Russia's invasion of Ukraine is pretty low on civ casualties. Look at Gaza, or the Iraq/Vietnam invasions compare numbers (civ casualties AND time it took) and then draw conclusions on the use of the word genocide.
I also would abstain from using "russians" (or USAers, or Israelis) when referring to actions of the respective govts. Keeps the discussion cleaner of generalizations wrt people that may totally not support their govt's actions.
If you watch combat footage from eastern Ukraine, you will learn that many frontline towns and villages have been completely leveled by artillery. See for example[1]. And I don't have to mention Bucha[2] and other war crimes.
The relatively low civilian casualty count isn't because "Russians are so noble", but because:
1. Frontlines are static, giving civilians plenty of time to evacuate
2. Civilians actually have where to evacuate, Ukraine is big and covered by an extremely dense air defense network. Women and children can also freely go to the EU.
3. Ukraine has received an unprecedented amount of humanitarian aid.
Villages being leveled is different from genocide. And Ukraine screeming genocide is also different from actual genocide. Genocide needs numbers and the number are not there in Ukraine's case.
> The relatively low civilian casualty count isn't because "Russians are so noble"
I was not arguing their nobility, I was saying the word genocide may have been to easily used in Ukraine's case.
Given that Russia has literally genocided huge parts of the Ukrainian population in the recent past, it's not such a far-fetched or unreasonable. There is a lot of history here that you're ignoring.
But maybe those millions of people were also not a "real genocide".
And the Jews should also calm down when people start shouting Heil Hitler.
Or the blacks when people start talking about lynchings.
At any rate, whether it is or isn't "genocide" or whether it is or isn't "low on civ casualties" isn't important. It's a stupid invasion and every single casualty is a murder. Whether you want to classify this as "genocide" is a mostly unimportant semantic matter that distracts from the real issue.
Genocide does not need numbers, genocide is defined in international law and that definition has to be met. It's currently being investigated by a number of organizations:
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine currently suffers from severe undercount.
The RF forces sieged Mariopol like a medieval city at the start of the war, creating large scale suffering. Afaik there was no water or power and people were melting ice for water.
The civilian casualties on the Ukraine war are at least 100,000+ maybe a multiple of that number.
While we're on the subject of "under-counting", there is no official count of the number of civilians killed during the US Gov's invasion of Iraq. No sense counting what you don't want to know and don't want to be accounted for? US voters / citizens certainly don't care.
Independent sources put it at 100,000+. I've randomly read 2x to 3x that but 100k+ is bad enough.
There is official count of number of civilians murdered by Soviets in 1932-1934 by hunger (Holodomor) - 7 millions as declared by Russian Duma on 02.04.2008.
However, these are adults only, because children deaths are not counted at that time. With school-age children, for which records are stored, number raises to 10.5 million. Number of under school age children died because of artificial hunger in 1932-1934 is still unknown.
I hope, this will help to calculate number of deaths in Iraq.
I am sorry but Genocide is not about actually killing people, it is about "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group", which includes "killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide)
> Russian Federation agents have taken at least 19,546 children to that country from Ukraine since 18 February 2022. Among other violations, Russian Federation citizenship is imposed on them, and they are forbidden to speak and learn the Ukrainian language or preserve their Ukrainian identity
Sorry, genocide is not bringing people to safe and allowing them school. If Putin wanted maximum death of Ukrainians he would carpet bomb big Ukrainian cities (like the US+allies did in Iraq, Vietnam, Japan, Germany, ...)
This war --as bad as it is-- is nothing close to some of the worst wars we've seen in the last 100 years.
He did carpet bomb a big Ukrainian city, Mariupol, the russians have completely destroyed it and killed most of its residents. The only reason he hasn't carpet bombed other big Ukrainian cities is because his bombers would get shot down by air defence systems.
> Genocide is about the extermination of a people.
Thus resulting a lot of civ casualties. If it's genocide is for ever up to debate. Civ casualties are usually not that debatable. Without a large number (%) of civ deaths in some place there cannot be a genocide.
It can still be genocide without murder. Things like preventing childbirth or deporting/stealing children (like what Putin is wanted for) also fall under genocide.
For the most part "mass murder" and "genocide" have a lot of overlap. But it's not the same crime.
Do you believe they bombed the theater because they were actively trying to kill Ukrainian children?
You know , people tend to believe the "other side" is so evil that they probably actually believe shit like this. That's the kind of belief that makes people think that all means justify the end and why we have wars that kill hundreds of thousands in the first place... if you saw people from the other side as just normal people like you and me you would probably understand that there's a lot more about that story that you and I will not know in a long time, if ever.
I'm not saying they are "so evil". They either support war or don't care. For many combatants to go to war to kill some Ukrainians is a way our of prison and/or poverty.
But don't say it is the war of the government. Isn't government a representation of the people? People of Russia supported invasion to Georgia in 2008, occupation of Crimea and Donbas in 2014.
russian soldiers are evil nazis, not normal people. Most of the russian population supports the invasion, destruction of Ukrainian cities and killing of Ukrainian children.
And where did you learn that? My wife is Ukrainian and knows lot of Russians and Belarussians (they're neighbours after all, and no they don't all hate each other!!), they watch each other TV shows and like mostly the same singers (they understand each other pretty well)... a lot of the biggest Ukrainian singers go to live and work in Russia (though obviously they're now being criticized heavily in Ukraine when they choose to stay). You don't seem to have any idea what you're talking about.
If you read any news in Ukraine you would know that. I'm Ukrainian and everyone in Ukraine who isn't a russian supporter shares my opinion. Some Ukrainian singers live and work in russia, most stopped going there after 2014, even more after 2022. It's you who doesn't seem to have any idea what you're talking about. Ukrainians and russians do hate each other now. russians celebrate the killing of Ukrainian civillians, and almost every Ukrainian hates them. Belarussians are different, most of the don't support russia and lukashenko.
> I'm Ukrainian and everyone in Ukraine who isn't a russian supporter shares my opinion.
When you say "everyone supports my opinions" you're basically denying people their own voice - I am in touch with Ukrainians and what you say is plain wrong - you don't need to be in Ukraine to know that. Seriously, your opinions are the kind of opinions people in the West generally view as signs of dicatorship and actually associate with Nazis and fascism.
You believe your opinions are right, everyone who is not "a russian supporter" shares them with you, and that ALL russians are nazis - when will you realize you are the problem, not the imaginary nazis both Ukrainians and Russians keep blaming everything on?
Stop making stuff up, just because your wife doesn't hate russians doesn't mean that all Ukrainians don't.
> When you say "everyone supports my opinions" you're basically denying people their own voice - I am in touch with Ukrainians and what you say is plain wrong - you don't need to be in Ukraine to know that. Seriously, your opinions are the kind of opinions people in the West generally view as signs of dicatorship and actually associate with Nazis and fascism.
I said that everyone in Ukraine supports my opinions, because I, unlike you, know what's going on in Ukraine. You have no clue about Ukraine or the opinions of Ukrainians. Some Ukrainians have relatives in russia, many have cut ties with them. I'm not denying people their own voice, just saying that almost all Ukrainians hate russians, which you would know if you lived in Ukraine.
> You believe your opinions are right, everyone who is not "a russian supporter" shares them with you, and that ALL russians are nazis - when will you realize you are the problem, not the imaginary nazis both Ukrainians and Russians keep blaming everything on?
Who doesn't believe their opinions are right? Even if you don't, that doesn't make me 'the problem'.
Why the quotes around russia supporter? A very small part of Ukrainians support russia, some even collaborate with them. I'm not claiming that everyone that doesn't share my opinions is a russia supporter, just saying that every Ukrainian that isn't a russia supporter hates russians because of the oppression and murder of Ukrainians by russia for many centuries and the war raging right now. There is nothing fascist about stating the facts.
Where did I say that ALL russians are nazis? I said that only about russian soldiers.
How am I the problem? Did I invade Ukraine? Did I kill tens to hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians? Did I commit horrific war crimes? I haven't done anything to blame me for the war.
Ukrainians, unlike russians, don't blame anything on 'imaginary' nazis.
They blame the war on the russians.
The russians support the invasion, as they supported the war in Georgia, occupation of Crimea and the war in Donbass.
russia is a fascist dictatorship, you need to be a brainwashed russian supporter to disagree with that.
Don't bother. Seriously. You won't convince anyone irrational enough to generalize hundreds of thousands of people into "russian soldiers are evil nazis, not normal people" with rational arguments. The only way to convince such people (that peace is better than killing) is to subject them to long-term, consistent propaganda, but... The only forces capable of doing that are interested in pretty much exactly the opposite outcome.
War is bad. Killing people, whoever they are, is wrong - and all people are just regular humans. There are no monsters, no "evil nazis" in reality, outside of fiction and propaganda. However, understanding that takes effort, and runs counter to many of the incentives built into human psychology.
Like you, I believe there's "a lot more to the story." I feel so helpless, knowing that I have no choice but to sit and watch all the atrocities happening all around the world because almost nobody is interested in stopping them. People who happily support the killing (of the "other side" only, of course) are the biggest reason this keeps happening. Since they're impossible to convince, these things are bound to continue.
There really isn't more to the story. russia has been oppressing and killing Ukrainians since the creation of the russian empire. They have only stopped for a brief period after the fall of the USSR. You are claiming there are no nazis. So Nazi Germany was fiction? russians are nazis, just look on the internet. Monsters do exist - war criminals, mass murderers, brutal dictators. Not all people are regular humans and some need to be punished for their evil actions. Where did you get this unicorns pooping rainbows bullshit? russians, not Ukrainians started this war and happily support the killing of the other side. They are the reason this keeps happening.
> Where did you get this unicorns pooping rainbows bullshit?
It's called "humanism," and it's not bullshit. It mostly says that killing people is wrong. Of course, you think otherwise, so it might seem like bullshit to you.
EDIT:
> So Nazi Germany was fiction?
No. The notion that all soldiers fighting on the Germany side in WW2 were monsters is, however. If the world subscribed to your ideology, there'd be a catacomb of millions buried under Nurnberg (there's no such thing, if you wondered).
> No. The notion that all soldiers fighting on the Germany side in WW2 were monsters is, however. If the world subscribed to your ideology, there'd be a catacomb of millions buried under Nurnberg (there's no such thing, if you wondered).
This is known as "the clean Wehrmacht myth", a belief that somehow, somewhere in the German military, there were units that did not have the blood of innocents on their hands. At least in Germany, that myth was shattered by an influential exhibition in the 1990s that showcased photos explicitly selected to display atrocities that were not committed by special squads in death camps hidden away in the woods, but out in the public, by regular units, on the streets and roads of cities and villages across Europe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_clean_Wehrmacht
And despite that, there indeed is no catacomb beneath Nürnberg. Virtually all German war criminals received no punishment whatsoever. Out of millions of people involved in the extermination of Jews and other crimes against peoples on occupied territories, only 6656 were ever convicted in Germany, and the vast majority received a sentence of 2 years of imprisonment or less. Only 164 were convicted of murder, yet millions had died. https://www.timesofisrael.com/historian-examines-germanys-mi...
I couldn't believe in the "clean Wehrmacht" myth even if I wanted to. I'm still not convinced all the Wehrmacht soldiers were inherently bad people or monsters. I'm not defending them - what they did across Europe, what led to millions of graves, was wrong. What I'm cautious about, though, is the hatred and emotional judgment that leads to more, not less, bloodshed.
The lack of a catacomb is good. The absence of any punishment for people outside those 7k convicted, however, is not.
> It's called "humanism," and it's not bullshit. It mostly says that killing people is wrong. Of course, you think otherwise, so it might seem like bullshit to you.
Where did I say that killing people is right? War criminals should be executed for their actions, but I'm not saying that every russian should be killed.
You are saying that there are no evil people and that everyone is a regular human. Then what about concentration camp commandants, mass murderers, war criminals? Do you think they are no worse than normal people, and deserve to live a good life? Then what you're saying is definitely bullshit.
> The notion that all soldiers fighting on the Germany side in WW2 were monsters is, however. If the world subscribed to your ideology, there'd be a catacomb of millions buried under Nurnberg (there's no such thing, if you wondered).
Where did I say that all soldiers fighting for Germany in WW2 were monsters?
I invoked Nazi Germany because you said there are no nazis and monsters and everyone is a regular human.
> Why is Russian army staffed by "evil nazis" exclusively, while actual Nazi army... wasn't?
What do you mean by 'actual'? Just because the russian ruling party aren't calling themselves National-Socialists doesn't mean they aren't 'actual' nazis. Search for "rashism". russia is even more evil than Nazi Germany because Germany had one very bad episode in 1933-1945, while russia has been committing atrocities, oppressing and occupying ever since the Grand Duchy of Moscow.
I mean the historical Nazis from WW2. Again: you admitted that not all Wehrmacht soldiers were evil, monsters, or even Nazis (other than nominally). But, in your words, all soldiers fighting for the Russian Federation right now in their aggression on Ukraine - are all bad people.
I'm asking, why do you agree to cut some slack for the former but are unwilling to do so for the latter?
Other than the latter being involved with you, personally, destroying your country and killing your people right now - of course. My grandpa lost 5 of his siblings to Germans in WW2 - they were civilians, killed because his uncle was a butcher, and happened to have a knife with him when they met German soldiers. It made him hate Germans, all of them, no exceptions, and I'm not surprised it turned out like that. He kept this hatred (only second to his hatred of Jews) to the very end of his life, and that's understandable, but it was irrational. I don't believe some Hans or Johann deserves to be hated 70 years later because of what happened back then. Similarly, dehumanizing and demonizing the whole Russian military (EDIT: or even the whole nation), including those poor convicts that supposedly die in droves as fodder for "human wave" tactics, is not rational now. I understand that hatred can be an emotional support for affected individuals, but it doesn't help the situation; instead, it makes it worse.
> Again: you admitted that not all Wehrmacht soldiers were evil, monsters, or even Nazis (other than nominally).
I mostly meant that I don't think all of them should have been executed, 18 million Germans served in the Wehrmacht.
> I don't believe some Hans or Johann deserves to be hated 70 years later because of what happened back then.
The russians have been oppressing and killing Ukrainians for over 300 years, 1991-2014 was just a small pause. Nazi Germany, on the other hand, existed for only 12 years, and Germany is very different now, and most soldiers that fought in WW2 are dead. russians keep doing horrible things since a very long time ago and hating them is completely justified until russia is denazified and becomes a normal country. People like Ivan the Terrible, stalin, putin wouldn't keep coming to power if something wasn't very wrong with the russian nation, and by the way russia consists of many different nations that were subjugated by muscovites. russia has a much longer history of pure evil and that's why I consider most russians evil. While killing all of them is wrong, they should be occupied and reeducated, and never allowed to have a large military and nukes ever again. Given the low population density of russia, most of its sparsely populated lands should be shared between all countries to provide living space for billions of people that isn't affected by global warming.
> The russians have been oppressing and killing Ukrainians for over 300 years
I know - and they did the same here, in Poland. We've lost our sovereignty, our culture was suppressed for centuries, and then we lost our elites in mass killings under Stalin again. I know, and believe me - I don't love Russians, nor do I support them.
They are culturally closer to the Mongol hordes of Genghis Khan than to Europeans. Not that Europeans have no skeletons in their closets, esp. regarding the colonies and what they did to Africa - but the Russian Empire and its later incarnations did a lot of bad things. I agree with that.
But, I still don't want to classify all of them as "evil". They think differently, have different values, and are brought up with particular ideology that disregards things like human rights or democracy. They don't know any better, and it's not their fault they were born into such a culture or society. You don't get to choose where you're born!
Still, I understand your point of view. I disagree with forcefully re-educating and assimilating them - that's precisely what they did to us for centuries, and that's wrong. But, as long as we agree that:
> While killing all of them is wrong
We can talk, discuss, and find some common ground. What I'm against is blind rage, blanket hatred, and taking revenge just for the sake of it. But rationally, Russians, as they currently are, pose a real threat, and we need to contain that threat somehow. We should be able to do so without killing and even more bloodshed. At least, that's what I hope for.
I'll repeat: I think most Russians, even the soldiers, are ordinary people. It's just that normal people, when put in certain circumstances (like the famous prison experiment), tend to do evil things. You and me, we'd probably do those things too, had we lived the way Russians live. Let's talk about shaping the circumstances (also through re-educating them, if possible, without a threat of physical violence) so that they can live their lives in ways that don't threaten their neighbors - ways that don't bring the worst of human nature to the front.
In any case, no killing, please. Other than that, though, all options should be on the table (even if I disagree with some).
> The Germans were forcefully re-educated after WW2, do you also disagree with that?
No. But that wasn't under gunpoint, was it? The Allies left quickly, at least in the West, and local authorities enforced the re-education. Similarly, Japan got a new constitution, and the occupation there ended quickly. The DDR/East Germany was different - the occupation there ended basically in 1991, after the fall of the USSR. I'd favor the Marshal plan-like solution rather than the Soviet model.
> The russian leadership and war criminals will have to be killed, and they fully deserve it.
Maybe they deserve it, but killing them is still beyond what I'd consider moral. Make them work in a mine for the rest of their lives, make sure they get no special treatment, and let them die when their time comes.
War criminals are OK to be killed, but only if captured during the war. I'm not too fond of it, but I understand that martial law must be different from peacetime law. If you catch them after the war is won, I'm against killing them. Again, a lifetime of hard labor in a mine would be better than spilling even more blood.
> Do you believe they bombed the theater because they were actively trying to kill Ukrainian children?
Yes. They are also actively bombing clinics (including the maternity ward in Mariupol too, look it up) and they have done that in Syria too. It's pretty well documented. They are evil, but more than that, it's a strategy.
They are currently also bombing civilian areas, fully aware that they are civilian areas.
There might be some normal people in Russia, but certainly the heads of the army, Putin and his inner circle are not normal, and they are doing this.
> They are currently also bombing civilian areas, fully aware that they are civilian areas.
They might be "fully aware" that those areas are used by the "enemy" to stockpile materiel and gather personnel. That would make those areas legitimate targets. Can you prove a) there were no military targets there, or b) the attackers were "aware" there were no military targets there? I can't - nobody can. That's why when you allow a war to happen, we've all lost already. Everything after that is just choosing sides and framing events to align with your expectations/convictions. I don't like that because it distracts from the fundamental problem: that war and killing are just wrong, no matter who does it and how.
> They might be "fully aware" that those areas are used by the "enemy" to stockpile materiel and gather personnel.
You are approaching this from the wrong end. People like doctors or firefighters are multipliers, that is, they make the whole group stronger by a disproportional amount. A doctor can aid themselves and others with above average effectiveness. The same applies to firefighters. A professional firefighter is far more effective in putting out fires, removing debris, and saving people than an untrained civilian. Rationally it makes perfect sense to prioritize them in targeting, as Russians have done. By shooting at field hospitals or doing double-tap missile attacks on cities (first hit a crowded shopping center, and then send another missile 30 min later to hit first responders), you can murder doctors, paramedics and firefighters and harm the whole group by a disproportional amount.
Such perfect rationality combined with utter lack of humanity is why most people would call it pure evil.
Thanks. I was thinking more about the guy who actually put in the coordinates and pressed the button, and whether they were aware of what their action meant. I kind of forgot about the ones who gave the order and were aware of the whole picture. I think, if anyone, these are the people who deserve the hatred, and should be put on trial, definitely.
Good examples with hospitals. Even if there is a personnel in the hospital it is still a war crime to target it.
Russian army is full of war criminals(some of them have been drafter directly from prisons), they simply don't care about crimes. And that is true because international community also don't care, there is no enforcement.
Mass killing of civilians? It is ok for Russians.
Invasion into neighboring country? It is ok for Russians.
Destroying grain storage to cause price spikes and food instability in Africa? It is ok for Russians.
Piracy on the Black Sea? It is ok for Russians.
Blowing ammunition depots in Europe Union? It is ok for Russians.
And list goes on, but nobody cares if oil is flowing.
I am not going to prove anything to you. It's very well publicly documented, within 5 minutes of googling you can see hundreds of cases of russians targeting civilian infrastructure and civilians themselves. The only way you can deny it's happenning is if you decline to believe all of those cases, in which case there is no way you will believe anything anyone writes about the subject.
> the attackers were "aware" there were no military targets there? I can't - nobody can.
Except for obviously targeting civilians, they were for a period of time also targeting grain depots and even quite open about that, thus exposing your lie. A grain depot is not a military target unless the aim of the military operation is starving civilian population, which again is a crime against humanity.
Just look at the facts. russians aren't bombing civillian areas because they are legitimate targets, but because they want to and are encouraged to kill as many civillians as possible. How do you explain Bucha? Were the civillians who were shot also 'legitimate targets'? It's not 'choosing sides' and 'framing events', russia started this war and russia is the bad guy in this war. Why does anyone have to prove anything to you? It won't convince you to stop supporting russia anyway.
> but because they want to and are encouraged to kill as many civillians as possible?
How do you know that? Link please.
> it won't convince you to stop supporting russia anyway.
Exactly this. I'm saying that killing people is wrong and war shouldn't happen, and you're telling me I'm supporting Russia. That's precisely the level of irrationality I was talking about, thanks for demonstrating it.
2) Number of civilian causalities is unknown, because part of territory is under occupation. However, excavation of mass-graves on liberated territories shows that Russians are ready to kill few percents of population. [2]
3) Ukrainian air defense is in much better shape now, so hundreds of Russians missiles are shot in flight. Russians are bombing civilians in cities with cassette bombs from the start of war[3], so low numbers of causalities is caused by good defense, not by good will of terrorist state which performs genocide of Ukrainians right now.
Hamas is using civilians as human shields pretty much literally. They set this war up so that there is as much civilian casualties as possible on their side to claim it's a genocide. In this particular case, Hamas has a written constitution claiming the destruction of Israel and the jewish people ; Hamas ARE the genociders, despite being the weak army in this war.
Ukraine is NOT using its population as human shields. There is no evidence of that. So every civil casualties that Russian inflicts on Ukrainians (which includes destroying infrastructure, sieging cities and deporting children, among other things like what happened in Butcha) is deliberate.
To open: I am not apologising for what Hamas has done at all. I think their actions are revolting. Whatever your view of the history of the region, the aim to eliminate Israel as a Jewish state is unrealistic, extreme and counterproductive.
Nonetheless, I do find the claim they are using human shields as interesting.
Whatever you think of Hamas' aims and methods (and I strongly disapprove of both), Palestinians engaged in conflict are by necessity fighting a guerrilla war against an occupying power. No, Israel is not in direct control of Gaza -- but it does have the capacity to use overwhelming force against any part of it, so it might as well be for the purposes of fighting a war.
Let's assume we are not pacifists and we think armed struggle is _sometimes_ justified (as do both the US and Israel). From the perspective of someone who viewed the establishment of Israel as illegitimate, and the occupation of Gaza unlawful, and Israel's action in Gaza and the West Bank as immoral, what would be the right course of action here?
From that perspective it might seem reasonable to plan and carry out sabotage against Israeli forces (I know that is not all Hamas have done -- they have also murdered civilians, but this is irrelevant to this argument).
There were many resistance movements in the 20th century that are now approved-of by Israel and allies. Was it illegitimate for French resistance fighters (for example) to plan attacks from civilian villages and hide weapons in farmhouses etc? This accusation of using human shields (which predates the current conflict) sometimes strikes me is part of a process to 'other' the Palestinian cause and render it a priori illegitimate, which does't help anyone.
Edit: I recognise this post could upset some people at the moment. It's really not my intention. It's posed as a genuine question and something for us all to reflect on. I might be wrong/misguided but interested to discuss.
It does however have a complete blockade on Gaza, and has done for decades. It also has control over a signifiant amount of territory inside the wall -- get too close and you get shot.
Gaza is on the sea, but you can't import water, fuel, food etc from the sea because Israel will sink any boat trying to.
It's bogus to compare french resistance to Hamas. French resistants had no intention of destroying Germany or killing all germans. If anything, the german military were the one committing a genocide (albeit not against the french I can give you that).
All politicians leaders of Palestinian people have eventually refused a 2-states solution. Israël does recognize a few groups as valid diplomatic partners but not Hamas, who is in charge right now. And yes that will lead to a lot of harsh suffering for Palestinian people, partly/mostly because of the way Hamas has handled things.
Note that I'm not downplaying what Israël has done in the region so far, and I'm not giving them excuses ; they do what they think is best for their security, rightfully or wrongfully, given that their neighbour is lead by a terrorist group. I'm not sure how I would react as a civilian or a leader of either country and I would certainly not advise anything to anyone. But clearly Hamas is the agressor just like Russia is the agressor in Ukraine (and both have intention of destroying not only the state but also the people).
I agree in part. But my question was basically this: when Hamas is eliminated and less extreme groups come to power, but are still committed to armed struggle … how should they proceed? Would it be legitimate to use guerilla tactics like the French resistance?
I have no idea. I guess Palestinians need something like the next Arafat, who actually commits to a 2-states solution. Or whatever leading group that is non-terrorist and that Israël feels safe negotiating with (there are a few). I feel that would be the best solution for most people involved.
That is, if and when Hamas is eradicated, which is a big if. A war with Iran isn't out of the question. Thing is Hamas represents like 35% of votes ? It's both a lot and very little. Maybe 10% of those 35% would actually be ok to take an assault weapon and resist. Meaning the vast majority would probably be ok to negotiate even a mediocre deal but owning their land and borders ? Can we even make a forecast like this ?
Edit : Bottom line, Palestinians will obviously and sadly be in a terrible position to negotiate, if and when that happens...
The problem Israel has is that negotiating with some people they select to make a deal won’t make other people think it’s right and accept it.
You need far fewer than 10% if a population to cause havoc for decades to come. I’m not condoning it, but the reality is that unless settlements are moved and Israel takes some bitter medicine this will reoccur in 10 years time when the next round of radicalised people come of age.
Remember, Netanyahu had been actively using Hamas as a way to divide the Palestinians and make 2 state solution less likely. the approach of Israel over the past 20 years doesn’t make the attacks right or justify them, but it made them more likely because it has humiliated a large enough population living very close to them and left them with no other effective options beyond nonviolent resistance. I wish they had chosen that, but it’s easier to say than live with.
I've so far only seen acquisitions of Hamas using human shields. One could argue the hostages are humans shields, but (a) IDF bombs Gaza regardless, (b) they are not prominently shown (as the IDF documentedly did), and (c) at least some of them survived and were traded for palestinians (that were often held without trial, so could we call them "hostages" as well?).
I also would abstain from using "russians" (or USAers, or Israelis) when referring to actions of the respective govts. Keeps the discussion cleaner of generalizations wrt people that may totally not support their govt's actions.