Isreal has been trying to keep their morals for decades using defensive measures. They constructed probaby best in the world air defense systems to protect their civilians daily. They could just send one rocket for one they were targetted by instead and Gaza would be inhabitable decades ago. So when they were rewarded for their restraint on 7 Oct with savagery I'm not really surprised that huge part of the world gives them now blank checkque to do what they believe they need to. Not to mention that what Putin did to Ukrainie softened the morals of people to "it's ok if it's for the right reasons".
Missing from your narrative is the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israeli settlers. The settlers are harassing and seizing land from Palestinians. Those settlers are protected by the Israeli Defense Forces. All of this is well documented and are repeatedly criticised by many well reputable human rights organisations.
So, no, it's not restrain that is rewarded by these savage attacks.
And while I condemn the terrorist attacks on innocent civilians by Hamas, we should not pretend they came out of a vacuum, or that the state of Israel is a pure peace loving innocent victim in all this.
No, exactly. That is why I wrote "I condemn the terrorist attacks on innocent civilians by Hamas". But my comment was an answer praise of Israel's constraint, like Israel was completely innocent in this conflict.
And the following two paragraphs seems to be incomprehensible to many:
Israel is an apartheid state. Palestines have the right to resist that oppression. Hamas (or any Palestine organisation) has no right to attack innocent civilians.
Hamas is a terror organisation. Israel has the right to defend itself. Israel has no right to attack innocent civilians.
I agree that death of any innocent civilian is regrettable but I question that all Palestinian citizens are innocent. Some of them fully support Hamas and worked with Hamas and for Hamas and would like to see all Jews dead just as much as Hamas and do everything in their power so that nobody can tell apart innocent civilian from a guilty one or from Hamas. I also question who's fault is it that these innocent civilians die. If a murderer is hiding between regular people shooting at cops who hunt him and at the people as well and cops try to stop him and accidentally shoot some of other people as well in the messy situation the blame is heavily on the murderer himself and very slightly on the police who undoubtedly did the right thing, were just a bit bad on technical implementation, though as good as they could be, given the circumstances.
I don't think all Palestinians are innocent. I know there are Israelis that are war criminals. None of those facts are excuses to kill Palestinians or Israeli indiscriminately. Letting people die just because they happen to belong to a certain ethnical group is plain racism.
Israel has long passed a scale of the killing that could be explained as "collateral damage".
"the civilian death toll as of 20 November is 16,413, with nearly 34,000 injured. This would mean one in every 142 Palestinian civilians killed in a month and a half."
"With an estimated 70% of the dead being women and children – and many of the slain men unlikely to have been combatants "
There's surely a lot of evil being done, but I'm not entirely convinced by the article about civilian losses. 42% are children (compared to 6% in Ukraine, 8.6% in Iraq and 10% in Syria). How could an attacker ever achieve that even they tried?
If those atypical numbers are true it shows that defenders are not protecting their children like any sane population would but rather place them in obvious military targets to turn them into martyrs.
Personally I believe that those numbers should be treated as indication that they are not accurate. Author of the article prefers to take them as a proof of unique evilness of Israel.
Gaza’s population is very young, so these numbers reflect the demographics. If anything, it shows that Israel is indiscriminate in its killing in Gaza. Bombs tend to be that way.
But of course, we don’t know what and who to trust. Maybe we should ask why Israel is suppressing any reporting from the strip if they are interested in that the world gets to know the truth about what is happening there.
Population of Syria is nearly just as young. I don't see anything to justify 4 times as high children death percentage there.
I think reporters are there, after all they are getting killed too. Again I can't blame Israel for trying to keep repoters away since their deaths are very impactful and also since Palestinians have a huge history of faking deaths and injuries for reporting purposes. Maybe history is the wrong word because there are cases of this even as recent as last hostage-prisoner exchange.
So the fighters in Syria are more discriminatory when they kill than the IDF.
It’s a well known fact that Israel is limiting information coming out from Gaza. If all the reports about their indiscriminate killings were false, wouldn’t it be in their interest if more independent reporters were there, not fewer?
You have already made up your mind, and no evidence will ever make you change your mind. You are trying to explain away all the evidence, and when you can’t, you’ll just say it is lies created by Hamas.
Well that appears to demonstrate that Hamas works and prevents even greater harm than the harm carried out by Hamas. Probably not a message Israel wants to send.
It's not ridiculous. Your statement reads as "I condemn it, but they really had it coming", which a reasonable person could understand to mean "I don't really condemn it".
Only if you read it in complete isolation. It was an answer to someone who praised Israel for its restraint, like Israel was this pure white dove in the region
Here I know it get too complicated for many: I admit, Israel had something coming. I don't support attacks on civilians. Those two statements can be simultaneously true.
Israel is an apartheid state. Hamas is a terror organisation, I don't agree with the actions of Israel. I don't agree with the actions of Hamas. I think Palestines have the right to resist. I don't think anyone, Hamas or Israel, has the right to attack innocent civilians.
> If your land was occupied by an invading force armed and financed by the US and its allies would you sit back and do nothing while that force murdered your people and stole your property, or would you have done exactly what Hamas did on October the 7th?
No, I would have accepted one of the many peace proposals the other side offered.
Regardless, your framing of how there are only two binary options – (1) doing nothing to advance my political goals, or (2) resorting to the most savage terrorism imaginable – and no other options between them is appalling and telling.
Israel is a state established by UN resolution.
If you really want to blame someone you can blame the British. The British incidentally also promised a Palestinian state to the Palestinians and it was provisioned in the resolution but the Palestinians rejected it.
However, if we really were to do this comparison. The Israelis have have been way to nice. The Palestinians have been on the loosing side of 4-5 wars - its unprecedented. To the victor goes the spoils, thats how it is in the real world.
If there is cause for a Palestinian state, then there is also cause for a Jewish state. Problem is the Palestinians rejects this notion and want the Jewish state gone.
Yes, some Palestinians were displaced, even more Jews were displaced at the same time. Even by total numbers, which is hard, since Jews are always a minority and even if you don't count European Jews and just look at the surrounding countries.
One injustice doesn't excuse the other, but people need to move on. Germans did need to part with land as well.
The stolen property story would need some correcting here.
If you're seriously suggesting that attacking unarmed civilians intentionally, killing parents in front of their children and then kidnapping the children, slaughtering defenseless party-goers, etc. is what I any resistance movement would do, that's ridiculous. If Hamas would only have attacked military targets, there would be no legitimacy to Israel's actions. However, what actually happened was that they attacked plenty of civilian targets, in a premeditated fashion, in areas that are recognized internationally to be part of Israel.
Something being inevitable is different from it being justified.
Hamas’ and Palestinian Jihad’s violence is a predictable response to Israel’s abandonment of two-party talks and its right wing’s ascendency within its politics. That doesn’t justify gunning down kids at a concert.
Similarly, the IDF levelling much of Gaza in retribution was a predictable repercussion of killing Israeli civilians, including children. That doesn’t make their deaths fair.
> do you have full rights to complain about what you made inevitable happening?
No, it undermines the complaint’s legitimacy.
That doesn’t mean we must be unsympathetic; but it is a factor. Also, these decisions are often made by individuals within groups. Collective punishment is immoral. It’s also quite likely to produce blowback.
Putin could do the same to half of Europe, eh. The fact that he doesn't, doesn't mean his actions are justified. Not applying overwhelming force doesn't mean that applying any other type of force is justified.
> Isreal has been trying to keep their morals for decades
There are no morals left, in that conflict, since the 1982 mass murder of thousands of Lebanese civilians in Beirut at the very least - if not earlier. Both sides have happily displayed the worst in human nature, multiple times, over the last 70 years.
> what Putin did to Ukrainie softened the morals of people to "it's ok if it's for the right reasons".
Again, that's hardly new. From Vietnam to Desert Storm to Afghanistan, significant chunks of any public opinion will determine it's ok to apply violence. That doesn't mean it's morally justified - morals are determined in ways that go beyond counting how many individuals are pro or against something.
This is not a "both sides" issue. Thought experiment for you.
Q: What would happen today if Hamas and supporters permanently gave up all their weapons and surrendered? A: Israel would immediately stop any wartime action.
Q: What would happen today if Israel gave up it's defenses and military, took down the borders? A: Iran and Hamas would kill every last Jew in Israel. They have to, it is their charter.
Also, how many Jews and Christians are living in Gaza openly vs Israel? What would happen to them in the above?
Christian have been living in Gaza and West banks for the last 2000 years… (and a Church was bombed in Gaza killing 18 Christians). In fact the number of Christian has only started to decrease for the last 70 years as they suffer the exact same treatment as Muslims.
Yes that's exactly what happened in the west bank. Once they stopped fighting, they were left alone! Oh wait no, it just led to massive colonial projects backed by the Israeli government. Oopsie!
That's an odd question. Obviously I'd rather live in the more peaceful side, but that has nothing to do with anything. If you had to chose between living in nazi occupied Paris and Stalingrad, which one would you chose? Does that mean that the Russians made a bad choice resisting the invaders?
For some people, living comfortably isn't the most important thing they can have. Not getting conquered, invaded, or literally colonized is a good thing. Don't you agree?
If Israel wants peace, it shouldn't push for massive colonization efforts and shouldn't use its army to back any colonist living in the Westbank when an armed group finally decides to lay down arms.
If psychopathy is the only way for a group to prevent its own annihilation (whether it happens now or slowly), you will almost always get psychopathic behavior. That's true for everyone, hell in fact even Israel has that embedded in it's very own defense strategy with the Samson option. Which makes the Israeli side even less credible
> Not getting conquered, invaded, or literally colonized is a good thing. Don't you agree?
Actually I don't. It depends on the circumstances and the price. Sometimes getting colonized is the best outcome possible. Especially if the alternative is getting wiped out by way stronger opponent.
US colonized large part of Mexico. Are people there better or worse because of that?
> Especially if the alternative is getting wiped out by way stronger opponent.
That's a personal judgement which fundamentally contradicts the populations' rights to self-determination, i.e. the basis of international law since WWI (famously enshrined by Woodrow Wilson, among others). It's the basis for US support for the independence of Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine, Taiwan, etc - all countries threatened by a "way stronger opponent" claiming their territory. US attitudes to Israel are fundamentally contradictory of pretty much all fundamental principles guiding US foreign policies for more than 100 years, they are simply baffling from the outside.
> US colonized large part of Mexico. Are people there better or worse because of that?
Considering the local population at the time (which was itself not even indigenous) was often displaced, I'd say people were worse off. The US also colonized the entirety of Native American land, and people there are definitely worse off. Your principle simply doesn't stand up to logical examination.
Are the people who are descendants of the Mexican citizens who survived the ordeal and now are US citizens better off than current Mexican citizens or not?
As for Poland and Baltic states it has nothing to do with any principles. It's about US weakening Russia. If US didn't have a business in that those countries would have zero support for their aspirations for independence. And they wouldn't be better off under the Russian rule because I'm not claiming it's always the case just it's sometimes the case. And only when you are subdued by more civisationally advanced country.
> I'm not claiming it's always the case just it's sometimes the case
Lol, that's a solid foundation for a logical argument. "Sometimes maybe good, sometimes maybe shit", is a football-manager level of philosophy...
In the end, if we cannot build a coherent foreign policy based on solid humanitarian principles in the third millennium, what hope do we have to survive as a species? If might makes right, sooner or later we'll just nuke each other.
Oh and btw, your lovely american-mexican war reintroduced slavery to slavery-free territories, and was a great success for non-native populations. Colonization tends to be good for colonizers rather than the colonized, unsurprisingly. Obviously this is great, if one is among the colons.
> if we cannot build a coherent foreign policy based on solid humanitarian principles in the third millennium, what hope do we have to survive as a species?
Apparently we can't do that since we are keeping protected a group of people that want to have specific ethnicity dead so much that they put it into their constitution. I'm all for harmonic and humanitarian future, but to ever hope achieving that sworn murderers must be subdued.
> "Sometimes maybe good, sometimes maybe shit", is a football-manager level of philosophy...
But notice it's a practical philosophy that reflects reality. Wishing very hard that it wasn't exactly true won't change it.
> Colonization tends to be good for colonizers rather than the colonized, unsurprisingly.
Why do the Indians own more property in London than the British? Why the British are now a minority in their own capital? Could it ever have happened if UK didn't go on a colonization spree a while ago? In the long run being conquered sometimes brings insane benefits. Circling back to the topic I believe Palestinians would get immense benefits in the long run for laying down arms and joining the Israelis on their terms.
Those "sworn murderers" would be a tiny minority with no support, like any openly-racist group in most societies, if the mainstream wasn't so openly discriminated against by the same folks the "murderers" purposely hate.
Most armed movements in contested territories are historically overcome not by "subduing", but by actually addressing the grievances of the mainstream population who helps them. Look at Northern Ireland: the IRA was never defeated by military means, but they were engaged politically to solve the mainstream grievances that were well-founded: removing most anti-catholic discrimination across society, allowing free movement across the Irish border, and allowing each person to define themselves as Irish if they wanted to (rather than British). Until Israel takes a serious integrationist approach that removes its apartheid-style structures, the mainstream in Gaza will continue to support armed resistance, because they have nothing to lose from doing so and nothing to gain from not doing so.
> notice it's a practical philosophy
No, it's just fatalistic shortsightedness. If you can't imagine a better world, obviously you can't build it.
> Why do the Indians own more property in London than the British?
Because they resisted their occupation, reclaimed their immense land and resources, and fought to get back on a level playing-field. Definitely not because they accepted white-man rule!
(And if you claim that living in London is something to crave, man, you've probably never been there for more than a week :)
Mhmmm, I get what you are saying. And I even agree on a personal level. But I still think that there is a double standard as to who seems to be allowed to use violence in those cases. It's fine to even disagree with Palestinians, and I also understand that Israel has a right to exist at this point.
But the issue is when the west supports fully and unconditionally one side but condemns another for doing the same. It generates alienation and resentment especially when we try to rationalize that support and morally justify it, when in reality we just don't care when our side does it.
Which again, I understand, but the sugar coating is what triggers me.
I think Isreal wasn't given free pass ever. And now, only after it suffered worse atrocity ever, its free pass only lasted few weeks for most people. There's a huge disproportion of strength there and it's natural to root for a little guy. But when you look closer at the conflict and motivations of its participants it's easier. Because one side wants to have peace for itself to thrive and the other wants them dead and gone and it's not shy about advertising that intention at any opportunity.
Palestinians have a right to exist and to defend themselves but what they were doing with crude rockets and attacks wasn't a defence. It was an attempt at genocide. And people only fail to recognize it at such because it was so inept due to Israel defensive power.
Is that why it immediately started colonizing it's neighbor when it could get away with it (as in, when it didn't cost too much to keep the colonies secure)? Also, what other country in the world is allowed to literally push settlements outside of its territory, and then slowly conquer said settlements? Actually,which other country it allowed to colonize anything without international condemnation?
In another country? Probably there's none. In their own country, on territories claimed by some minority as their own? I bet there's a few at least. Something in Azerbaijan for sure.
It's not "their country", nobody (and I mean nobody) recognizes Gaza and West Bank as part of Israel. You could get away with "in their colonies", but then your argument would fall apart again.
Those answers are preposterous and your argument is laughable. This is indeed a "both sides" issue, because otherwise it wouldn't have remained a hot conflict after 70 years. There are legitimate and now multi-generational grievances on both sides, that are really difficult to recompose. You can't engage with simplistic attitudes if you want to be intellectually honest.
You don't like the argument because you know it to be true. The exception is the settlements in the West Bank, but those began after extremism in Israel rose considerably. That is a severe problem, but if people excuse terrorism as resistance, the same would apply here.
As others mentioned, your argument is fundamentally contradicted by facts.
The problem is that, without serious ideological engagement, neither side will ever stop. The current state of play is the failure of the non-solution that is "Two States", aka "Israel and bantustans". Bantustans have historically been unsustainable for any government that tried to implement them.
That's one hell of an exception lol. The only exception being a blatant disregard for Palestinian sovereignty, and proof that Palestinians will never be left alone even if they'd stop fighting (which is mostly the case in the west bank, compared to Gaza) as Israel is clearly seeking their entire territory, if it is is an exception, still disproves your entire point.
