Is that meant to be exculpatory? If you say that you're attacking military targets that are (allegedly) embedded within civilian infrastructure and that you're focused on damage rather than accuracy, you are telling me that you intend to massacre civilians.
I think there's a difference in emphasis and intent. We're painting pictures here. So one picture we're painting is "kill as many civilians a possible with no other military objective" and the other picture we're painting is "go after military targets even at some cost to civilians (and the question of that cost)". The reality is that in every way, every military in the world, executes the second picture. The variable being what is a reasonable threshold for the given military objective. The accusations against Israel intentionally try to place it in the first picture.
If the critics were clear about their issue being how Israel measures proportionality with respect to every single target they go after, and they were able to support their case comparing to other similar military campaigns, and there was a very clear outcome of that comparison, I think that's very fair and I'd even be able to get behind it. But that's not what the critics are doing.
If you’re not going to be satisfied with anything short of Netanyahu on tape saying “our intent is to kill as many Palestinian civilians as possible”verbatim, then we can just end this conversation now. Even the US would probably be forced to meaningfully withdraw support if Israel fully took the mask off (though as I’ve shown, many high ranking ministers and IDF members have come shockingly close).
What you hear instead are thinly-veiled justifications. Oh, we had to bomb those hospitals because there were tunnels there. So sorry about the civilian deaths at a refugee camp, but we just wanted to get that one commander.
Let’s be real here. Israel shut off food, water, medicine and electricity to Gaza. They’ve damaged over 2/3 of the buildings there [1]. As of a month ago, they’d dropped almost 2x the amount of explosives the US delivered to Hiroshima [2].
These are not the actions of a country “going after military targets even at some cost to civilians”. Israel is doing exactly what Hagari said: inflicting maximum damage.
If they're planning to just kill everyone, why haven't they just leveled the place? Militarily speaking, they can do that right now and have been able to do that for a long time. So if that's their true goal, then what stops them from giving the order right now?
Meanwhile, Palestine has shown no restraint at all in their 10/7 massacre and no Jews live in Palestine, whereas many Arabs live peacefully in Israel.
Only if you want to claim that words are more revealing of intentions than actions, which would discredit you.
The hospital they bombed had the parking lot damaged by a failed Hamas rocket. The "refugee camp" has been there for many years, not as huddled fleeing masses, but permanent structures from people who fled there long ago, the tunnel network is well known and there's video evidence, the aid was being supplied by Israel to begin with (including the water) and they were using the pipes to make weapons, etc.
So I'm not surprised to find that none of your other points make sense either.
If anything - from a military perspective it is impressive if they have managed to drop twice as much explosives on as we did on Hiroshima on such a small piece of land and only a few thousand civilians got killed.
I won't engage much with your other points but I think they are a combination of leaving out critical facts (hospitals and ambulances were used by militants), misrepresentation ("Stripped civilians and paraded them through the streets" - they weren't paraded, quite on the contrary it was the people on Gaza who did this) and lies (at least last time sometime argued "Tortured Palestinian abductees" the only thing they showed for it was images of POWs with minor battle scars).
I would like to nitpick your list if that's ok. I think being very precise is really important here. If there are uncertainties then those should be spelled out as well. Once we know the facts we can have a better discussion (not just the facts related to this list but the complete picture).
- Israel did displace a lot of people. Partly for their own safety while Israel attacks the area they live in. I think your number are correct.
- We already covered the "cut off" in another thread so I (edit: didn't want to but I guess I did anyways) want revisit it. Water was off, and then on, food and medicine are allowed in but maybe not enough, Internet access is on most of the time in this war zone, electricity is mostly cut off (partly because the power station ran out of fuel I think, not strictly because Israel cut it off). This is a snarky comment but I'm pretty sure the tunnel vents still have power. Northern Gaza and Southern Gaza are also different (with more restrictions on Northern Gaza). I would call this statement misleading.
- Israel did drop a lot of bomb tonnage on Gaza but we can't really compare this to the atomic weapons dropped on Hiroshima. There were 60-80 thousand dead in Hiroshima which was much less populated/dense than Gaza (total population was about 350,000). As a piece of trivia, between 241,000 and 900,000 people died in Japan in the bombing campaigns of WW2. I would fact check this statement as misleading.
- There is plenty of press access from the Palestinian side. I think we're getting more footage from the war zone compared to many other war zones. Israel does review footage of press that embeds with the IDF in Gaza for operational-security reasons. I think that's pretty normal. I don't recall large complaints from the media about this, but they do note it in their reports. So correct but misleading.
- Do you have a reference for "dozens of murders by settlers prior to Oct 7th"? Are you going all the way back to Baruch Goldstein? Even with that "dozens" seems incorrect to me. There's no room for any violence by settlers but let's get the facts right. My very quick research has failed to substantiate this claim.
- Reference for "paraded them through the streets"? Also do we know they're all civilians? Israel strips people they arrest (to their underwear) to make sure they're not suicide bombers. I have seen those photos/videos as well. I agree it's pretty humiliating (and) the pictures didn't look good. I hope the people that are uninvolved will be released quickly. I know you're going to take issue with what I say here, but this was in Northern Gaza where civilians have been asked to evacuate and Hamas combatants operate in civilian clothing. Hamas has a lot of history with suicide bombers so it's not unreasonable to expect this tactic. I would call this partly misleading.
- I also take issue with "kidnapped" and "tortured". I would say arrested Islamic Jihad and Hamas activists. Torture is illegal in Israel (maybe allowed if there's a "ticking bomb", I don't recall) and while it's possible there have been cases I don't think it's systemic, any evidence to the contrary?
- You're technically correct about the move south and bomb the south but I think it's important to note there was significantly less bombing in the south than the north and Israel has said specifically they will still bomb the south if they have clear targets. Israel never said it won't bomb the south. It just said it's safer. And if you check the statistics you'll see that's true. This is where "technically right" can be misleading.
- West bank settlers have had weapons forever pretty much. Most of the handing of weapons these days is to people in Israel proper.
- I think there was a single incident with an ambulance where Israel claimed it was being used for a military purpose. There is a long discussion about the status and usage of ambulances here: https://lieber.westpoint.edu/attacks-misuse-ambulances-durin...
- I'm pretty sure "bombed every hospital" is false. Reference? We had the possible Islamic Jihad rocket falling in a hospital parking lot, we had some bombings close to hospitals, we had fake news from other conflicts presented as Israel bombing hospitals, but "bombed every hospital" is new to me. I think "did not bomb any hospitals" is closer to the truth. How many people were killed by Israel's bombing of hospitals?
- I've seen different accounts for the percentage of buildings damaged. 2/3 seems on the high side. References?
If the discussion was about Gaza attacking Israel ambulances then this piece of information from 2002 would be relevant. Otherwise I'm not sure what's the point your trying to make? That because Israel used an ambulance (not during an active war, but in the occupied territories) then Hamas can use ambulances?
Israel should not use ambulances for military purposes. Israel is far far from perfect and you can find many examples of things we can agree on being "wrong". Perfection is not the right measure though, Israel doesn't do things like: https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p451 The question is compared to what its peers in the "free democratic west" would do in similar circumstances how does Israel measure. We know that most of the world doesn't even try to hold up the same standards.
- Re: Hiroshima, can we compare it to the amount of explosive the US dropped in the entire country of Afghanistan over a much longer period? The point is that this is an insanely high amount of bombing, even with respect to other wars. https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-dropped-as-many-bombs...
- Re: stripping prisoners, I imagine “paraded” is another word we’d disagree on like “targeted”, but Israel itself has said that it stripped “military aged men” and a number have been recognized by friends and family as noncombatants: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-hamas-war-images-p...
- Re: abducted — yes, of course Israel will claim there’s a pretext for abducting people (although over 2,500 have been held without charges on “administrative detention”). This is kind of like someone in the antebellum US south saying “those runaway slaves were arrested in accordance with the law” — maybe true but not the point! Do you think the police are fair to Palestinians? The courts?
https://www.npr.org/2023/12/01/1216643555/thousands-of-pales...
- Re: attacking the ambulance, of course the IDF says that there was Hamas there — that’s what they say about everything! I’m not going to look up a source here. If there’s any evidence that corroborates the IDF’s claim from an independent source, feel free to post it.
- Re: “bombed every hospital”, you’re using quotation marks but not actually quoting me directly.
As of a month ago, Israel had issued evacuation orders for 22 hospitals in North Gaza and half of the 36 hospitals in Gaza had stopped operations. Unclear how many the IDF actually attacked but it’s a lot more than zero! https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/14/gaza-unlawful-israeli-ho...
The number that's been reported re: the detained Palestinians is that 30%-50% of them are suspected to be combatants and the others are uninvolved and were either released or are in the process of being released.
And yes, we agree to the facts of military aged men, in a combat zone where civilians have been asked to evacuate, stripped (EDIT: to their underwear) and arrested. That's what I also said in my reply. I explained why Israel strips potential Hamas combatants/activists ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_at... ). I took issue with the "paraded" part. It is most certainly not sexual violence.
Apparently there are new instructions to the IDF to provide them with clothing immediately.
Do I think the police and the courts are always fair to Palestinians... Nope. But at least they have some legal recourse. The Israeli Supreme court, which is independent (so far), can intervene and has intervened in the past. You can read one case here: https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/israel-detention-unlawf...
By the way extreme right Jews have also been held under administrative arrest.
I still think "arrested Hamas and Islamic Jihad members" is closer to the truth than "abducted random Palestinians".
Sorry I did take a bit of liberty with quoting you, the correct quote is: "Bombed basically every hospital" ... "basically" is basically a filler word that does not change the meaning. But I apologize and promise not to do that again.
I don't think changing "settlers" to "security forces" or conflating "issued an evacuation order" with "bombing", or "torture" vs. "things that happen in prison" is having a discussion in good faith. Many of those killed by the security forces were killed while they were attacking Israelis or during combat or clashes. If you're willing to have a discussion in good faith I'm happy to engage but you'll have to stop doing that. This is not helping some of the valid points you're making. "But what about the west bank" is a common anti-Israeli propaganda tool on social media. There's a lot to unpack there but I think it should mostly be an orthogonal discussion to the war in Gaza.
I think specifically with ambulances there's a few ways to think about this:
- What is the benefit that Israel derives from attacking ambulances?
- What would be a reasonable standard of proof here? If forces come under attack from an ambulance, they bomb it, and it's destroyed, how do you expect Israel to prove that?
- Is the Hamas a signatory to the Geneva convention and are their methods typically in line with the laws of war? Are they generally honest? Moral?
- Did Israel order evacuation of those areas and give ample time for this evacuation to happen in accordance with the laws of war?
I think if you answer these honestly you'll say that Hamas would certainly use ambulances if they felt that was to their advantage and that Israel would not generally target ambulances intentionally. Is there a large gray area? Sure. Is it possible that Israeli forces would have a "light finger on the trigger". Sure. It's a war and it's their lives. Do I think that allowing Ambulances to operate within combat areas is a high priority for Israel? No. There's a big difference between actions that are within reason and actions that are intentionally evil. The goal of many people saying "Israel attacks ambulances" is to paint a picture of Israel being evil. They want to take a single ambulance that was attacked in a major scale conflict and use it as a propaganda weapon against Israel. That said Israel should be expected to follow the laws of war and we should demand that it does.
If our goal is to end the war and to make some sort of progress for the benefit of everyone involved I don't think inflammatory language or evoking anti-Israeli emotions is the way to get us there. I can get behind that goal if the methods are different.
> I think if you answer these honestly you'll say that Hamas would certainly use ambulances if they felt that was to their advantage and that Israel would not generally target ambulances intentionally.
So if I’m honest, I’ll say that Hamas doing something bad is normal but Israel doing something bad is exceptional. Why would I say that, exactly? Israel is one of the most powerful countries in the world, backed by one of the most vicious modern day empires, waging a one-sided war against people they have blockaded inside a literal ghetto. My allegiance is always with the victims of oppression; that is a core Jewish value to me.
This is not the pot calling the kettle black. The aforementioned empire is the US; we have truly horrendous skeletons in our closet and continue to add more. But goddamn, at least I’m not pretending they aren’t there.
I don’t think this is a productive conversation and I’m going to stop replying. Chag Hanukkah Sameach; may Palestine’s oil burn brightly forever.
It's your call on the conversation side. I'm happy you made it clear where you're coming from and how you look at things.
I'd like to think you just have the facts wrong. Facts and truth are key. For example the fact that when Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 it did not blockade it. It blockaded it in 2007 when Hamas took power. It has not "waged a one-sided war against people they have blockaded in ghetto". That is just factually wrong. The one-sided waging of war was from the Gaza side. Applying core/moral values should start with a correct evaluation of the factual reality (and yes, it's a complex reality, life is hard).
The Hamas states they want to kill all the Jews in Israel. They act towards that goal. The Hamas engages in activities that are morally wrong beyond any doubt. There is no context in this world where Hamas is justified because they are oppressed. They are antisemites. They are Nazi. The atrocities they committed against Jews on Oct 7th are a new standard of evil.
The US has its problems. I don't think that's directly relevant. The US might be supporting Israel for the wrong reasons but I think basing your evaluation of Israel's moral position on that is incorrect. Russia, China and Iran, support the opposing side here. I don't think those are clearly beacons of good.
EDIT: I want to clarify my "Gaza waging a war on Israel" position. I am referring to the entire period since Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. Not to the current situation. It is true, and factual, that Israel is at war with Gaza right now. A war started by Gaza. Israel is fairly powerful but I don't think that is a moral argument. If Israel was weaker does that really change the moral viewpoint? Israel has tried to avoid as much as possible the war it is engaged in right now, and possibly if it hadn't done so (i.e. if it went to war sooner) there would be a lot less lives lost, so the moral argument against Israel re-occupying Gaza or not attacking Gaza because it is more powerful feels a bit hollow. It was obviously not powerful enough to protect its citizens and we are dealing with an asymmetric war. With all its power it has so far been unable to stop rockets being launched from Gaza into Israel. Its power has pretty big limits.
EDIT2: I have a problem with the "oppression" narrative. I think generally oppression is not a justification for violence and we have plenty of examples of oppressed peoples throughout history that have not resorted to the kind of violence we see in this conflict. It is also intellectually shallow. I have a similar problem with the term that comes with it in this conflict which is "occupation". Again, occupation is the de-facto status of most of the planet, and it does not justify the kind of violence we see in this conflict. I'm just talking about the Palestinians here. Israel does many questionable things as well which we can go into if we wish. The other problem I have which I already pointed out in this thread is the redefinition of words. I think using words like "ghetto" is problematic. My dictionary says ghetto is either "a jewish quarter in a city" or "a poor urban area occupied primarily by a minority group or groups.". The use of this term by pro-Palestinians is meant to either equate Israel to the Nazis. I.e. they intentionally want to say Israel in this story is the Nazi Germans and the Palestinians are the Jews. Or the other intent is to try and diminish the original meaning of the usage, i.e. to belittle the historical suffering of Jews. This usage is factually wrong and I would say is insidious (to put mildly). I'm surprised to see that Jewish people adopt this terminology (Ghetto) but I guess nothing can surprise me at this point. I think points can be made without redefining words and appealing to emotions and conversely redefining words means we can't actually have a discussion because we're talking past each other. I would almost call some of the tactics we're seeing "intellectual terrorism". It seeks to broadly disable the ability of the other side to engage in a discussion and to intimidate them. I also want to make it absolutely clear that all the above doesn't change the morality of the conflict. I.e. I'm not saying "it is justified to attack civilians because they engage in tactics that I can consider insidious.". If you have a self defense situation as a person, the threshold for using deadly force isn't a function of the personality of the other side, it should purely be a function of their actions and the situation.
> Meanwhile, Palestine has shown no restraint at all in their 10/7 massacre and no Jews live in Palestine, whereas many Arabs live peacefully in Israel.
Do you realize that isreal is the side who killed at least 10x the number that the other side kill. I can see that you describe hamas's action as horrible but there is no way of condition that justifies what isreal did and is still doing to Palestinian civilians (no
matter how you think you can)
Why are we playing this numbers game? If Hamas hypothetically had killed 30,000 Israels would you be saying that Israel still has 12,000 to go? Every person matters and in a war there are no targets for how many people are killed, in wars people get killed for achieving some other objectives. I would imagine that even if Hamas had only killed 150 people in Israel we'd be in exactly the same place and the ratio would be 100x because there's a point where Israel has to (well, at least they think) reoccupy Gaza at any cost. Israel was almost there in previous conflicts, but backed off.
There is no war in history, as far as I know, but willing to be corrected, where the measure or who is wrong and who is right, or when the war should end, was some threshold or ratio in the number of dead people. A war continues until both sides agree to stop it. Wars have a terrible human price. I think something like 400,000 people have died in the war in Yemen. I think there are hundreds of thousands of dead in the Russian-Ukraine war (mostly soldiers but they're people, and young people, too. Many civilians.). Sudan is pretty bad. 600,000 killed in the Syria civil war.
Because Israel cares about their civilians and defends them at huge costs (Iron Dome), while hamas is happier the more civilian death happens on their side, as it’s free propaganda/media outrage for them - see human shield, starting rockets from civilian buildings, etc.
Israel could kill literally everyone though, and has been able since long before this. So the idea that they're not restrained in their response ignores that capability.
As to the latter part, you're pulling a trick to imply that the 10x are all civilian non-combatants, which is just as bad as the other people pretending that all the teen-aged Hamas soldiers who have been killing people are non-combatant children.
If they “only” managed to kill this amount of people with that amount of (much more modern) explosives, isn’t that proof in itself that they don’t want to deal maximal casualties? Or otherwise they are very bad at it.
With that said, any amount of civilian death is tragic - and we should absolutely mandate Israel to be as specific in their attacks as possible. But 0 civilian casualty is impossible to achieve. What we can know, even according to the biased hamas numbers, they are roughly in the 2 civilian to 1 military personnel ratio, which is absolutely realistic given the circumstances/other modern warfares, etc. Feel free to refute this statement of mine, if you do believe that they “want to kill as many civilians as possible”.
I’ve said this multiple times in this thread — Israel is unable to truly inflict maximum casualties because they cannot afford to lose the US as their ally. Defense Minister Yoav Gallant has admitted as much: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/gallant-we-cant...
> But 0 civilian casualty is impossible to achieve.
No it isn't. It might be impossible to achieve Israel's goals without any civilian casualties but those goals are not a given. Not doing anything would have caused less total suffering than Israel's current strategy.
I'm honestly not sure how to engage in this discussion. Rather than asking me for what proof I would accept, what proof would you accept that Israel is not trying to kill as many Palestinian civilians as possible?
If that was the goal, wouldn't you think more Palestinians be dead by now? How does this goal benefit Israel in any way?
But it's a fair question what would it take to convince me. I think you'd need to show me enough incidents of Israel intentionally targeting civilians with the clear goal of maximizing civilian deaths. e.g. carpet bombing of civilians in the south with casualties in the 10's of thousands from one bombing raid or indiscriminate artillery firing on the south like we see the Russians doing in Ukraine.
Just a by the way, do you know what exactly "refugee camp" means in the context of this conflict? Can you describe what that is and why it's called a refugee camp. I'm asking because it seems many do not know (and if you don't, it's not actually what you think it is).
Haven't you seen large numbers of civilians walking from the north part of Gaza to the south part of Gaza right by Israeli soldiers and tanks? I've seen IDF soldiers give them water as they're passing by. There were photos of civilians arrested yesterday (and treated poorly, doesn't look good) ... but alive.
Israel does provide water now to Gaza. It did temporarily shut down its water supply to Gaza which is part of how Gazans get water (but not the sole source). How many people have died from lack of water? Food is restricted but is getting in. Probably not enough. How many people have died from starvation?. Medicine is coming in. Israel is not providing electricity. It's a war! Many, one might say too many, have died.
Can you provide references to other major wars where one side was providing the other side with water, food, electricity, medicine? When siege was laid on Mosul did the US provide all those to the citizens of the city? Did the Russians to Mariupol? And sure, I understand Gaza's situations is a bit unique so it's hard to find parallels (and definitely don't want Israel to be compared to Russia).
There is definitely wide scale destruction to structures. I've seen the figure 1/3 today. It's all one big combat zones, when tanks fire inside cities and airplanes drop bombs, and artillery shells targets there is widespread damage. Very much like major scale war in other urban areas around the world, Bahkmut, Mariupol, are two examples from the other active conflict. I don't take it as proof of targeting civilians. It is a tactic to avoid urban warfare, booby traps, remove cover that the enemy can use etc. I agree it's a pretty brutal tactic but not one specifically disallowed in the rules of war.
Have you ever been to Israel? I'm just curious. Do you know many Israelis?
I don't think there's proof you can provide me, because we seem to have fundamentally different ideas of what it means to target civilians. Like, I would use that for this description in your literal words:
> Israel does provide water now to Gaza. It did temporarily shut down its water supply to Gaza which is part of how Gazans get water (but not the sole source). How many people have died from lack of water? Food is restricted but is getting in. Probably not enough. How many people have died from starvation?. Medicine is coming in. Israel is not providing electricity. It's a war! Many, one might say too many, have died.
Shutting off these things is targeting civilians! You may think it's justified or that there's precedent, but that doesn't change the fact that the goal of the attack is to harm every human being there.
> Can you provide references to other major wars where one side was providing the other side with water, food, electricity, medicine? When siege was laid on Mosul did the US provide all those to the citizens of the city? Did the Russians to Mariupol? And sure, I understand Gaza's situations is a bit unique so it's hard to find parallels (and definitely don't want Israel to be compared to Russia).
I opposed the US conquering Iraq, I oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine and I oppose Israel's bombing in Gaza (and, as you alluded to, Gaza's situation is unique among those examples in that they are more or less blockaded by and dependent on Israel). I don't really find "but what about other wars" a compelling argument — war is bad!
As to your last question, although I don't know why it's relevant: I'm a diaspora Jew who has not been to Israel from a fairly large Jewish community in the US. Not sure what counts as "many" but yes, I know some Israelis.
You know what's funny, if anything can be funny at these times, is that once some anti-Israelis explain what they mean by the terms they use I end up agreeing with them.
My problem is that the terms are not necessarily the common definition of those terms.
Clearly civilians are impacted by Israel's actions. Nobody can argue with that. And the impact is major. Someone used to live in a nice house and have their basic needs met, and now they're crammed in a tent somewhere with almost nothing. Their house could be destroyed. And yes, many civilians have died. This is not what I take to mean by "Israel is intentionally targeting civilians", what that means to me, and likely to many others, is that Israeli soldiers are looking for civilians and killing them wherever they can find them, intentionally, as many as they can. This matters. Words matter. By your definition every war targets civilians, and it's sort of maybe true, but again, not really how most people IMO think about it.
The reason I asked my "Israeli" questions is that I do think most Israelis are moral, decent, people. As a whole they would prefer not to be in this war at all. You can say maybe they're misguided but their goal is the security of their country, not inflicting pain on others. Intent does matter.
I think there's a minority of Israelis that are not that (e.g. we just had the case of an Israeli settler soldier killing an Israeli civilian who was no threat because he thought he was Arab and we had other similar cases).
I don’t know, man. There are reports from the ground that Israeli snipers have been attacking civilians, that the IDF has targeted reporters and their families. We know Israel has been abducting Palestinians in the West Bank and many who have been released have claimed that they were abused/tortured.
That doesn’t mean that “the highest ranking Knesset members are secretly ordering their soldiers to kill civilians!” I don’t think they have to, in the same way that high ranking police in the US don’t have to tell officers to target Black people. I think there is a culture of supremacy and racism, and the IDF is collectively taking advantage of this moment to act on their worst impulses. I think they are at best indiscriminately attacking and making only token efforts to avoid civilian harm. Insofar as they are showing restraint, I think it’s only from the vague threat of losing the support of the US — just tonight, the sole abstaining vote on a UN security council demand for ceasefire — and if they could get away with even more outright genocide or ethnic cleansing, they would.
And yes, if it’s not clear, I am talking about the state of Israel, its government and military, not its citizens (although if reports in the US are to be believed a lot of y’all are real bloodthirsty right now — not that many Americans aren’t just as bad). I certainly don’t equate a government with its civilians: 2/3 of all Americans and almost 80% of Democrats support a ceasefire even as our Democratic president continues to defend this war.
I can’t even understand what type of mind you must have to support even a single civilian leave alone 10k of them. Here you are discussing whether it could have been 1 million if they wanted.
> I can’t even understand what type of mind you must have to support even a single civilian leave alone 10k of them
I think you need to self reflect a bit harder. Unless you are the dali lama, i'm sure you can understand the need for revenge and looking for a sense of security. Not saying it's the right thing to do, but it sure is easy to grasp.
It looks more as a civilian massacre than a war. Yes, it's pretty obvious that they don't try to kill as many Palestinian civilians as possible. But they clearly show no consideration for civilian lives. What we're witnessing is extremely disturbing to say the least, and we should make Israel stop because nothing can justify what they do. They are entitled to live safely, not to kill thousands of innocents because it suits them.
> Have you ever been to Israel? I'm just curious. Do you know many Israelis?
How is that relevant to the discussion? having Israeli friends should make us accept these horrors? I don't think so.
As cold as it sounds what Israel should be optimizing for is minimizing the number of dead Israelis, now and in the future. Not "because it suits them". The number of Palestinian civilians killed and otherwise impacted is certainly a moral consideration.
If Israel stops now, and Hamas kills 2000 Israelis in 5 years, and then Israel kills 50,000 Palestinians because Hamas is much stronger and the war is much more complex and the population is denser, should we stop now? What is the probability of this outcome? What are the range of outcomes of stopping now, beyond the obvious of less people will die over the next week or 2 weeks, or month, until the next round flares up. We have had many rounds of violence.
How do we weigh the continuation of rocket fire into Israel from Gaza into the equation? What happens if Hamas figures out a technological solution to defeat the iron dome?
There are many many other factors.
How do we weigh the motivation/chances that Hezbollah would attack Israel from the north?
Clearly all the dead people are not coming back to live. All the damage that has been done is done. It's all extremely tragic. The question is where do we go from here. You're saying "we should make Israel stop". Assuming that's even an option (I don't think anyone can make Israel stop at this point) who is going to pay the price of that decision down the road? "we" or Israel?
I don't know. I don't have answers. My opinion is that stopping now will result in more deaths in the future. But I'm not sure. If I was convinced stopping now is the best option for peace I would certainly support it. I hope we are getting very close to the end of the war, at least the more intense phase of it.
I think knowing Israelis will give you some sense of what kind of people they are, and will let you relate to them as people. Something I think is missing from a lot of the discourse. I agree we're seeing horrors. By the way, you should also talk to some Palestinians and get to know them as well fwiw. I've had some pretty interesting discussions in the past with a Palestinian friend.
I do think the USA could make Israel stop on a dime, but has no interest in the politics of doing so. I think Israel is optimizing for getting rid of Palestine - a lot of careful decisions of making it unlivable in Gaza, and calling it Hamas’ fault, and pushing over and over until they can finally get international support for pushing all the surviving residents over a border, then setting up a DMZ like Korea.
I know we're all in the heat of the moment but there's no doubt in my mind the Palestinians are not going anywhere. There's nowhere for them to go. The population of the Gaza strip is going to remain in the Gaza strip. The population of the west bank is going to remain in the west bank. Israel's supporters, and the vast majority of Israelis, understand that. Gaza will be occupied by Israel. It will be under military control of Israel. When the war is over it will be rebuilt.
> As cold as it sounds what Israel should be optimizing for is minimizing the number of dead Israelis, now and in the future.
Yes, I get the logic.
But as someone who isn't either Israeli or Palestinian, I give the same value to any life and I'd like my government to 1. at the very least, not support the ongoing massacres 2. pressuring them to stop what they're doing 3. send help to gaza. I'm not american, but if I was, I'd be very pissed that my taxpayer's money is going to this.
Then one could argue that what is done isn't the best course of action of Israel's safety, regardless of any moral consideration.
> I think knowing Israelis will give you some sense of what kind of people they are,
I have no doubt that Israelis are no different than any other people on earth. But really, this isn't the question here.
> They are entitled to live safely, not to kill thousands of innocents because it suits them.
Them living safely means winning the war by destroying Hamas’ logistics, assets, and ability to launch attacks. Them destroying Hamas means air strikes that unfortunately will inevitably include civilian collateral damage due to how Hamas operates. In my view, this justifies all actions Israel has taken so far.
Additionally, if successfully done, killing Hamas now means fewer Palestinian deaths in the future.
There can be no clearer example of simply thinking Palestinian lives don't matter than this. It's pretty disgusting. You use the word "unfortunately", but the entire gist and underlying assumption of what you're saying is that the death and suffering of Palestinians is not as important as the death and suffering of Israeli civilians.
It’s war. Isn’t it a the case in any such conflict that your people worth more?
Also, the point you and many others fail to understand is that there is no other way for Israel, this is a least bad option. No one is happy about the situation, and both Israel and the Palestin civilians are victims here, all because of Hamas. If you know of any other realistic solution that gets rid of terrorists, I’m sure IDF is happy to hear about that.
> It’s war. Isn’t it a the case in any such conflict that your people worth more?
A lot of countries might act that way, but that position doesn't command anyone's deference or sympathy, whether in this conflict or others, and the rest of us are free to pile on in moral condemnation.
Moreover, given the conflict's history and a lot of the discourse many of us have witnessed from those who wish to suppress any acknowledgement of Palestinian death or suffering, we have plenty of reason to believe that there is something more sinister underlying a lot of this talk.
> Also, the point you and many others fail to understand is that there is no other way for Israel, this is a least bad option.
This is obvious bullshit. It's not up to anyone else to provide some specific plan of action; it is obviously the case there are a number options Israel can take short of murdering between 15k-20k civilians and displacing 2 million more.
To be clear, I do not begrudge Israel the right to take some military action here, especially because it has to rescue its hostages. But the onus of offering justification is on someone trying to justify the staggering death toll and the sheer cruelty the country is displaying right now, not on the ones who are looking at it for realistically what it is.
> I’m sure IDF is happy to hear about that.
Given what many of us have read and seen of the IDF's conduct, I think we have every reason to believe they are more than ok with what their current plan. The rest of us are not as naive or stupid as you seem to think.
Palestinian lives don’t morally matter in the context of military strikes on Hamas assets. Same as how Israeli lives don’t morally matter in the context of assaults on IDF military assets. The IDF soldiers who were caught off guard and died at their bases? That is unfortunately a part of war. Israeli civilians who might be visiting those military bases at the time they were attacked? Sucks to be them, but their deaths are not a moral wrong.
What would be your examples of wars where enemy civilians were placed at the same level of important as your own civilians? Or where belligerents would be willing to have more of their combatants die to reduce the number of deaths, civilian or otherwise on the other side?
In addition to what I told the other poster, I think it's important to note that someone on an internet forum trying to justify this isn't someone making a military decision. It's someone who genuinely just doesn't give a fuck about someone else's grandmother, cousins, etc. dying in horrid ways. There are Palestinian Americans over here who live normal lives, who are losing family members over there to Israeli bombs. Yet there are people here who, if those people try to speak out about that, would try to brand them as anti-Semites and "Hamas supporters".
I have not met anyone who supports Hamas, or even read that on this forum (though I have seen a couple eyebrow-raising comments here and there), yet there are so many people only justifying the actions of the IDF and try to convince the rest of us that what it has been doing to the Palestinians is ok. Think about that.
(Which is not to say that partisans on the Palestinian side of this are somehow angels or anything--if anything, I think it's disappointing there aren't more Muslim or Arab groups like Jewish Voice for Peace, etc.)
Anyways, if I continue arguing like this, I am part of the problem, even if I am right. I don't want to pass up the opportunity in another one of these threads to try to plug these guys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGZlR_h96ek
The reality of humanity is that nobody cares equally about everything. We get riled up about some things but not others. We mostly care about what others try to get us to care about. We're tribal, we care more about our tribe than others. We care more about our group than other groups.
I get the viewpoint from the Palestinian-American side. My problem isn't with their natural response, which is to do whatever it takes to protect their families and friends. My problem is with the demonizing rhetoric they use and the real world consequences of that. They have mass protests with calls for genocide against Jews. As a Jew in North America this makes me feel less safe. In the real world, Jewish businesses are getting attacked, Jews feel threatened and are threatened. There is a connection between the demonizing and antisemitism. There is no other context or way to look at attacks against Jews everywhere other than antisemitism. "The Jews" and "Israel" are used interchangeably in online discourse and on the street. Another real world consequence is IMO more Palestinian suffering in the middle east, not less. I also want my family in Israel to be safe, I don't go marching in the streets calling for all Palestinians to be expelled from the region or killed.
There are many Palestinians that support Hamas. In previous surveys it's been somewhere around 50% or more. In more recent surveys it's 75% ( https://thehub.ca/2023-11-27/amal-attar-guzman-palestinian-s... ). We also need to separate the question of support for Hamas from the question of supporting the goals and methods of Hamas. Many Palestinians believe in violent struggle until Israel is dismantled. Basically either kill all the Jews or force them to leave. I don't have a survey handy but that view is prevalent. I would challenge your assertion of "not met anyone that supports Hamas". People don't come out and say "I support Hamas" (well some do, but it's not exactly politically correct) but they act in support of Hamas. In my view if you're chanting "from the river to the sea" you support Hamas because that is Hamas ideology. A recent survey found many of the chanters don't know what's the river and what's the sea and once told many changed their minds but ignorance does not absolve. People have a choice of calling for peace or calling for violence and we see too many people calling for violence. A call for peace should be a call for peace for everyone. I am convinced the root cause of violence in the region is the Palestinian pursuit of indiscriminate violence as a means of solving their historical injustices.
I have no problem saying that I support the IDF and Israel. I think the IDF's actions are as moral as any other military in war. Israel didn't choose this war. It was forced on it. At the same time I do feel for the Palestinians. There is no conflict. I wish Israel's security could be achieved without this massive price in lives. I am as sad as anyone by the scenes of destruction, children being pulled from rubble, etc. I just don't make my moral decisions based on appeals to my emotions and attempts of the media to manipulate me. Whenever I see the IDF acting in ways that I feel are wrong I do add that to my overall evaluation, there might be a point where I reconsider. I also lived in Israel during Hamas' suicide bombing campaign against Israeli civilians. There are many injustices from the Israeli side. You need to form a complete picture though.
I feel like most of your message is emotional. This is a normal response to many things we're seeing. I'm not sure it's a way to make progress. I think likely you're also being manipulated. There could be a different media and social media narrative that would make you feel different given the exact same facts on the ground. Think about that. There's plenty of evidence to support this thesis.
Almost everything you're saying about them is pretty visibly applicable to your attitude towards them. I don't see much of a difference between a Palestinian or Muslim who isn't sorry Israelis were killed on Oct 7th or who believes that's a valid form of nationalist insurgency or retaliation, and a Jew or an Israeli who supports the IDF's current campaign.
I think most of us without direct skin in the game have the basic moral sense to fail to find the kind of incredibly biased take you're offering here particularly convincing, and to greet with skepticism the notion that the side which has had the upper hand for longer than most of us have been alive is purely a victim.
If a Palestinian person came on trying to say "well the people in Gaza are so oppressed, they had no choice..." I would roll my eyes at that too. That they would lash out violently is understandable, but it's not their only choice, and it doesn't make it morally acceptable. You guys are more alike than you realize, and I don't mean that in a "kumbaya brotherhood" good kind of way.
> I also want my family in Israel to be safe, I don't go marching in the streets calling for all Palestinians to be expelled from the region or killed.
You don't have to. It's been happening, and has just been accelerated.
I'm sorry that you can't see the difference. What does "Muslim" have to do with this by the way? Why is it the the group of Muslims as a whole is taking a position here? According to you anyways.
Ofcourse I'm biased but so are you. I'm struggling to follow your logic. If the Allies had the upper hand against the Nazis does it make the Nazis the victim? If the west had the upper hand against the Soviet block is Russia the victim? What does that have to do with anything.
"That they would lash out violently is understandable," no it's not. You're just taking the "people in Gaza are oppressed" (by Israel) at face value. It's just a false statement. Even if it was true then Oct 7th is not justified. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and the course the Palestinians took from that point was mainly their own.
All Palestinians are not being killed or expelled from the region. That is an indisputable fact as of this time. But it's also got nothing to do with my argument. Supporters of Israel aren't marching in the streets calling for this but supporters of Palestinians are marching in the streets calling for the destruction of Israel. (EDIT: and this was true earlier in the war as well, as soon as Israel responded, when there were still many more Israeli dead and more damage than on the Palestinian side)
The only thing I will agree with you is that Israel does have choices. And their choices can be criticized. Israel acts to protect its citizens and that's an important context. If your starting point is that Israel should be destroyed and all its citizens be killed then naturally no choice Israel makes is going to be acceptable to you.
EDIT: I just want to add here that while I am biased about this conflict I think I am applying the same measures and principles that I apply when I look at other conflicts where I am not directly and emotionally involved. Ofcourse I have some biases for those as well. So when I look e.g. at the wars the US or NATO engaged at, or when I look at the Russia-Ukraine war, or I look at any other war that happened in my lifetime, I try to apply some objective measures. If we look at how countries wage wars we can look at their practices. For example, we can look at Russia's practices at Mariupol. Or we can look at practices in the battle of Mosul. and we can compare them to IDF practices. Or we can look at practices in the Syrian civil war. Or we can look at WW-I or WW-II. How do we know if Ukraine is right or Russia is right? How can we tell which side is fighting more "morally". We need a benchmark. What we have here is a war between Gaza and Israel. We don't say Ukraine's war with Putin. We say Ukraine's war with Russia. When the US went to war in Afghanistan it was likewise not the US vs. Al Qaeda, it was the US vs. Afghanistan. If we want to take the bias out we need to be able to benchmark things and make them comparable. Whenever I try to set some benchmark (for example what are protestors calling for) there's always some maneuver to try and get away from a benchmark to emotions and opinions. I'm open to figure out other ways of "discovering" the unbiased truths here as much as that exists. We have facts and we have the interpretation of these facts. In most discourse on this topic the facts/truth are distorted and benchmarking/interpreting this facts is not an interest.
> go after military targets even at some cost to civilians (and the question of that cost)
I feel the "question of that cost" is where the differences in opinion lie.
For example, if Israel considered the civilians of Gaza as Israel citizens of equal importance to all other Israeli citizens, you'd expect them to consider that cost to be much higher, and it would force them to maneuver much more carefully in their military operations in order to minimize it. Yes, it would make it a lot harder for them to fight and make headway against Hamas as well if they did.
Some people hold the belief that this is how Israel should treat civilians, no lesser than they'd treat their own.
I think another contentious issue, is around the outcome of the war, and what it means for those civilians as well. Is the idea to force the One-State solution, but not as a binational state with equal rights for all citizens, irrespective of ethnicity or religion, but instead as a state with dominant Jewish identity? The impression to this question can change your opinion of the civilian casualties, are they an unfortunate price to pay towards their liberation from Hamas, and their incorporation into a more just, equal, fair, democracy, where they can live a better life? Or is it actually towards their further oppression by Israel?
Or if it is to force a Two-State solution, again, what would it mean of those civilians, would the Palestinian state be forced to harsh conditions as part of treaties if they lose the war, which would hurt those civilians further, etc.
It's complicated, but I do think most of it is about this "cost of civilian casualties", and what worth you attribute to it, and what worth you attribute to the end in order to justify the means.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect Israel to consider Palestinians civilians in Gaza as of equal value to Israeli civilians in Israel during war time. Israel's duty as a country is to provide security for its people. I don't think this is a standard adhered to in any other war. That said, consider Israel is bombing tunnels and infrastructure where there is a real possibility that Israeli hostages would get killed.
The question of the outcome of the war is a reasonable one. That said the primary goal of the war is to ensure the security of Israel. The longer term outcome would depend on political processes in Israel and in the Palestinian side and likely all the other parties that are have been meddling in this conflict forever.
What's "reasonable" is not a trivial matter to answer, and different people will differ in their opinion here. What goes into someone's determination for what is reasonable I think is very complex and deep, including their own moral values, emotional attachment, repercussions to themselves, perceived righteousness, strategic analysis, etc.
I don't personally know what's reasonable or not here to be honest, but I do know the differing opinion on it is a major contributor to the discourse and the disagreements around it.
I wanted to point that out, because you and another commenter were not able to convince each other, and this is why in my opinion.
Things are much clearer, you are just cherry picking what to respond and defend. Then you build your case against isreal critics. One example of things you ignored replying to the GP comment is this. This is a plain war crime
> Israeli defense Minister Yoav Gallant: "I have ordered a complete siege on Gaza: no electricity, no food, no fuel, no water. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we will act accordingly."
But Israel does allow food and water to enter Gaza. Some fuel. And yes, it stopped providing a portion of Gaza's electricity.
I think this (new) Wikipedia article is somewhat iffy. And maybe I'm misusing terminology. I think Israel's actions in this context constitute a blockade that is legal in times of war. I don't want to nitpick siege vs. blockage etc. or the fact that Israel doesn't control all the borders. Israel's actions here are legal.
> But Israel does allow food and water to enter Gaza
You mean by not bombing rafah crossing in violation of international law as they did several times already?
> I think Israel's actions in this context constitute a blockade that is legal in times of war
> Israel's actions here are legal.
At least provide any sources during your quest to defend isreal actions. Even if it is straightout lies like that one [1]
Hint : the story is about Israeli military releases footage of a secret terrorist ‘roster’ that turns out to be a calendar (that was very obvious for any one with basic arabic knowledge) and that was their justification for bombing and taking out a children hospital bt force.
It's not my government. I don't live in Israel. If I was I'd certainly not vote for them. I can list dozens of things the Israeli government does that I am opposed to. I don't think I'm excusing anything but I will push back on the standard propaganda narrative like this "calendar" story. The Israeli government should resign. It's a disgrace. As far as re-taking Gaza after Oct 7th, knowing Israel, that was the only possible outcome. Likely the Hamas knew that too.
