Gaza has been pseudo self governed since 2005, and is ruled by an authoritarian theocratic regime. The situation was intolerable on 10/6 but understood. What exactly should israel do after the 10/7 attacks. To me attempting to degrade Hamas is what any other state would do. War in one of the most densely populated places on earth is going to kill a lot of people. The only other option it would seem to me would be to ignore the attacks which I'm sure wouldn't be acceptable to the citizens of Israel.
I think you're suggesting a false dichotomy here: do nothing or sacrifice the lives of tens of thousands of innocent people in pursuit of your aims.
Consider what the Israeli response might have looked like if they didn't have access to the munitions that they do (2000 pound bombs, etc). Likely they would have still invaded Gaza and fought a very bloody battle but with many fewer innocents killed at the expense of more of their own soldiers.
Essentially, Israel has made the judgement that the lives of their soldiers are (many times) more important than those of innocent people.
I think this is true to an extent. I certainly think the US given the same task would have been more surgical, but the US has a lot more money power and resources. Israel has to maintain a military so it can fend off attacks from its neighbor which limits the amount of resources it can expend. Soldiers are a finite resource.
Also all countries military's inherently value its own soldiers over an advisory civilians. If I was a IDF general it would be my goal to minimize the casualties taken in securing what ever goal the political leadership sets forth within the laws of war.
> I certainly think the US given the same task would have been more surgical, but the US has a lot more money power and resources
Israel having too little “money, power, and resources” is not the reason Israel dropped nearly as many bombs on Gaza in the first six days of its reaction to the Oct. 7 attacks as the US dropped in the peak year of bombing in the Afghanistan war.
If anything contributed to that, it was a surplus of resources, not a shortage.
They may have more bombs than they have manpower. It's about which resources you choose to expend. Also the is has far more precision weapons than anyone else.
I don't think this is really relevant when we are talking about over 20,000 bombs.
Not to be facetious, but if I were to drop 1,000 bombs on a village of 100 people, killing them all, it hardly matters that I can claim my 'kill rate' was 0.1.
> all countries military's inherently value its own soldiers over an advisory civilians.
I would say you are right about this. Maybe what is so shocking in this particular situation (at least for many people) is how little relative value Israel places on the civilians of their adversary. The recent reporting by +972 Magazine[0] on the Israeli decision making process for selecting bombing targets makes this clear.
> I certainly think the US given the same task would have been more surgical
I think people often have a very magical feeling about what is possible military-wise. There is no way whatsoever to be significantly more precise in a densely populated area with tunnels, hiding behind civilians, etc.
No, they would have been forced to be less surgical and precise in their strikes, leading to even more deaths.
It's been said that the Iron Dome saved more Palestinian lives than anything else in living memory because it allowed Israel to ignore Gaza (well, up till now anyway).
Be very very happy Israel has the tech to minimize civilian casualties and the desire to minimize them - things could have been very different.
During Second World War the Czech resistance assassinated Reich Protector Reinhard Heydrich. To exact revenge the Nazis destroyed the village of Lidice and murdered 340 villagers. If we had social media back then, people would have made the same argument you now do. That the Germans had no choice but to eradicate the village. Because, hey, the only other option would be to ignore the attacks which surely wouldn't have been acceptable to any German.
“We are asked to look for high-rise buildings with half a floor that can be attributed to Hamas,” said one source who took part in previous Israeli offensives in Gaza. “Sometimes it is a militant group’s spokesperson’s office, or a point where operatives meet. I understood that the floor is an excuse that allows the army to cause a lot of destruction in Gaza. That is what they told us.
“If they would tell the whole world that the [Islamic Jihad] offices on the 10th floor are not important as a target, but that its existence is a justification to bring down the entire high-rise with the aim of pressuring civilian families who live in it in order to put pressure on terrorist organizations, this would itself be seen as terrorism. So they do not say it,” the source added.
The destruction levied in Gaza is not about achieving any military aims. It is about satiating the Israeli public's monstrous appetite for blood. The primary goal of the government is ensuring that it wins the next election too. Benjamin Netanyahu wasn't joking when he said "remember Amalek".
In your response I did not see your answer to the significant part of the question in parent comment. Which is:
“ What would you suggest Israel do if fighting hamas is not an option.”
Avoiding hard questions is easier as it doesn’t require responsibility. Are you able to provide your answer please to the hardest part of the parent comment?
This is the same false dilemma that the American war hawks posed prior
to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. "What should we do if we can't invade
Iraq??" You were then supposed to argue that the US had options and
the hawks would then one by one attempt to disqualify those
options. It's an incredibly dishonest way of conducting debate.
Read the article I linked to. Then claim with a straight face that
razing Gaza is the only option Israel has.
> Read the article I linked to. Then claim with a straight face that razing Gaza is the only option Israel has.
Great comment and again no answer.
You think question with suggestive answer is dishonest way of conducting debate? Ok. I get that. Let’s remove any suggestiveness from the question. “ What would you suggest Israel do if fighting hamas is not an option.”
I am not OP an I personally did not suggest anything, I just wanted to see your responsible answer.
So, what Israel should do in your opinion?
And what outcome you expect after it does it?
PS: I’ve read the article. Disappointed by the quality of it. It is written with intention of emotional impact and to push predefined agenda. It twists meaning by playing with words. I notice those tricks and can’t read it with keeping my face ‘straight’( using your word).
> It is written with intention of emotional impact and to push predefined agenda.
The "agenda" is to make people aware of the fact that Israel is deliberately targeting civilians, based on sources within the IDF who work on targeting. The "emotional impact" is that any person with normal human emotions would be sickened by the fact that Israel is killing tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza.
Israel should either withdraw from the occupied territories or grant citizenship to the people who live there.
What it definitely should not do is murder thousands of Palestinian children and destroy the Gaza Strip. However, this is what Israel has chosen to do.
I'd like you to elaborate on what you expect to happen if Israel continues its military campaign. 20k Palestinians have already been killed, and most people in Gaza have been rendered homeless. Everyone there is struggling to obtain the basic necessities of life, such as food, water and shelter. If Israel continues its campaign, how many more Palestinians will be killed, and how much more destruction will be done to Gaza? Will any building in Gaza be left standing? What do you think Israel plans to do to the millions of refugees it has created in Gaza over the last two months?
Looking further ahead, what do you think the consequences of continued Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories (East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza) will be? Can you justify keeping millions of people under continued military occupation, without any rights and under constant harassment? Can you justify the continuation of the dual legal regime in the occupied territories, under which Jewish settlers have full citizenship rights, while Palestinians have no rights (this is what many now characterize as Apartheid)?
Sure this could be a possibility once you finish describing consequences of the action of withdrawal you’ve suggested Israel to take. Suggested alternative is incomplete without you describing realistic outcome of it an thus leaves the current option Israel took as the only one possible which makes discussing it irrelevant wether you like it or not.
Please responsibly describe outcome of the suggested alternative and then we can compare it with current situation.
So no description of outcome of withdrawal then? Just standard manipulative avoidance of the hard part?
Well what you have suggested would inevitably lead to what is happening already only on a bigger scale. Consciously or not it seems you do not mind that and thus the loss of life because it is too hard for you to analyse outcome of your own propositions.
You've finally let slip what you believe: Israel should continue to subject Palestinians to military occupation indefinitely.
The alternative, you claim, is "what is happening already only on a bigger scale," meaning more attacks on Israel, as on 7 October. You say that ending the occupation will lead to loss of life, which you accuse me of not caring about.
In other words, in your view, only Israel's security matters, and only Israeli lives matter. 20k Palestinians killed: a necessary price for Israel's security. Indefinite Palestinian subjugation to a foreign military power that slowly takes over more and more Palestinian land: necessary to preserve Israeli security. Israel withdrawing to its internationally recognized borders, as demanded by UN Security Council Resolution 242: unthinkable.
>You've finally let slip what you believe: Israel should continue to subject Palestinians to military occupation indefinitely.
This is incorrect and it’s demonstration of putting words into my mouth. Another trick to be noticed.
Short reflection on this exchange shows clearly that I am deliberately trying to avoid putting words into your mouth in order to see your analysis of the outcome to the actions you’ve suggested for Israel to take.
And while I do that you are desperately trying to avoid answering second part of the question.
“What outcome you expect after Israel does what you’ve suggested?”
Since analyse of outcome did not arrive I did it for you.
>The alternative, you claim …
I didn’t. I have analysed your so called “alternative” which it is not. Israel has already tested this “brilliant” idea in 2005 by withdrawing it’s forces from Gaza together with all settlements in Gaza strip in case you didn’t know and it have led to the current situation with a bigger scale of loss of life. Not caring about this fact together with your repeated lack of wish to analyse deadly outcome of your own suggestion demonstrates your lack of caring about the loss of life wether it is intentional or not.
> In other words …
Well let’s leave ‘In other words’ as ‘another words’ that are just words. They ate yours, not my.
The confusion in your comment between some fantasies and my actual opinion rises questions about integrity of ways in which you’ve analysed this conflict in general.
Using insults and ignoring my rephrasing of the question is not answering the question.
Since those are usual tactics to avoid answering hard questions it makes one wandering wether you are deliberately trying to avoid answering it responsibly or you did not understand the question?
Can you provide your answer instead of repeating your disagreement with the choice Israel have made? You’ve made it clear already few times. What is still not clear is this: What is your answer to the hard question.
You keep avoiding answering it.
Let me remind the question if you forgot it:
So, what Israel should do in your opinion? And what outcome you expect after it does it?
I hope we will see your answer this time. Not criticism of the answer provided by Israel but your own answer. I hope I made it as clear as possible by now.
I also hope as someone with such strong opinion on the matter you took time to think about it and you do have your answer.
Are you a parrot or something? Do you not understand that NOT killing 20k Palestinians in 60 days is an option (and answers your question)? I've posed several questions to you and you keep not answering them.
No, I am a person and you are exploring limits of my famous patience which is allowed only to my students as long as they wish to learn.
Also I am very persuasive in following logic and being responsible for own words. The only sensible way to discuss hard issues and to keep being in sync in conversation.
>Do you not understand that NOT killing 20k Palestinians in 60 days is an option (and answers your question)?
Help me understand what you suggest exactly and what outcome you expect after Israel does it? Make your statement so we would be on the same page to discuss it. Then it actually would be possible to discuss it.
Don’t you think you should be responsible with your words and understand consequences of things you suggest before opening your mouth about such sensitive topics? I am getting sick of irresponsible people spreading BS around without ever stating what they say or thinking through the consequences of the things they suggest.
>I've posed several questions to you and you keep not answering them.
This is because you didn’t answer one and only question I ever asked you in the first place.
Israeli leaders have been quoted as saying they intend to erase Gaza, flatten Gaza, etc. Their top general has called Palestinian civilians "human animals". The PM has been quoting bible verse to justify genocide. There is no question Israel is murdering civilians as a goal not by happenstance. And, they didn't begin only with this latest massacre. Israeli leaders have a euphemism for their periodic massacres of Palestinian civilians; they call it, "mowing the lawn."
E.g., only a few years ago, there was a peaceful march of thousands of Palestinians demanding their right to return to their homes on the other side of the separation wall. The Israelis opened fire with live ammunition, murdering 200, and maiming thousands more-- it appears the Israeli snipers were aiming for the protesters' kneecaps to permanently disable them. The protesters were unarmed. Zero coverage in the western corporate press.
In a prior massacre of Gaza that the Israelis called, "Operation Cast Lead", the Israeli snipers wore shirts with a picture of a pregnant women in the cross hairs of a rifle, with the slogan (in Hebrew) below, "One bullet, two kills."
And, as has been ongoing continuously for decades, Palestinians were forced from their homes by Israeli settlers only days before the October attacks. And there was a murder of Palestinians by Israeli settlers also only days before the attack-- these things happen literally all the time, so it is expected that there would be.
Israel has also kidnapped more civilians including children than they released in the prisoner exchange since they began this most recent massacre of Gaza. If you paid attention, the hostages Israel released were in large part women and children, held for years without charge, and under indefinite detention. Two of the children they released were two 14 year old boys who were 11 or 12 when kidnapped by Israel, and they were released into an area where there is no way for a Palestinian to travel to the area their families reside, as Israel prohibits Palestinian travel. There were plenty of younger child hostages released by Israel as well. These kidnappings (without charge and indefinite detention) are also a constant occurrence. Pretty much a guarantee, if you are caught demonstrating against the occupation.
This would be a good start. Begin an honest conversation of the current situation, and how we got there.
The closest thing to a just resolution, at this point, would be for Israel to allow Palestinians to return to their homes in what is now called Israel. Remove the laws from the books that favor Jewish Israeli citizens over non-Jewish citizens of Israel-- e.g., no more Jewish only roads. The demographics will change. Jews will be a minority. Place names will likely return to their original names. Jewish extremists will likely engage in terrorism, but hopefully the violence will be short lived. Many Jews (those of European decent, in large part, maintain dual citizenship with European countries / the US) will, likely, voluntarily leave. The rest will have to incorporate themselves into this new reality of a single state where the indigenous Palestinians are equal citizens.
The vast majority of Israeli Jews are living on recently stolen land, even inside recently stolen homes. Much of this must go back to their rightful owners for there to be justice. But, the Jewish newcomers can remain. Under Muslim Ottoman rule, the region now know as Israel/Palestine was multi-religious with mostly peaceful coexistence. It can be that again.
Israel has foreclosed any possibility of a "two state" solution with their continuous settling of Palestinian land. There no longer exists any Palestinian controlled land to create a Palestinian state separate from that major portion of their land that is now called Israel that was stolen and given to the Jewish settlers by the British after WWI.
What happened to Jews in Europe in WWII was horrific, but Palestinians had nothing to do with that. What is currently happening to the Palestinians is similar to what the Jews in Europe experienced. But, this time, the Zionist Jews are the oppressor. The actions of Israel are creating an environment around the world where people predisposed to antisemitism can point at an example of how evil Jews are as justification of their hatred. It was once possible to separate Jew from Zionist, but Zionists have been doing their best to confuse that. The peace organization, Jewish Voices for Peace is now "antisemitic". Things need to change in Palestine/Israel or Jews are not going to be safe anywhere. And, many many more innocent Palestinian civilians will be massacred.
So, yes. Right of return is not only required by UN resolutions, it is the only solution that will bring some semblance of justice, and thus bring peace.
Although, in Israel's case, just losing the multiple billions of dollars it receives every year from the U.S., and loss of its uniquely favored trading status with the EU, might be enough, on its own, to motivate Israel to change course.
Because South Africa did. And before that the US did. Eventually Israel will too, it's just a question of how much blood their extremists and racists will exact before they yield to justice.
That's a very different claim the US and south Africa integrated. The us over a period of 100 years. There are some land reforms in sa but there are none in the US. Also Israel has a native Arab population that is already integrated.
White Americans and white Boers were forced to treat colored people as their equals. Eventually Jewish Israelis will have to treat Palestinians as their equals too. It's exactly the same, except the level of extremism we see on the Israeli Jewish side is extremely high.
No. There were multiple attempts to destroy Israel by force and the outcome is this. There are Israeli arabs with equal rights as Jews so this isn't the ethnic struggle it was in the US or sa. This is what do you do with a defeated enemy.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "destroying Israel"? In your
previous comment you claimed that letting the victims of the 1948
ethnic cleansing return is the "destruction of the Jewish state". But
that is something the international community has demanded
since 1948. So is the international community trying to destroy
Israel?
Suppose an American president had said "I've killed lots of blacks in
my life and there's no problem with that". Or that the US largest
newspaper published essays arguing that America would have failed if
it ever got a black president. Or that congress enacted laws saying
that the right to national self-determination in the US is unique to
white people. If the US was like that would you say that blacks had
equal rights?
And the violence by Zionist settlers (with tacit approval of the Israeli state) in the W. Bank against the Palestinians has only gotten worse since the attack by the Hamas Palestinian resistance forces in Gaza.
and what about the 13 year old boy who was sodomized in an israeli military prison? a human rights watch group documented it and presented it to the IDF. the next day, the IDF confiscated their computers and labeled them a "terrorist group"
