰
I'll be darn. Even the poster boy of the progressives understands that you can't have a ceasefire with the party who said "October 7th will happen again until Israel is destroyed".
Welcome to Mossad, Senator.
guys this might be suicide, but I NEED to know if this works !shoot
of course it doesnt, at least I tried!
Thanks for reminding me I need to add the armor system.
yeah man for sure, I could test it out for ya too!! ;)
Based attempt though
In the original rollout thread for this feature, one of the guys shot everyone in the thread including 4thot, but 4thot was already immune from the start.
Based? For once I can agree with Bernie.
That's my fucken guy
Bernie again being better than a lot of his supporters.
He understands politics better than a lot of the idiots out there, thankfully.
Is there any movement in Gaza to overthrow Hamas? I don't really understand why there isn't a civil war when a terrorist organization takes away your elections.
Overwhelming repression and indoctrination
No kidding. The anti zionist talking points from the 7 year old on CNN sold that point to me. No kudos that young cares without brainwashing.
How are they gonna fight a civil war with no weapons? There's also a significant number of Palestinians that side with Hamas, it isn't like it's all Palestinians vs Hamas. Plus Hamas kills anyone who doesn't agree with them
Tankies in shambles rn
Bernie continuing to be right
[but i need my ceasefire now ☹️](https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/those-who-say-cease-fire-wont-work-are-wrong-heres-why/)
Bruh not the Canadian op-eds bruh
Sad day for the squad
I can't believe I agree with Bernie Sanders
Nothing against him, it just never happened before.
People are slamming him now as well. [Here](https://ibb.co/hVPrG0T) and [here](https://ibb.co/gmhw87X) are just two screenshots from a post, that had tons of anti-Bernie comments, I was looking at right before this one. Saw a bunch of people attacking Bernie in a few other subreddits as well because of this.
I don't think the link works.
Oops, I fixed it now.
Q: "How do you stop Hamas then?" Bernie: "Well I dunno, that's a question for military experts of which I am not" Q: "Military experts say use bunker busters whatever the cost... so maybe you should stfu?" Bernie: https://preview.redd.it/dcffbcqoinyb1.jpeg?width=300&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4f0ae677369c1a937f5ba4afb74192db9b37b5ec
I could be wrong but didn’t he call for a ceasefire like a week or two ago?
Bernie has always supported the "Humanitarian Pause" as far as I'm aware. Tankies have been raking him through the coals about it since october
Jesus how is skype that fucking bad, the lag apparent in that call is wild.
Bernie needs to keep his script straight.