DawnC

Israelis aren't perfect. Can't you see the distinction between a place where such an organization, like the one responsible for this video, can actually exist and a place where it can't? It is a fundamental difference. There are intolerant people everywhere. The difference lies in the overall state of affairs.

An absurd notion. Repeating a word with bold and underline doesn't make it better in describing reality. What's going on with everyone? Aren't you even concerned with finding out what is really going on? The UN is an insult to civilized society. It is a place where countries like Syria and Iran get to vote on matters of human rights. Due to the states that constitute it, any vote or document they bring cannot be taken seriously. Do you think that Iranian/Russian officials would hesitate to say that Israel is committing genocide even when it is absurd?

Agreed But I think we do need to seriously consider the claim that a significant portion of Palestinian society (and others) finds it difficult to come to terms with the mere existence of a Jewish entity. I believe this is what people are addressing when they express frustration about others not acknowledging their right to exist. Ignoring this issue without consideration is not wise. It actually has a major impact on current events and can shed light on understanding historical events regarding the choices made by the Palestinians.

Do you think that is a mature perspective? This is actually akin to an Israel supporter saying: 'Didn't the Arab Palestinians conduct riots and terror attacks on jews before Israel was established? Didn't they do the same thing today? Is that righteous?' And actually believing this sums it up. These are simplistic and shallow moral statements that are based on a simplistic and shallow understanding of history and the current situation.

I believe that the 'solution' mindset contributes to the problem. The West should give up. This could be the only way forward towards a more mature and responsible approach to this conflict. In a sense, the sooner the West gives up on the Palestinians, the sooner a solution may become possible. By 'giving up,' I don't mean not caring, but rather not fixating on achieving a historical compromise and treating them as victims. The key to improving the situation may lie in imposing a solution on the Palestinians while taking their interests into consideration. This approach would be similar to Israel's actions when they left Gaza without a formal agreement (but with the aim of preventing a situation like what happened with Hamas). The second step is to intervene in the Palestinian educational system. This approach might actually make the evacuation of the most problematic settlements possible.

That would imply the death of Israel and the death of democracy in the region. A classical 'la la land' solution.

I was talking about a realistic approach. Not some moral detached criterion that was never met in the history of warfare. 1. The expectation that Israel would provide their enemies' civilians with supplies is a very high moral stance to hold. Their actions might not be noble, but please, provide me an example in history where what you are suggesting happened. By the way, humanitarian aid did enter Gaza, and electricity is still running to some extent. It is clear that Hamas will use any aid they receive for militant activities, which is exactly what the Israelis are trying to prevent by insisting on limiting and controlling those supplies. 2. 'not carpet bombing' - the situation in Gaza is such that there are Hamas exit tunnels inside many houses, with numerous buildings rigged with mines and held by militants, sometimes entire areas. While this may not seem reasonable to you, this is how Hamas operates. For the most part, Israelis announce warnings to civilians before bombing these buildings. It's a military tactic that can be debated, but it falls within the spectrum of reasonable approaches considering Hamas's hold in those areas. 3. 'Hunt down and kill Hamas leaders using joined forced of the best intelligence agencies in the world??' - why do you think this is not happening? 4. 'They could establish good faith by ending restrictions and restarting the peace process.' - Good luck making peace with an organization like Hamas. This is not a reasonable thing to expect a nation to do after enduring such an attack, and in this case, it would be a naive and irresponsible move on Israel's part, considering what Hamas is and the regional state of affairs.

I genuinely wonder what all of you would have done if 7/10 event happened in your country from a neighboring state with Hamas type regime still holding 240 hostages. I still haven't heard any realistic course of action, besides a somewhat obsessive approach towards calling out immoral deeds done by Israel.

There were many troubling situations there. But the situation in Gaza was very similar to the West Bank before Israel left the place, and the minute they did, Hamas was elected, and a civil war started between Hamas and the PLO, resulting in Hamas coming to power. The most realistic possibility if Israel were to do the same thing it did in Gaza in the West Bank (that was the original plan of the Israelis) is that Hamas would rise to power there. That is not a horror movie scenario, it is the most likely realistic possibility. This is actually the reason Abu Mazen avoids conducting elections in the West Bank. He knows that Hamas would likely win. And again, the occupation there didn't happen in a vacuum either. It occurred in '67 after all the surrounding countries prepared for war against Israel (the territory was taken from Jordan). The fundamental aspects of Palestinian society are the same in the West Bank. They are not focusing on building a nation at all.

I don't speak out of a mere 'be responsible' attitude. I acknowledge that there are situations where people are victims. I just don't think this situation is like that at all. If we trace things back to the beginning of the conflict and observe the trajectory, the Palestinians not only didn't seek peace, they initiated war and were not able to compromise. They are actually caught up in the basics of understanding that a Jewish state is a fact. You don't have to even consider the Israeli perspective for that, just take a realistic look toward reality. Their society lacks any constructive elements, and they basically have no concept of building a nation. This is the main reason why they are dependent on Israel for electricity and water, still living in refugee camps, and are more focused on building tunnels to invade Israel from underground than building schools, hospitals, and universities. And the power imbalance is not the reason. There was no such imbalance in the establishment of Israel. The power imbalance arose because Israeli society focused itself on nation-building, whereas the Palestinians did not. The fact that Israel made mistakes in the past doesn't make them entirely responsible or victimizers. Some of your points were actually very reasonable actions. I will just copy and paste my comment from another thread because I don't want to write it again: "Yes, the conditions of the Palestinians under Israeli control are terrible and discriminatory. Yes, the conditions in the Gaza Strip are dire. Yes, many Palestinians lost their homes in '48. Yes, Israel occupied Gaza and the West Bank in '67. But those things did not happen in a vacuum either. That is precisely my point. Let me give you two simple examples: 1) 'Many Palestinians lost their homes in 1948': The Jews in Israel endured horrific riots and attacks from Arab Palestinians in the early 20th century, long before they had any real power or a state. It was only after the Arabs initiated a war on Israel that Palestinians lost their homes. Almost all of them fled and weren't forcibly expelled. There were some terrible acts of deportation by Israelis, but this wasn't the majority, and it occurred when Israel's very existence was at stake, facing aggression from five Arab countries, including Arabs within Israel. It wasn't civilians being expelled by an army; it was a total civil war, with one side supported by nearly all the surrounding countries. 2) 'The conditions in the Gaza Strip are terrible'. They are. But why is that? Why are they so dire? There have been enormous amounts of money sent to Gaza from all over the world. Did Israel hinder Palestinians from developing their own society and improving their quality of life? In fact, Israel removed its settlers from their homes, withdrew the military, and departed. From a broader perspective, when Israel attempts to help Palestinians, to seek an end to the conflict, or takes steps to improve the situation, instead of welcoming these efforts and trying to build something positive from them, the Palestinians make the situation worse."

But you are addressing this as if the pure condition situation is merely an injustice done to them and don't recognize that a major part of it is self-induced.

I don't know whether it is true or not, and there might be some differences. But their fundamental ideology is the same. I recommend reading their covenant. You can also research lgbt's who left Gaza for example. Of course these comparisons can be politically used. That doesn't mean they are not grounded in actual behavior and mindset. But the comparison is actually irrelevant. Do the research and ask yourself. How would you describe them? How would you describe their internal regime? How would you describe their covenant? Did you view the videos and testimonies of what they have done on 7/10? How would you describe it? What would you have done if such a regime was on your borders? Israel has many internal problems, some of which include racism. Western societies also have them. That doesn't make them comparable to Hamas. They are deeply, fundamentally not the same.

This is not a serious claim. It is not the sole cause of all problems in the world, nor the root of all criticism about Israel. But there is a serious problem of antisemitism in many regions and communities worldwide and it can also influence policies. Don't overlook this.

Do your own research. Just off the top of my head: locating military bases under hospitals, locating military bases under civilian residences and mosques, constructing tunnels beneath civilian residences with tunnel exits inside those homes, building tunnels under refugee camps, diverting gas from hospitals for military use, launching rockets at civilian populations from proximity to mosques, launching rockets at civilian populations from proximity to hospitals, launching rockets at civilian populations from proximity to refugee camps.

You may not be considering the regional situation fully. Currently, the Israeli army is spread across the Syrian and Lebanese borders, with significant resources directed towards Iran, the Houthis, and also dealing with Hamas militants in the West Bank. From an Israeli perspective, this is a highly threatening and dangerous situation, which I believe is a reasonable perception. Referring to Palestinian deaths as "casualties of an opponent" is not an attempt to disregard their significance, but rather an attempt to gain insight into the experiences of those involved in the conflict. When a regime initiates war, it plunges the entire country into the throes of conflict, which unfortunately includes refugee camps. I'm not suggesting Israelis are without fault, but it's crucial to acknowledge the harsh realities of war. Are Israelis any less conscientious about minimizing civilian casualties compared to other nations facing similar wartime conditions? I genuinely don't believe so.

Yes, it was simplistically put. But I don't think it's so far-fetched from reality as you might believe. Hamas operates in a very very problematic military manner (to say the least). Their tactics involve things that are sickening and very difficult to address. I'm not sure people fully grasp how deep this goes.

Clearly not. This was exactly my third point. Throughout world history, no country or military has been held to a standard where it would be considered immoral to prioritize their own casualties over those of the opponent. It's an unrealistic standard that no country in the world can meet, and none will in the foreseeable future. Are the Israelis less careful about civilian casualties than other countries? Perhaps, but even that is open to debate.

Don't reduce my point to the lowest level you can perceive it, wrap it with the most immoral quote you can come up with, and then attack me on it. Try to understand the core issue I'm trying to present and respond to that. If you seriously think that I am suggesting anything resembling Hamas, you really misunderstand my point. Note that I didn't even say anything about the actual event. If you were to read my comments with an open mind, you'll see I made three major points: 1. It is simplistic to make numerical calculations based on a single scenario and then draw conclusions about the entire conflict. 2. Drawing a moral conclusion based solely on casualty numbers is overly simplistic. 3. The moral standard we put Israel to may be unrealistic during war.

I didn't say that. I never suggested killing civilians indiscriminately or doing any other thing that Hamas did intentionally. Again, consider an individual shooting at at you and advocating for genocide against your people from a house containing 80 civilians who support him. Can't you see the significant, fundamental difference here?

It's not a matter of 'comparing the value of human lives', it's about grasping what exactly you're proposing. If this individual were shooting at you and advocating for genocide against your people from a house containing 80 civilians who support him, you might perceive things differently.

@Leo Gura A simplistic form of consideration and analysis. This is heavily dependent on the individuals involved. It hinges on who the person in question is and who the civilians are. Would you hesitate to eliminate this individual if it meant that 80 civilians would die, assuming this is the guy and those are the civilians? It's easy to be moral when your own survival isn't at stake. edit: my points are: 1. It is simplistic to make numerical calculations based on a single scenario and then draw conclusions about the entire conflict. 2. Drawing a moral conclusion based solely on casualty numbers is overly simplistic. 3. The moral standard we put Israel to may be unrealistic during war.

This is not a realistic possibility and I don't think it is even considered seriously. Egypt would go to war to avoid displacing the entire Palestinian population in Gaza into its territory, and the Israelis understand this. For the moment, Israel and Egypt are closely aligned on most things (though there are of course some tensions), and the relationship with Egypt is very important to the Israelis. The situation in Gaza is very complicated militarily. There are tunnel exit points in almost every house. It would be impossible to maneuver on the ground in civilian-populated areas in Gaza without a huge number of civilian casualties. This is probably the main reason for this. Edit: The only way this strategy would be considered is if some (idiotic) Western country would be willing to take the Palestinians. I don't think it's realistic at this point.

I too don't foresee a shift in the nature of this relationship in the foreseeable future. Primarily because the strategic interests of the US and Israel are highly aligned, and the current culture similarity. I think you are exaggerating the idea of unconditional US support. If Israel were to become involved in a genocide (though such a scenario is highly unlikely), it is probable that Americans would withdraw their support.

@Mesopotamian I assumed you were implying that Israel is either a US project or is entirely reliant on the US based on what you wrote. It matters because it influences your analysis of the issue, given that you may not have a complete understanding of the nature of the bilateral relationship between Israel and the US.

It's not true that America was behind the establishment of Israel. The U.S. government wasn't pro-Zionist at all around '48, quite the contrary. The special relationship between Israel and the US started around the '60s. That's when America shifted from believing it was the entire Arab world vs tiny Israel, to realizing that the Arab world is not a single entity, and thus, Israel could actually be a strategic asset. The viewpoint that Israel is a project of the US is actually rooted in a religious Islamic perspective. It might represent current events regarding Israeli assistance and culture that are more related to America, but historically, it is simply not true.