It is quite sad that there are two armed forces in Gaza currently, and the IDF is the one that cares more about Palestinian civilian lives - mind you, not that that's a very high bar.
It is quite sad that there are two armed forces in Gaza currently, and the IDF is the one that cares more about Palestinian civilian lives - mind you, not that that's a very high bar.
There’s probably cases of war crimes from the IDF against citizens in Gaza but I don’t think the IDF are trying to commit genocide anymore than Hamas is (committing genocide against its own...
There’s probably cases of war crimes from the IDF against citizens in Gaza but I don’t think the IDF are trying to commit genocide anymore than Hamas is (committing genocide against its own Palestinian citizens). If the IDF just wanted to kill everyone in Gaza there’d be a lot more dead Palestinians.
The death toll of the entire IDF entirely dedicated to annihilating all Palestinians with artillery would easily be over 500k by now.
Saying “they aren’t killing Palestinians as fast as possible so therefore they aren’t killing them on purpose” isn’t a valid argument. There is no other way to describe the blockade except for as...
Saying “they aren’t killing Palestinians as fast as possible so therefore they aren’t killing them on purpose” isn’t a valid argument. There is no other way to describe the blockade except for as collective punishment when Israeli government ministers have specifically said that they will not allow food and supplies for civilians unless they somehow overthrow Hamas themselves.
Sure, but the question is whether or not it's genocide. The argument for whether or not it constitutes collective punishment of civilians, which is a warcrime, is stronger, but the argument for...
There is no other way to describe the blockade except for as collective punishment
Sure, but the question is whether or not it's genocide. The argument for whether or not it constitutes collective punishment of civilians, which is a warcrime, is stronger, but the argument for whether or not genocide is the explicit goal of the IDF is much weaker.
Like Hamas, I think the IDF has political and military goals it was to accomplish and are not particularly careful about civilians lives in Gaza when accomplishing, although Hamas is even more flagrant in their explicit disregard for civilians in Gaza.
Genocide isn’t always just “we’re going to round up all these people and kill then right now.” It’s something that historically has often ramped up to ethnic cleansing and collective punishment...
Genocide isn’t always just “we’re going to round up all these people and kill then right now.” It’s something that historically has often ramped up to ethnic cleansing and collective punishment based on some supposed military necessity. When you look at the rhetoric surrounding this conflict, with multiple Israeli ministers and officials dehumanizing Palestinians and calling for Gaza to be flattened—to say nothing of the attacks in the West Bank which Hamas doesn’t even control—the argument for this being a genocide in the making is incredibly concerning.
Sure there is. The "other way to describe it" is precisely how Israel describes it, a painful, crude, but necessary measure meant to prevent a hostile terrorist group from receiving supplies. We...
There is no other way to describe the blockade except for as collective punishment when Israeli government ministers have specifically said that they will not allow food and supplies for civilians unless they somehow overthrow Hamas themselves.
Sure there is. The "other way to describe it" is precisely how Israel describes it, a painful, crude, but necessary measure meant to prevent a hostile terrorist group from receiving supplies. We don't live in a perfect world. We like to pretend we have perfect high-tech tools that allow us to easily screen and search for contraband on a massive scale. But the truth is, we don't. And often even innocuous things, like food, fuel, and fertilizer, get redirected to military aims. Hamas makes rockets out of old irrigation pipes and fills them with explosives made from fertilizer and diesel fuel. They stormed across the border on repurposed civilian vehicles and construction equipment. Even just food and water; these things go first to Hamas, and the civilians get the scraps.
It's brutal, but a blockade is one of the few tools Israel really has its disposal here. Yes, I know it's easy to lazily critique and say they shouldn't do that, but Israel doesn't get that option. They don't get to hold out for the perfect solution that starves Hamas while letting the Gazan population prosper. The reason they did the blockade was because a blockade WAS the more humanitarian option. The alternative was a brutal bombing campaign followed by ground invasion. The Israelis had hoped that a blockade would prevent the need for such an invasion, but that turned out not to be enough.
Of course they claim it’s necessary, why wouldn’t they? That still doesn’t make it not collective punishment. The idea that wanting civilians not to starve is “lazy” and this deprivation is...
Of course they claim it’s necessary, why wouldn’t they? That still doesn’t make it not collective punishment. The idea that wanting civilians not to starve is “lazy” and this deprivation is “humane” is really beyond words. Palestinian lives aren't worth less than Israeli lives.
Ok, well then what's your solution? Because I struggle to think of any that might work. It's lazy because it's lazy criticism without any viable alternate suggestion. What other alternatives did...
Ok, well then what's your solution? Because I struggle to think of any that might work.
It's lazy because it's lazy criticism without any viable alternate suggestion. What other alternatives did Israel have?
Just open the borders? Hamas has a free-for-all and can actually start importing advanced heavy weaponry from Iran such as large numbers of guided missiles.
Allow everything in, but search everything? Impossible without magical sci fi technology that people just assume exists.
Strong blockade but allow limited shipments of prescreened goods, goods the least likely to serve a military purpose? This will cause civilian suffering, but it's probably the best alternative there is.
Again, it is extremely lazy to simply criticize without any viable suggestion on what Israel should be doing instead. Usually, in these discussions, it ultimately just comes down to, "I have no idea, I guess that's Israel's problem to figure out. If they can't figure out how to protect themselves without harming Hamas's human shields, I guess the Israelis should just lay down and die."
None of that matters when they’re also bombing the south and have even bombed evacuation routes in some cases. Furthermore, the idea that civilians who don’t evacuate are acceptable collateral...
None of that matters when they’re also bombing the south and have even bombed evacuation routes in some cases. Furthermore, the idea that civilians who don’t evacuate are acceptable collateral damage is repugnant and against international law.
International law states that civilians proportional to the military advantage gained are acceptable collateral damage. As long as reasonable precautions are made. Like telling them to evacuate....
Furthermore, the idea that civilians who don’t evacuate are acceptable collateral damage is repugnant and against international law.
International law states that civilians proportional to the military advantage gained are acceptable collateral damage. As long as reasonable precautions are made. Like telling them to evacuate. Or selecting comparable targets that can be hit with fewer civilian casualties. Which Hamas intentionally makes impossible.
The response to someone taking hostages to use as human shields isn’t to kill the hostages. The bombing of Jabalia Camp is just one of the many examples where totally disproportionate force has...
The response to someone taking hostages to use as human shields isn’t to kill the hostages. The bombing of Jabalia Camp is just one of the many examples where totally disproportionate force has been used. It’s completely unjustified.
EDIT: Killing 400 people to get to one Hamas leader is quite a big difference from a 1 to 1 trade. Entire family bloodlines are being wiped out. I seriously doubt that this will make the survivors more inclined to end the cycle of violence, even if Israel does through some miracle decide to help them and not try to expel them.
Well, no, that's not the preferred way of doing things. But this hostage taker is actively using the cover of that human shield to kill more civilians. That kind of limits the options a lot, does...
The response to someone taking hostages to use as human shields isn’t to kill the hostages.
Well, no, that's not the preferred way of doing things. But this hostage taker is actively using the cover of that human shield to kill more civilians. That kind of limits the options a lot, does it not? Should Israel just wait and hope for the weather to clear up? I don't think that's going to protect them from the next Hamas incursion.
As for military advantages and proportionality, it's my understanding [citation needed] that the leader in Jabalia Camp was the top military leader of the northern part of the strip. That's a military advantage that I'd expect easily saves dozens of IDF lives. And the IHL doesn't expect you to trade 1-1.
Now, if you were asking me whether I think Israel is doing the right thing, I'd say it really depends on what their phase two is. If they marshall plan the shit out of Gaza after they're done eliminating Hamas, and stop the settling activities, this might actually end the cycle of violence. But I'm doubtful Israel can muster the political will for it. I'd make my judgement contingent on that.
It really isn't. International law does not allow Hamas to do what it is doing. According to international law, when a civilian facility, home, or piece of infrastructure is being used for...
the idea that civilians who don’t evacuate are acceptable collateral damage is repugnant and against international law.
It really isn't. International law does not allow Hamas to do what it is doing. According to international law, when a civilian facility, home, or piece of infrastructure is being used for military purposes, it is a military target, not a civilian one. This is why civilized militaries wear uniforms and are stationed at dedicated bases, rather than based out of hospital basements.
International law was written by nations. It was written by nations who were not going to tie their hands against a legitimate security threat. The idea that an enemy might hide behind civilians was not a scenario they neglected. And when international laws were written, they wrote them with this scenario in mind. Again, from a purely legal perspective, when a civilian target is being used for a military purpose, LEGALLY SPEAKING, it is now a military target.
You may disagree with this, and perhaps you would write the laws differently. But again, no nation would ever sign off on such a law. International law has always been a balance. Nations want to reduce civilian suffering as much as they practically can. But they have to balance that against their own security. No nation would ever sign a treaty that would allow a terrorist group to hide behind civilian infrastructure and attack with impunity while tying the hands of that nation, preventing them from attacking back.
People are way too loose with the term "international law." Usually what they're really referring to when they say that is just vibes. But laws aren't vibes, they are laws, written words. And Israel is largely acting according to international law.
This is so critical to understand. And it's not just because "the powerful made the rules", it's also because war is about the powerful remaking the rules ad hoc. You can't constrain that with...
International law was written by nations. It was written by nations who were not going to tie their hands against a legitimate security threat.
This is so critical to understand. And it's not just because "the powerful made the rules", it's also because war is about the powerful remaking the rules ad hoc. You can't constrain that with rules, merely shape it into a more "productive" (relative to war goals) direction. If IHL was as Kumbaya as most people would like it to be, it would be completely ineffective, because no one at war would give a single shit, because under those conditions, armed conflict is impossible. It would be on the level of just prohibiting armed conflict. Which is for the most part already forbidden. IHL has to make room for actual conflict to exist in a practical manner, it has to make room for parties to pursue military objectives without burdening them too much with humanitarian concerns. Otherwise, it might as well not exist, or prohibit armed conflict altogether, which both end up being practically identical.
What war crimes has Israel committed? We throw around "war crime" all too easily, but war crimes, like all crimes, are specific violations of written law. Genocide is a war crime, but Israel does...
What war crimes has Israel committed? We throw around "war crime" all too easily, but war crimes, like all crimes, are specific violations of written law. Genocide is a war crime, but Israel does not appear to be practicing genocide. They're not trying to exterminate the Gazan population. They're opening humanitarian corridors, giving civilians a place to retreat to, and have paused their offensive for weeks to give civilians time to get out.
You can point to bombing of civilian infrastructure, but that actually isn't a war crime when that infrastructure is being used towards military ends. It's not a war crime to bomb a factory used to create military aircraft, even if that factory is staffed by civilians.
It is however a war crime to use human shields. Hamas hides its operations behind civilians targets, often operating literally right out of or underneath schools and hospitals. This is a war crime, per the actual war crime laws and treaties. Bombing military infrastructure disguised as or shielded by civilian infrastructure is not a war crime.
Now, you could try to nitpick and say that because Gaza isn't a recognized sovereign nation, and thus Hamas isn't a formal army, and thus war crime laws don't apply to them. But if you do that, then what Israel is doing wouldn't even count as an interstate conflict or war; it would essentially be an elaborate police action. And war crimes laws generally apply to well wars, wars between states. If Hamas cannot commit war crimes because they're not an army, then Israel can't commit war crimes because it's not formally at war.
If we're going to have posts like this we need to remember that Netanyahu funded Hamas because he wanted to prevent the a Palestinian state from being established.
If we're going to have posts like this we need to remember that Netanyahu funded Hamas because he wanted to prevent the a Palestinian state from being established.
This is true, but irrelevant. No-one could foresee Hamas doing this. It was believed that we had reached a sort of "agreement" where violence flared up every couple of months mainly as a show, and...
This is true, but irrelevant. No-one could foresee Hamas doing this. It was believed that we had reached a sort of "agreement" where violence flared up every couple of months mainly as a show, and then things calmed down.
Because it doesn't matter what Netanyahu did at the time, and despite what Hamas says the Israeli government and army both were under the impression that the organization didn't want a full-on war...
Because it doesn't matter what Netanyahu did at the time, and despite what Hamas says the Israeli government and army both were under the impression that the organization didn't want a full-on war with them; an assumption that was wrong.
Unless you mean to suggest that Netanyahu actually planned *this kind of attack" all along - as much as I dislike the man, these kinds of claims are as good as the ones made against Bush.
Netanyahu made a mistake when he brought Hamas to power, this much is certain, but I fail to see how it's relevant because Israel doesn't and hasn't controlled what Hamas does. The claims by Hamas aren't the fault of anyone except for leadership that treats its people like meat to be grinded.
Netanyahu directed funding to a terrorist organization with the explicit intent of undermining the non-terrorist alternative of the PLO. He is a sponsor of terrorism, full stop.
Netanyahu directed funding to a terrorist organization with the explicit intent of undermining the non-terrorist alternative of the PLO. He is a sponsor of terrorism, full stop.
I know these arguments well and for each one, if you dig deep enough, you find that it's either quoted by another person or extrapolated in an opinion piece. We cannot say with current high...
I know these arguments well and for each one, if you dig deep enough, you find that it's either quoted by another person or extrapolated in an opinion piece. We cannot say with current high confidence that this is the case because Netanyahu hasn't been subject to interrogation in this regard, but after the war is over we will know without a doubt what happened. Until then, these same points will remain opinions.
To clarify, I hate the guy. I didn't vote for him. I think that he's to blame for what happened and for a lot of our issues, but I absolutely do not think that he purposefully funded Hamas in anticipation for them to continue armed conflict against Israel. We cannot start claiming things like this as fact because we think they happened; the right is sure that Biden is a crime lord, but they're clowned on constantly.
Until there are investigations and official information I'd rather not confidently claim these kinds of things. It's, in my opinion, irresponsible and polarizing. There's ample criticism to raise against Netanyahu without standing on this kind of "he said she said" shaky ground.
If the Jerusalem Post quote of Netanyahu is to be believed (that power should be divided between Hamas and the PLO to undermine PLO consolidating governance to establish a Palestinian state), I...
If the Jerusalem Post quote of Netanyahu is to be believed (that power should be divided between Hamas and the PLO to undermine PLO consolidating governance to establish a Palestinian state), I think that's sufficient evidence to derive such a conclusion. If the general narrative is that Hamas is a terrorist organization (which I generally agree with), then Netanyahu is a sponsor of terrorism for funding them to undermine the PLO. If Netanyahu is not a sponsor of terrorism for funding Hamas, then Hamas is not a terrorist organization—making their struggle against the Israeli state a legitimate anti-colonial resistance (a conclusion that I am opposed to).
I don't see how that's at all irrelevant. Hamas has been very open about its intents since at least 1988 when it published its charter. No one could foresee the Hamas attack on Israel because it...
I don't see how that's at all irrelevant. Hamas has been very open about its intents since at least 1988 when it published its charter. No one could foresee the Hamas attack on Israel because it was inconceivable that the Israeli security apparatus would drop the ball that badly, not because Hamas would never do such a thing.
As I clarified above, it was wrongfully believed that Hamas was no longer interested in all-out warfare, precisely because of what's happening to Gaza now. The assumption was that Hamas still...
As I clarified above, it was wrongfully believed that Hamas was no longer interested in all-out warfare, precisely because of what's happening to Gaza now. The assumption was that Hamas still cares for its people at the end of the day. You can say it was a mistake, but the argument of whether or not Netanyahu should have known better at the time has nothing to do with the fact that Hamas is doing and saying horrific things right now.
Not sure why you think “no one could foresee Hamas doing this”. And “it was believed”? By who, exactly? In my opinion is a very naive way to think that I feel requires a total ignorance to the...
Not sure why you think “no one could foresee Hamas doing this”. And “it was believed”? By who, exactly? In my opinion is a very naive way to think that I feel requires a total ignorance to the conditions in Gaza for the past decades. My whole life it’s felt like Israel was just choking out Gaza until the “problem” was solved. What happened is what any rational person should have expected to happen should Israel let their guard down even for a moment.
This is going to be my last response in this thread because I don't believe it's going anywhere, but truthfully speaking, comments like yours are why I feel it's difficult to speak about this...
This is going to be my last response in this thread because I don't believe it's going anywhere, but truthfully speaking, comments like yours are why I feel it's difficult to speak about this conflict with people outside of it or people who haven't extensively researched it (as in, educated in it), and why I tend to avoid commenting on it and will probably go back to doing so.
It is very easy to read about a conflict and see it as a simple cause and effect scenario. The simple fact is that neither the government nor the army thought that things would get this bad this fast. When helicopters first arrived, they thought it was a protest, because that's all we ever experienced from them. The idea that they'd do something like this, something that would pretty much guarantee massive military action, just wasn't seen as likely by the top brass of every single power in Israel.
Hamas should have been taken by their words, now we know. Israel thought it could get away with having a small, highly technological army, but it couldn't. Sitting here going "well it's obvious" shows that experiencing an environment and reading about it are completely different. I can promise you the vast majority of people in Israel did not think this was going to happen, government included.
Relying on journalism for this conflict is pretty much asking for information to be presented to you with a spin. You cannot trust information as accurate unless you can verify it somehow, because there's always a rabbithole that shows how it's not so obvious. When you have a hundred of these issues that affect one another, then you're left to piece together the truth from bits and pieces of both left and right media, discarding dead ends like unsourced quotes, second hand accounts, and poor opinion pieces.
The intent was not at all to hopefully buy them off. In light of the Hamas attacks, it would not be inappropriate to describe Netanyahu as a sponsor of terrorism and potentially a domestic terrorist.
In August 2019, former prime minister Ehud Barak told Israeli Army Radio that Netanyahu's "strategy is to keep Hamas alive and kicking … even at the price of abandoning the citizens [of the south] … in order to weaken the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah."
...
Netanyahu's hawkish defence minister Avigdor Liberman was the first to report in 2020 that Bibi had dispatched Mossad chief Yossi Cohen and the IDF's officer in charge of Gaza, Herzi Halevi, to Doha to "beg" the Qataris to continue to send money to Hamas.
...
"Both Egypt and Qatar are angry with Hamas and planned to cut ties with them. Suddenly Netanyahu appears as the defender of Hamas," the right-wing leader complained.
...
"The prime minister [Netanyahu] also said that 'whoever is against a Palestinian state should be for' transferring the funds to Gaza, because maintaining a separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza helps prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state."
In light of the Hamas attacks, it would not be inappropriate to describe Netanyahu as a sponsor of terrorism and potentially a domestic terrorist.
Correct, they allowed Qatari and Emirati money to get to Hamas. But they basically openly stated they were going to let this happen because wanted Hamas to be the preeminent "spokesman" for...
Correct, they allowed Qatari and Emirati money to get to Hamas. But they basically openly stated they were going to let this happen because wanted Hamas to be the preeminent "spokesman" for Palestinian causes because they felt this buttressed their political position domestically.
Though, the intl. rights groups also kind of demanded they do so because the money was technically supposed to be development aid.
Thousands have been killed in Gaza, with entire families wiped out. Israeli airstrikes have reduced Palestinian neighborhoods to expanses of rubble, while doctors treat screaming children in darkened hospitals with no anesthesia. Across the Middle East, fear has spread over the possible outbreak of a broader regional war.
But in the bloody arithmetic of Hamas’s leaders, the carnage is not the regrettable outcome of a big miscalculation. Quite the opposite, they say: It is the necessary cost of a great accomplishment — the shattering of the status quo and the opening of a new, more volatile chapter in their fight against Israel.
It was necessary to “change the entire equation and not just have a clash,” Khalil al-Hayya, a member of Hamas’s top leadership body, told The New York Times in Doha, Qatar. “We succeeded in putting the Palestinian issue back on the table, and now no one in the region is experiencing calm.”
Since the shocking Hamas attack on Oct. 7, in which Israel says about 1,400 people were killed — most of them civilians — and more than 240 others dragged back to Gaza as captives, the group’s leaders have praised the operation, with some hoping it will set off a sustained conflict that ends any pretense of coexistence among Israel, Gaza and the countries around them.
“I hope that the state of war with Israel will become permanent on all the borders, and that the Arab world will stand with us,” Taher El-Nounou, a Hamas media adviser, told The Times.
So they're banking on other nations' political will to wage war via misguided religious obligation to join a jihad. It's a sad and predictable tactic to try to guilt other muslims to join them in...
“I hope that the state of war with Israel will become permanent on all the borders, and that the Arab world will stand with us,”
So they're banking on other nations' political will to wage war via misguided religious obligation to join a jihad. It's a sad and predictable tactic to try to guilt other muslims to join them in their bullshit.
Let's see how unified people are under religion when the rest of the region lose trading partners and get a bloody nose fighting Israel on another front.
This is insane, the only other groups who might join in, is I think Iran, and Hezbollah.
The rest (begrudgingly) want to continue to trade with Israel as partner in the region beyond any religious divide, and rightly so because the alternative is to fight Israel backed by the US which is futile, and bad for oil exports.
Iraninan allies and Hezbollah have, at best, offered moral support with some easily parried rocket attacks. They have, so far, avoided escalating matters. I don't think they have the political...
Iraninan allies and Hezbollah have, at best, offered moral support with some easily parried rocket attacks. They have, so far, avoided escalating matters. I don't think they have the political will to open up a conflict right now their own countries might not be sufficiently united to remain stable if they enter into a state of war.
It is quite sad that there are two armed forces in Gaza currently, and the IDF is the one that cares more about Palestinian civilian lives - mind you, not that that's a very high bar.
Let's be clear: Israel is committing war crimes and genocide.
There’s probably cases of war crimes from the IDF against citizens in Gaza but I don’t think the IDF are trying to commit genocide anymore than Hamas is (committing genocide against its own Palestinian citizens). If the IDF just wanted to kill everyone in Gaza there’d be a lot more dead Palestinians.
The death toll of the entire IDF entirely dedicated to annihilating all Palestinians with artillery would easily be over 500k by now.
Saying “they aren’t killing Palestinians as fast as possible so therefore they aren’t killing them on purpose” isn’t a valid argument. There is no other way to describe the blockade except for as collective punishment when Israeli government ministers have specifically said that they will not allow food and supplies for civilians unless they somehow overthrow Hamas themselves.
Sure, but the question is whether or not it's genocide. The argument for whether or not it constitutes collective punishment of civilians, which is a warcrime, is stronger, but the argument for whether or not genocide is the explicit goal of the IDF is much weaker.
Like Hamas, I think the IDF has political and military goals it was to accomplish and are not particularly careful about civilians lives in Gaza when accomplishing, although Hamas is even more flagrant in their explicit disregard for civilians in Gaza.
Genocide isn’t always just “we’re going to round up all these people and kill then right now.” It’s something that historically has often ramped up to ethnic cleansing and collective punishment based on some supposed military necessity. When you look at the rhetoric surrounding this conflict, with multiple Israeli ministers and officials dehumanizing Palestinians and calling for Gaza to be flattened—to say nothing of the attacks in the West Bank which Hamas doesn’t even control—the argument for this being a genocide in the making is incredibly concerning.
Sure there is. The "other way to describe it" is precisely how Israel describes it, a painful, crude, but necessary measure meant to prevent a hostile terrorist group from receiving supplies. We don't live in a perfect world. We like to pretend we have perfect high-tech tools that allow us to easily screen and search for contraband on a massive scale. But the truth is, we don't. And often even innocuous things, like food, fuel, and fertilizer, get redirected to military aims. Hamas makes rockets out of old irrigation pipes and fills them with explosives made from fertilizer and diesel fuel. They stormed across the border on repurposed civilian vehicles and construction equipment. Even just food and water; these things go first to Hamas, and the civilians get the scraps.
It's brutal, but a blockade is one of the few tools Israel really has its disposal here. Yes, I know it's easy to lazily critique and say they shouldn't do that, but Israel doesn't get that option. They don't get to hold out for the perfect solution that starves Hamas while letting the Gazan population prosper. The reason they did the blockade was because a blockade WAS the more humanitarian option. The alternative was a brutal bombing campaign followed by ground invasion. The Israelis had hoped that a blockade would prevent the need for such an invasion, but that turned out not to be enough.
Of course they claim it’s necessary, why wouldn’t they? That still doesn’t make it not collective punishment. The idea that wanting civilians not to starve is “lazy” and this deprivation is “humane” is really beyond words. Palestinian lives aren't worth less than Israeli lives.
Ok, well then what's your solution? Because I struggle to think of any that might work.
It's lazy because it's lazy criticism without any viable alternate suggestion. What other alternatives did Israel have?
Just open the borders? Hamas has a free-for-all and can actually start importing advanced heavy weaponry from Iran such as large numbers of guided missiles.
Allow everything in, but search everything? Impossible without magical sci fi technology that people just assume exists.
Strong blockade but allow limited shipments of prescreened goods, goods the least likely to serve a military purpose? This will cause civilian suffering, but it's probably the best alternative there is.
Again, it is extremely lazy to simply criticize without any viable suggestion on what Israel should be doing instead. Usually, in these discussions, it ultimately just comes down to, "I have no idea, I guess that's Israel's problem to figure out. If they can't figure out how to protect themselves without harming Hamas's human shields, I guess the Israelis should just lay down and die."
None of that matters when they’re also bombing the south and have even bombed evacuation routes in some cases. Furthermore, the idea that civilians who don’t evacuate are acceptable collateral damage is repugnant and against international law.
International law states that civilians proportional to the military advantage gained are acceptable collateral damage. As long as reasonable precautions are made. Like telling them to evacuate. Or selecting comparable targets that can be hit with fewer civilian casualties. Which Hamas intentionally makes impossible.
The response to someone taking hostages to use as human shields isn’t to kill the hostages. The bombing of Jabalia Camp is just one of the many examples where totally disproportionate force has been used. It’s completely unjustified.
EDIT: Killing 400 people to get to one Hamas leader is quite a big difference from a 1 to 1 trade. Entire family bloodlines are being wiped out. I seriously doubt that this will make the survivors more inclined to end the cycle of violence, even if Israel does through some miracle decide to help them and not try to expel them.
Well, no, that's not the preferred way of doing things. But this hostage taker is actively using the cover of that human shield to kill more civilians. That kind of limits the options a lot, does it not? Should Israel just wait and hope for the weather to clear up? I don't think that's going to protect them from the next Hamas incursion.
As for military advantages and proportionality, it's my understanding [citation needed] that the leader in Jabalia Camp was the top military leader of the northern part of the strip. That's a military advantage that I'd expect easily saves dozens of IDF lives. And the IHL doesn't expect you to trade 1-1.
Now, if you were asking me whether I think Israel is doing the right thing, I'd say it really depends on what their phase two is. If they marshall plan the shit out of Gaza after they're done eliminating Hamas, and stop the settling activities, this might actually end the cycle of violence. But I'm doubtful Israel can muster the political will for it. I'd make my judgement contingent on that.
in this vein, any sort of force used to deescalate any sort of conflict is unjustified.
It really isn't. International law does not allow Hamas to do what it is doing. According to international law, when a civilian facility, home, or piece of infrastructure is being used for military purposes, it is a military target, not a civilian one. This is why civilized militaries wear uniforms and are stationed at dedicated bases, rather than based out of hospital basements.
International law was written by nations. It was written by nations who were not going to tie their hands against a legitimate security threat. The idea that an enemy might hide behind civilians was not a scenario they neglected. And when international laws were written, they wrote them with this scenario in mind. Again, from a purely legal perspective, when a civilian target is being used for a military purpose, LEGALLY SPEAKING, it is now a military target.
You may disagree with this, and perhaps you would write the laws differently. But again, no nation would ever sign off on such a law. International law has always been a balance. Nations want to reduce civilian suffering as much as they practically can. But they have to balance that against their own security. No nation would ever sign a treaty that would allow a terrorist group to hide behind civilian infrastructure and attack with impunity while tying the hands of that nation, preventing them from attacking back.
People are way too loose with the term "international law." Usually what they're really referring to when they say that is just vibes. But laws aren't vibes, they are laws, written words. And Israel is largely acting according to international law.
The response to violations of international law is not to do even more violations of it. Is a pediatric cancer ward hiding Hamas? An ambulance convoy?
This is so critical to understand. And it's not just because "the powerful made the rules", it's also because war is about the powerful remaking the rules ad hoc. You can't constrain that with rules, merely shape it into a more "productive" (relative to war goals) direction. If IHL was as Kumbaya as most people would like it to be, it would be completely ineffective, because no one at war would give a single shit, because under those conditions, armed conflict is impossible. It would be on the level of just prohibiting armed conflict. Which is for the most part already forbidden. IHL has to make room for actual conflict to exist in a practical manner, it has to make room for parties to pursue military objectives without burdening them too much with humanitarian concerns. Otherwise, it might as well not exist, or prohibit armed conflict altogether, which both end up being practically identical.
What war crimes has Israel committed? We throw around "war crime" all too easily, but war crimes, like all crimes, are specific violations of written law. Genocide is a war crime, but Israel does not appear to be practicing genocide. They're not trying to exterminate the Gazan population. They're opening humanitarian corridors, giving civilians a place to retreat to, and have paused their offensive for weeks to give civilians time to get out.
You can point to bombing of civilian infrastructure, but that actually isn't a war crime when that infrastructure is being used towards military ends. It's not a war crime to bomb a factory used to create military aircraft, even if that factory is staffed by civilians.
It is however a war crime to use human shields. Hamas hides its operations behind civilians targets, often operating literally right out of or underneath schools and hospitals. This is a war crime, per the actual war crime laws and treaties. Bombing military infrastructure disguised as or shielded by civilian infrastructure is not a war crime.
Now, you could try to nitpick and say that because Gaza isn't a recognized sovereign nation, and thus Hamas isn't a formal army, and thus war crime laws don't apply to them. But if you do that, then what Israel is doing wouldn't even count as an interstate conflict or war; it would essentially be an elaborate police action. And war crimes laws generally apply to well wars, wars between states. If Hamas cannot commit war crimes because they're not an army, then Israel can't commit war crimes because it's not formally at war.
What was the point of this comment in the face of Hamas admitting that they're hopeful that their own people will die for their cause?
If we're going to have posts like this we need to remember that Netanyahu funded Hamas because he wanted to prevent the a Palestinian state from being established.
This is true, but irrelevant. No-one could foresee Hamas doing this. It was believed that we had reached a sort of "agreement" where violence flared up every couple of months mainly as a show, and then things calmed down.
Netanyahu will probably resign, but Hamas won't.
How can you say it's irrelevant? I don't understand that view at all.
Because it doesn't matter what Netanyahu did at the time, and despite what Hamas says the Israeli government and army both were under the impression that the organization didn't want a full-on war with them; an assumption that was wrong.
Unless you mean to suggest that Netanyahu actually planned *this kind of attack" all along - as much as I dislike the man, these kinds of claims are as good as the ones made against Bush.
Netanyahu made a mistake when he brought Hamas to power, this much is certain, but I fail to see how it's relevant because Israel doesn't and hasn't controlled what Hamas does. The claims by Hamas aren't the fault of anyone except for leadership that treats its people like meat to be grinded.
Netanyahu directed funding to a terrorist organization with the explicit intent of undermining the non-terrorist alternative of the PLO. He is a sponsor of terrorism, full stop.
I know these arguments well and for each one, if you dig deep enough, you find that it's either quoted by another person or extrapolated in an opinion piece. We cannot say with current high confidence that this is the case because Netanyahu hasn't been subject to interrogation in this regard, but after the war is over we will know without a doubt what happened. Until then, these same points will remain opinions.
To clarify, I hate the guy. I didn't vote for him. I think that he's to blame for what happened and for a lot of our issues, but I absolutely do not think that he purposefully funded Hamas in anticipation for them to continue armed conflict against Israel. We cannot start claiming things like this as fact because we think they happened; the right is sure that Biden is a crime lord, but they're clowned on constantly.
Until there are investigations and official information I'd rather not confidently claim these kinds of things. It's, in my opinion, irresponsible and polarizing. There's ample criticism to raise against Netanyahu without standing on this kind of "he said she said" shaky ground.
If the Jerusalem Post quote of Netanyahu is to be believed (that power should be divided between Hamas and the PLO to undermine PLO consolidating governance to establish a Palestinian state), I think that's sufficient evidence to derive such a conclusion. If the general narrative is that Hamas is a terrorist organization (which I generally agree with), then Netanyahu is a sponsor of terrorism for funding them to undermine the PLO. If Netanyahu is not a sponsor of terrorism for funding Hamas, then Hamas is not a terrorist organization—making their struggle against the Israeli state a legitimate anti-colonial resistance (a conclusion that I am opposed to).
I don't see how that's at all irrelevant. Hamas has been very open about its intents since at least 1988 when it published its charter. No one could foresee the Hamas attack on Israel because it was inconceivable that the Israeli security apparatus would drop the ball that badly, not because Hamas would never do such a thing.
As I clarified above, it was wrongfully believed that Hamas was no longer interested in all-out warfare, precisely because of what's happening to Gaza now. The assumption was that Hamas still cares for its people at the end of the day. You can say it was a mistake, but the argument of whether or not Netanyahu should have known better at the time has nothing to do with the fact that Hamas is doing and saying horrific things right now.
Not sure why you think “no one could foresee Hamas doing this”. And “it was believed”? By who, exactly? In my opinion is a very naive way to think that I feel requires a total ignorance to the conditions in Gaza for the past decades. My whole life it’s felt like Israel was just choking out Gaza until the “problem” was solved. What happened is what any rational person should have expected to happen should Israel let their guard down even for a moment.
This is going to be my last response in this thread because I don't believe it's going anywhere, but truthfully speaking, comments like yours are why I feel it's difficult to speak about this conflict with people outside of it or people who haven't extensively researched it (as in, educated in it), and why I tend to avoid commenting on it and will probably go back to doing so.
It is very easy to read about a conflict and see it as a simple cause and effect scenario. The simple fact is that neither the government nor the army thought that things would get this bad this fast. When helicopters first arrived, they thought it was a protest, because that's all we ever experienced from them. The idea that they'd do something like this, something that would pretty much guarantee massive military action, just wasn't seen as likely by the top brass of every single power in Israel.
Hamas should have been taken by their words, now we know. Israel thought it could get away with having a small, highly technological army, but it couldn't. Sitting here going "well it's obvious" shows that experiencing an environment and reading about it are completely different. I can promise you the vast majority of people in Israel did not think this was going to happen, government included.
Relying on journalism for this conflict is pretty much asking for information to be presented to you with a spin. You cannot trust information as accurate unless you can verify it somehow, because there's always a rabbithole that shows how it's not so obvious. When you have a hundred of these issues that affect one another, then you're left to piece together the truth from bits and pieces of both left and right media, discarding dead ends like unsourced quotes, second hand accounts, and poor opinion pieces.
The intent was not at all to hopefully buy them off.
In light of the Hamas attacks, it would not be inappropriate to describe Netanyahu as a sponsor of terrorism and potentially a domestic terrorist.
Correct, they allowed Qatari and Emirati money to get to Hamas. But they basically openly stated they were going to let this happen because wanted Hamas to be the preeminent "spokesman" for Palestinian causes because they felt this buttressed their political position domestically.
Though, the intl. rights groups also kind of demanded they do so because the money was technically supposed to be development aid.
So they're banking on other nations' political will to wage war via misguided religious obligation to join a jihad. It's a sad and predictable tactic to try to guilt other muslims to join them in their bullshit.
Let's see how unified people are under religion when the rest of the region lose trading partners and get a bloody nose fighting Israel on another front.
This is insane, the only other groups who might join in, is I think Iran, and Hezbollah.
The rest (begrudgingly) want to continue to trade with Israel as partner in the region beyond any religious divide, and rightly so because the alternative is to fight Israel backed by the US which is futile, and bad for oil exports.
Iraninan allies and Hezbollah have, at best, offered moral support with some easily parried rocket attacks. They have, so far, avoided escalating matters. I don't think they have the political will to open up a conflict right now their own countries might not be sufficiently united to remain stable if they enter into a state of war.