Skip Navigation
Ask Lemmy @lemmy.world frazw @lemmy.world

Supporters of Israel's actions in Gaza - why do you think the Geneva convention should not apply?

The Geneva convention was established to minimise atrocities in conflicts. Israeli settlements in Gaza are illegal and violate the Geneva convention. Legality of Israeli settlements Article 51 of the Geneva convention prohibits indiscriminate attacks on civilian population yet Israel attacked hospitals with children inside. Whether you agree or not that Hamas were present, children cannot be viewed as combatants.so when no care was taken to protect them, does this not constitute a violation? According to save the children, 1 in 50 children in Gaza had been killed or injured. This is a very high proportion and does not show care being taken to prevent such casualties and therefore constitutes a violation.

So my question is simply, do supporters of Israel no longer support our believe in the Geneva convention, did you never, or how do you reconcile Israeli breaches of the Geneva convention? For balance I should add "do you not believe such violations are occurring and if so how did you come to this position?"

Answers other than only "they have the right to go after Hamas " please. The issue is how they are going after Hamas, not whether they should or not.

EDIT: Title changed to remove ambiguity about supporting Israel vs supporting their actions

91

You're viewing a single thread.

91 comments

  • Here's a devils advocate type answer. On balance, I err on the side of Israel rather than Hamas but am not a die hard supporter. I say that because comments below may appear to make me out as such, but I'm just trying to represent the coherent argument for the sake of discussion rather than the strength of my own views per se. For the record I regard the suffering of innocent people in Gaza as grotesque.

    Settlements.

    The justification for this behaviour is complicated but essentially amounts to the belief that the Geneva conventions were not drafted with Israel's particular dilemma in mind. The Geneva conventions were drafted by European powers for whom the annexing of territory was strategic and imperially motivated rather than existential. Israel does not believe it can have security if a Palestinian state is established in the West Bank. The justification for this being Arab/Egyptian aggression in '48, '56, '63, and '73. Not to mention more recent state sponsored actions by Hezbollah, Hamas et al. A Palestinian state on the West Bank could maintain a standing army on the Israeli border, could invite other Arab nations' armies to base themselves there. Echos of the previous conflicts listed above. This is unconscionable for Israel, one only needs to glance at the map to see how indefensible its position is if a foreign army was amassed on the West Bank. Ignoring settler activity or evicting Palestinians if a single member of their family commits any kind of act against Israel is just a convenient way to achieve the larger goal. The settlers of course are a lot more religiously / ethnically motivated. The government is too but I think realpolitik plays a larger role.

    Gaza civilians

    The capricious and deliberate targeting of civilians and children with no other goal is of course horrific. Israel of course will maintain that that's not what they're doing, that they are acting on intelligence against Hamas who are using people as human shields. Which is also horrific but is a different type of justification. Everyone of course will have decided in their own minds if they believe what Israel says about its intelligence or whether they believe what Hamas says about their lack of presence in an area.

    If we assume for a moment that Israel is being honest about that particular aspect: that they are ok killing innocent people and children if Hamas die too. What's the justification for that? I think their view is that they're dealing with a problem that no Western country has to deal with. Britain has seen maybe a hundred deaths over 25 years from about 20 Islamic extremists. The US has seen 3000+ deaths from a similar number. In both cases the number of Islamic extremists are small enough that you could remember their individual names. Israel on the other hand has ~25,000 signed up members of Al Qassam terror brigades on their doorstep. That is a different level of threat all together, by three orders of magnitude. Hamas will not engage with the Israeli military in a standing battle because they would lose. So they are engaging in a guerrilla type strategy where shielding themselves behind civilians is an integral part so they can opportunistically strike out in suicidal attacks. It doesn't happen accidentally, but repeatedly, it's a core part of their strategy. A state needs to decide whether they're ok with Al Qassam brigades existing or killing the civilians they surround themselves with. It's a shitty choice, but it is a choice Israel sees as Hamas' when they choose their mode of fighting. Leaving Hamas free to plot their next maraudering attack on Israeli civilians is unconscionable, so the death of Hamas human shields has to be ok. There isn't another way.

    This is a situation so unfamiliar to the West that it is easy to see it as capricious and brutal, horrific and evil. And the death of innocent people are those things, but one has to see the trolley dilemma in full.

    America actually has been in this type of situation, only once as far as I'm aware, and it provides a useful insight into how Western countries justify themselves when confronted with the same dilemma. On 9/11, United 93 was identified as under terrorist control and inbound to Washington DC. Fighter jets were dispatched to shoot it down. The deaths of the 40 innocent people on board would obviously be horrific, but one can see the logic that letting a terrorist controlled plane be flown into a densely populated city would be to cause the deaths of hundreds of even thousands.

    Was the mission to shoot down United 93 the right one? Was it evil? What if those 40 civilians had been 40 orphans on their way to be placed with foster families? How completely horrific does the situation have to be before it's better to let the terrorists fly they plane into hundreds or thousands of people?

    Israel sees itself caught in this kind of dilemma 24/7 with Hamas. Each signed up member has the proven intention to cross the border and maraude around killing grandparents, babies, children. So Israel calculates that, regrettably, it is necessary to kill them and the civilian shield they themselves have created. It is a shitty awful dilemma with evil on both sides, but Israel feels justified holding Hamas to blame for their human shields deaths the same way most of the American public would have blamed Al-Qaeda if the US Air force had managed to shoot down United 93. (The fact that in reality events meant they didn't have to doesn't take away from the logic of what they were prepared to do)

    • This is a flase equivalence. The "terror" element is a distraction and a poor argument

      It would be like Russia coming in and taking Donbas and saying "this is ours", and the world being outraged if Ukrainians fight back and if Ukrainians are still fighting back in 50 years people saying Ukrainians are terrible people look at the terror with zero context and worse still for people to be arguing for Russia, what a skap in the face that would be.

      Would people still be outraged at the "terrorism" being wrought by Ukrainians because Russia says its terrorism ? Surely Israel's existence is a travesty, it does exist but obviously there is no dealing with this any other way until Israel stops. This never ends.

      Israel just keeps taking more and more and being more and more provocative. What of Indonesia in West Papua? Or more recently Indonesia in Timor ?

      This never ends, this is just another phase.

    • Well written answer. This actually gives me a fantastic chance to argue the pro-Palestinian side for a change, which deserves some nuance of its own that it doesn't get nearly enough of.

      I would argue that the realpolitik stance of Netanyahu is grossly outdated. Before the events of Oct 7th, Israel was getting closer and closer to an agreement with Saudi Arabia, indicative of a growing perception that the days of fossil fuel profits running an economy are slowly coming to their end, and the need to transition towards a service sector economy based around tourism, the free flow of business and cultural and technological export. All of these are severely hampered by violence in a way that resource extraction is far less subject to. Because of this shifting economic climate over not just the region, but the whole globe, the days of sudden, large-scale Arab attacks into Israeli territory were growing more and more unlikely. This ultimately makes the wish to secure a greater strategic depth unnecessary.

      While that would not remove the chances of terrorism, we can look to the end of The Troubles in Ireland and see that negotiation and autonomy can create a viable path forward for ending local sectarian hostilities. While this would no doubt be a difficult path, requiring significant investment and no small amount of vulnerability from Israel in the short term, it has the potential to secure a lasting peace in a way that bombs simply cannot. If a negotiated peace and independence for the Palestinian people can be achieved, then, further ties with the rest of their Arab neighbors become significantly easier, giving Israel a much better opportunity to rise to a status of acceptance and prominence within the broader Middle East community. This would in turn allow them to exploit the Sunni/Shiite and secular/religious divides within the Islamic world to align themselves with the majority against Iran, and give them much greater security in the long run.

      This diplomatic and economic path to security is perhaps barely still possible, if Israel can throw out Netanyahu and change their direction, reversing their pattern of settlement in the West Bank and economically compensating the Palestinians for land already lost. A back-breaking property tax could perhaps be levied on all Israeli citizens living within the West Bank settlements, with the proceeds going to outreach, health and education programs for their neighbors, both Arab and Israeli. This could slowly lead to a sort of economic demilitarized zone, and be the first step towards co-existence.

    • I won't ascribe these views as yours, but I will argue against them from a pro-palestinian standpoint.

      Settlements and Security:

      Israel does justify the settlements and military bases in the West Bank in the name of Security. However, the reality of the settlements on-the-ground has been the cause of violent resistance and a significant obstacle to peace, as it has been for decades.

      This type of settlement, where the native population gets 'Transferred' to make room for the settlers, is a long standing practice. See: The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948, the Transfer Committee, and the JNF which led to Forced Displacement of 100,000 Palestinians throughout the mandate, before the mass ethnic cleansing campaign of 1948: Plan Dalet, Declassified Massacres of 1948, and Details of Plan C (May 1946) and Plan D (March 1948) . Further, declassified Israeli documents show that the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were deliberately planned before being executed in 1967: Haaretz, Forward; while the peace process was exploited to continue de-facto annexation of the West Bank via Settlements (Oslo Accord Sources: MEE, NYT, Haaretz, AJ). The settlements are maintained through a violent apartheid that routinely employs violence towards Palestinians and denies human rights like water access, civil rights, etc. This kind of control gives rise to violent resistance to the Apartheid occupation, jeopardizing the safety of Israeli civilians.

      The settlements represent land-grabbing, and land-grabbing and peace-making don’t go together, it is one or the other. By its actions, if not always in its rhetoric, Israel has opted for land-grabbing and as we speak Israel is expanding settlements. So, Israel has been systematically destroying the basis for a viable Palestinian state and this is the declared objective of the Likud and Netanyahu who used to pretend to accept a two-state solution. In the lead up to the last election, he said there will be no Palestinian state on his watch. The expansion of settlements and the wall mean that there cannot be a viable Palestinian state with territorial contiguity. The most that the Palestinians can hope for is Bantustans, a series of enclaves surrounded by Israeli settlements and Israeli military bases.

      • Avi Shlaim

      How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution

      ‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe

      State violence – official and otherwise – is part and parcel of Israel’s apartheid regime, which aims to create a Jewish-only space between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The regime treats land as a resource designed to serve the Jewish public, and accordingly uses it almost exclusively to develop and expand existing Jewish residential communities and to build new ones. At the same time, the regime fragments Palestinian space, dispossesses Palestinians of their land and relegates them to living in small, over-populated enclaves.

      The apartheid regime is based on organized, systemic violence against Palestinians, which is carried out by numerous agents: the government, the military, the Civil Administration, the Supreme Court, the Israel Police, the Israel Security Agency, the Israel Prison Service, the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, and others. Settlers are another item on this list, and the state incorporates their violence into its own official acts of violence. Settler violence sometimes precedes instances of official violence by Israeli authorities, and at other times is incorporated into them. Like state violence, settler violence is organized, institutionalized, well-equipped and implemented in order to achieve a defined strategic goal.

      Civilian Deaths and Human Shields:

      Israel does deliberately targets civilian areas. From in general with the Dahiya Doctrine to multiple systems deployed in Gaza to do so: ‘A mass assassination factory’: Inside Israel’s calculated bombing of Gaza, Lavender, and Where's Daddy. When it comes to Israeli Soldiers and Civilians, there is also the use of the Hannibal Directive, which was also used on Oct 7th.

      Hundreds of Genocide Scholars have described this ethnic cleansing campaign as genocide because of the deliberate targeting of children/civilians and expressed intent by Israeli officials: “A Textbook Case of Genocide”: Israeli Holocaust Scholar Raz Segal Decries Israel’s Assault on Gaza, 800+ Legal Scholars Say Israel May Be Perpetrating 'Crime of Genocide' in Gaza , Law for Palestine Releases Database with 500+ Instances of Israeli Incitement to Genocide – Continuously Updated.

      On the subject of Human Shields, there are some independent reports for past conflicts of Hamas jeopardizing the safety of civilians via Rocket fire in dense urban areas, two instances during Oct 7th, but no independent verification since then so far. None of which absolve Israel of the crime of targeting civilians under international law:

      Intentionally utilizing the presence of civilians or other protected persons to render certain areas immune from military attack is prohibited under international law. Amnesty International was not able to establish whether or not the fighters’ presence in the camps was intended to shield themselves from military attacks. However, under international humanitarian law, even if one party uses “human shields”, or is otherwise unlawfully endangering civilians, this does not absolve the opposing party from complying with its obligations to distinguish between military objectives and civilians or civilian objects, to refrain from carrying out indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks, and to take all feasible precautions to spare civilians and civilian objects.

      Additionally, there is extensive independent verification of Israel using Palestinians as Human Shields: IDF uses Human Shields, including Children (2013 Report), and in the latest war Israel “Systematically” Uses Gaza Children as Human Shields, Rights Group Finds

    • Really well argued and explained, I hope people read and don't just reflexively downvote.

    • First thanks for the response. I'm Neither Pro-Israel; nor Pro-Hamas. I always frame my position as being Pro-Civilian above all. That is:

      • Who historically has killed the most civilians?
      • Who is actively killing the most civilians now?
      • Does the collateral damage of killing these civilians now lead to less civilians dying in the long run?

      To me these are the key questions that frame a lot of my positions on this subject.

      To the first question, Israel both Pre and Post-October 7th has killed more civilians overall. The general response to this is, "Well sure but that's only because Israel can defend itself." But because you have good defenses -- defenses that arguably should've been able to easily prevent October 7th from happening in the first place, does that really justify the number of civilian deaths, especially when you espouse the moral high-ground in being above a terrorist organization? Israel has the means to target civilians, but should they?

      The second question is clear. Israel has committed easily dozens of October 7ths against innocent Palestinian civilians. It would take probably a century for Hamas to be able to commit the amount of atrocities that IDF has done in less than a year. So while not to be callous, by pure logic, the rate of suffering Israel has incurred upon innocent people is overwhelmingly greater than that which Hamas is capable of.

      Finally, is this ends-justify-the-means? No, I don't believe so. Never in the history of ever does destabilizing a region by destroying civilian infrastructure and killing vast swaths of families, leaving orphans and parents whose children are dead ever deradicalized a populaton. At least not when the source of that is less an identity with a nation-state and more a festering ideology driving radicalization. Ultimately, Israel seems to be doing all the wrong things in playing whack-a-mole with Hamas; except it's Whack-a-Hydra, and the resulting collateral damage will radicalize further individuals. So what will happen when all these orphans grow up? We all know what. Moreover does this even address the root sources fueling this extremism? No sense of national identity, and Lebanon and Iran? No, Israel won't tackle the source of the problem.

      As others pointed out, we would all be utterly shocked if in Die Hard they just decided to level the entire building with everyone inside. We would all be shocked if police just set demolition charges on the latest school shooter with all kids still inside, justifying it as, "Well we had to eliminate the threat!" Israel is justifying widespread, unprecedented collateral damage with this exact mentality... And for what?

      At the end of the day we need to step back and look at the big picture. Bibi is deeply unpopular in Israel. He is facing widespread criminal charges in their courts. And now, he is facing crimes against humanity charges by the ICC. He must remain a war time president to avoid criminal prosecution. This is about status & legacy above all else for him. Like all right-wing nationalists, he does not care about innocent civilians; they're merely useful pawns.

      Apologies as my response had to be a bit rushed today.

    • This is the kind of response I was looking for.

      I'm not seeking to pile on the anti Israel sentiment but to genuinely understand what the basis for the Israeli position and supporters of it might be.

    • I'm an Israeli lefty and this is the first time I see an argument in favor of the settlements that I'm actually agreeing with. Thank you.

    • If I may add to this, while the Geneva Convention prohibits attacking hospitals, the International Committee of the Red Cross states that hospitals and similar buildings may become legitimate targets "for example if a hospital is being used as a base from which to launch an attack, as a weapons depot, or to hide healthy soldiers/fighters." NATO intelligence (PDF warning) states that Hamas is well known to launch attacks from civilian locations ordinarily protected by the Geneva Convention. In other words, they're using their own population as human shields. It is extremely difficult to completely prevent civilian casualties in these cases, especially when Hamas discourages people from leaving areas that Israel warns will be attacked (see the NATO document above).

      To put it simply, if Israel decides that they are no longer willing to risk the safety of civilians, then Hamas will continue attacking with impunity from civilian areas. Israel absolutely should minimize civilian causalities, but when Hamas hides their fighters and weapons within their civilian population, some of them will unfortunately die. Blame Hamas for putting them in that position against their will.

      • If I may add, what you present here is a false choice, and understanding why it is gets to the heart of answering the question: "Why do people radicalize in the first place?"

        Believe it or not, there are other methods of approaching this; methods the previous Prime Minister in the '90s was addressing before one of Bibi's (in stochastic language) followers assassinated him.

        If you get caught in this game of Whack-A-Mole with terrorists, you're going to have about as much luck in dealing with Hamas as The United States did with addressing the Taliban in Afghanistan; for each one you kill considering the collateral damage as occupier, you will create 5 more down the road.

        Lebanon and Iran are key source of the problem; that Israel is unwilling to actually confront the source of the problem — creeping annexation, blockades and general enforcement of ghettos along the strips — speaks to their disinterest in actually resolving those stoking the fire and providing the aid. Let's not forget that it was Israel who undermined the Palestinian Authority and Fatah and actually promoted Hamas.

        And look, we already know Israel's Iron Dome is effective and improving by the year. Literally all they had to do to prevent October 7th was listen to their own intelligence reports and commit even a fraction of the troops they've already offensively committed to Gaza to actually defend their border so that (checks notes) Paragliders and dirt bikes couldn't just meander in. Reminder that this isn't the Great Wall of China... It's like a 25 mile border. That's nothing. So win-win: Israelis remain safe while Gazan civilian hostages aren't murdered by 1,000lb bombs in densely-populated areas. Reminder that Israel has now committed somewhere around 25 x October 7ths upon the innocent civilians of Gaza.

        Blame Hamas for putting them in that position against their will.

        Should it be protocol for police to demolish schools with everyone in it to eliminate a school shooter?

        • The problem with your point is that Hamas is actively attacking Israel. They can't just drop what they're doing to wage a different war against other nations that aren't directly involved. If they did that, we would have an October 7th whenever Hamas felt like it. A Hamas official has stated that they will continue to attack Israel in this manner.

          Yes, Israel should have acted on the intelligence they had ahead of October 7, but that doesn't mean they are directly to blame. The direct responsibility for raping and killing 1,000 civilians rests solely on Hamas. There was zero effort on their part to limit or prevent civilian casualties. Are you going to tell the rape victims and the families of those who died that day that actually, they should accept the blame for their own tragedy?

          And in your school shooter example, no, that would not be justified. But if there were dozens of school shooters in there who were gunning down any authorities who approached and shooting off missiles that were killing innocent people miles away, with the support of paramilitaries that also kept the authorities from getting within fighting distance of the school, then what would you propose be done about them?

          • No I'm not victim-blaming, which implies they deserved it. What I'm saying is that the solution to the problem of protecting Israeli citizens isn't the rape and murder of their civilians at a scale greater by many factors. The solution is to double-down on defense, because Israel could EASILY prevent future October 7ths simply by properly manning their border. This way, no more civilians have to die on either side.

            For you realize that by the rate of Hamas casualties inflicted upon Israel, it would probably take well over 100 years to commit the amount of murder against innocent civilians that Israel has done in less than a year, right? Of course leaving aside the fact that killing that many civilians has only ever increased radicalization as opposed to reducing it. In fact if I was asked, "how do you maximize an environment ripe for radicalization?" It wouldn't be that far off from what Israel is doing.

            So let's further ask the question of why there is so much trust in Bibi to solve this problem when he has clearly demonstrated blatant incompetence in the past?

            And in your school shooter example, no, that would not be justified. But if there were dozens of school shooters in there who were gunning down any authorities who approached and shooting off missiles that were killing innocent people miles away, with the support of paramilitaries that also kept the authorities from getting within fighting distance of the school, then what would you propose be done about them?

            And yet, if demolishing that building led to a number of children dying in far greater numbers than a hundred school shooting attacks and that the devastation would lead to broken families surrounding said school to commit more terrorist crimes because they've now harbored mass resentment against the "police" because their children, parents, spouses are dead... Well, then the police aren't exactly improving the situation now, are they?

            • As long as Hamas is attacking Israel and using their people as human shields, Hamas will be responsible for their deaths. If I start shooting at you and then hold my wife in front of me when you shoot back, causing the bullet to hit my wife and kill her, that isn't your fault. That's mine.

              The blame for the civilians' deaths lies with Hamas for starting this war and hiding behind them. I have no doubt that the population is radicalized, and Israel probably played a part in it, but so did many other Middle Eastern nations that desire nothing for Israel other than its complete destruction. Also, does the Gaza Health Authority take into consideration the deaths caused by Hamas refusing to evacuate civilians in targeted areas? Why have bordering countries refused Gazan refugees?

              You have failed to provide a better solution than allowing the school shooters to continue killing people indiscriminately. If you do nothing, chances are they're going to set up more missile sites on other schools, recruit more students and staff to their genocidal cause ("almost all" Gazans believe that Hamas is not committing war crimes), and continue the cycle of violence. In fact, in this case, the destruction of Israel is Hamas's explicit stated goal. What would you do to prevent this?

              • No matter how you slice it, you are justifying carte blanche for Israel to do exactly as they will with Gaza however they see fit.

                So tell me, how far does this logic extend?

                Currently the ratio is about 3-4 civilians — half of whom being women & children — for each Hamas killed. So right now, you're saying Israel is completely justified and morally right to sit 4 of these civilians down and execute them so long as for every 4th or 5th or so lined up is a Hamas terrorist? After all, this is precisely what they're doing; for if they know a high value Hamas target is there, then they're certainly aware of the civilian presence when they drop their ordnance.

                And tell me further, would you also defend Israel if they were to drop a nuke on Gaza?

                Where, exactly, does the line finally begin to be blurred for you, I wonder...?

                When does the response become worse than the initial attack that prompted this? After all, it's not the errant rockets that triggered this attack; it was October 7th and October 7th alone. So one cannot justify the rocket attacks for which were ostensibly par for the course and probably less of a threat than simply automotive car accidents.

                I don't believe I have to provide a better solution — for my point to be made I only have to prove that the chosen response is orders of magnitude worse than letting Hamas remain as-is. Which is true. There is no way Hamas could incur that many civilian deaths in 50 or 100 years. If the response is more heinous than the initial attack, then that is a problem.

                Once again I reiterate the aforementioned point that was deflected, which is to say this methodology that Israel is utilizing historically only exacerbates radicalization for decades to come. So if that's truly your concern, perhaps one should go back to the drawing board. Investing in border security and the Iron Dome seems a much more viable way at protecting your people.

                But here's one for you: increasing regional stability instead of destroying it? How about better promoting Fatah or PA instead of undermining them? How about utilizing precision-targeted attacks to get leadership of Hamas, much how Obama used Seal Team 6 to deal with Bin Laden instead of the nation-invasion strategy of his predecessor? How about a change of leadership in Israel to something more competent to begin with...? There are many alternative options.

                • Israel is in no way justified in executing innocent civilians. What they are justified in is waging a war of self-defense against a country that wishes to completely destroy them and has used every dirty trick in the book to attempt just that before turning its populace into a meatshield and playing innocent little victim when Israel returns fire. This has been Hamas's MO for years.

                  Now you tell me: what should Israel do? Allow their neighbor to continue killing Jews in perpetuity? Evacuate the whole country so that Palestine can have its "from the river to the sea" goal? Lie down and accept the genocide that will come if they lay down their arms completely? This is by no means an easy war to judge or adjudicate on, and saying that Israel can't fight back at all, like you seem to be saying, is tantamount to declaring that the Jews in that area have no right to live. If you believe that Israel has a right to fight back, then I ask you: how, exactly, do you fight an enemy that will eagerly throw its entire civilian population into a wood chipper if it means killing just one Jew? If you can't think of a better solution to this problem, then you have no place criticizing them for their actions.

                  It wasn't just October 7th that triggered it. It's Hamas's long and storied history of breaking ceasefires and using humanitarian aid as weapons against Israel. The Hamas government is utterly insane. They need to be replaced with representatives who will not drag their people into wars that get them killed.

                  I would argue that you do have to provide a better solution. If you do nothing about the people killing innocents indiscriminately, that will only embolden them and lead to even more deaths. When does it become unacceptable to continue allowing your citizens to be massacred by terrorists? Again, should Israel just let their people get killed forever?

                  What other options does Israel have at this point? Again, you're implying that if they just let themselves die then the problem will eventually disappear. I mean, it will, because the roads of Jerusalem will be painted with the blood of innocent Jews, but that's beside the point. They can't make peace with Hamas because Hamas is single-mindedly focused on destroying Israel. It's going to take an international coalition to stop the war, of which I am in wholehearted support, by removing the genocidal freaks running Palestine. Border security and the Iron Dome are good, but they'll only go so far when the entire purpose of the government across that border is to kill you. Left to their own devices, they'll figure something out eventually.

                  Israel is, in fact, running precision strikes against the leadership of Hamas. They are continually picking off the leaders of that faction, but it's difficult to get at them because they often hide in other countries and issue suicidal orders from cozy apartments and hotel rooms. They sure could use better leadership - the intelligence failure with October 7th shows that much - and they certainly should be promoting peaceful political parties. I want this war to end peacefully as much as you do, and I don't want any more Palestinian or Israeli civilians to die needlessly. But right now, Hamas is killing its population and Israel's out of sheer, blind hatred. If there was certainty that Hamas wouldn't start its nonsense again (as I've said before, they want to do October 7th over and over again), then maybe we'd have peace now.

                  • How can one not see that the latter is merely a euphemism for the former? Let's bear in mind that Gaza is not "a country" and is not even recognized as a state by Israel, themselves. What Hamas is is a terrorist organization who is holding a captive audience of innocent Palestinians no different than the terrorists in the film Die Hard -- which would have quite a different outcome if the police just decided to demolish the entire building.

                    In other words, yes: If Israel knows that civilians will be killed when they attack a Hamas target, then they are indeed, executing those civilians in kind. There is zero difference been sitting the 5 of them down and shooting them in the back of the head, or dropping a 1,000lb JDAM on them with full knowledge of civilian presence — agreed?

                    I need to be very clear because I'm coming from the perspective of someone who is above all Pro-Civilian; So let me explain that when I assess this scenario, I look for who is actively harming the most civilians. Independent of who fired the first shot, if the the response becomes objectively worse for those innocent lives — all the while having no clear end-goal objective that doesn't exacerbate the risk to rising radicalism — then that's going to be the center of my concern.

                    We know how radicalism occurs. People don't get radicalize out of thin air, after all. It takes decades of oppression, diminished opportunities, living in slums, low education, low socioeconomic opportunity, and so on. Therein lies solutions as to how you improve conditions to the point that people don't feel so desperate and vengeful. The solution isn't to make orphans and leave parents without their children by bombing one of the most densely populated regions on the planet.

                    Let me be very clear that I am (a) NOT saying Israel cannot DEFEND itself, (b) NOR am I saying that Israel does not have a right to exist. What I am saying is that there are better methods at protecting Israeli civilians (remember, it wasn't just Jews who were targeted that day, but Palestinian Muslims died, too) AND reducing terrorism that does not necessitate committing the equivalent of DOZENS of October 7ths in kind.

                    It was October 7th that triggered it, bar-none. If October 7th didn't happen, then Israel would not have leveled Gaza as they did. This really isn't up for dispute; this is what Israeli leadership themselves have repeatedly said.

                    What frustrates me is you dodged so many of the questions I have. If I'm being honest, I suspect your incapacity to confront these questions head-on speaks to the discomfort as we approach the threshold of cognitive dissonance. So please permit me to reiterate the dodged questions:

                    • Where, exactly, does the line finally begin to be blurred for you, I wonder…?

                    • How many civilians are you willing to execute per alleged Hamas target?

                    • And tell me further, would you also defend Israel if they were to drop a nuke on Gaza?

                    • So tell me, how far does this logic extend?

                    • How does killing this many civilians and destabilizing the region by leveling all civilian infrastructure including undermining the capacity for hospitals to operate truly lead to less and not more radicalization in the years to come?

                    • What do you think is going to happen to all those orphans and parents of dead children in the decades to come? I can tell you exactly what I would do if I was in their shoes, after all...

                    • How many children is Israel morally permitted to kill in their end goal?

                    You ask me what they could do differently and I provided several that went entirely ignored, but I'll reiterate a key one: Change of Leadership. Over 70% of Israel disapproves of Bibi. It's not working. His actions have only exacerbated radicalization and will only continue to do so. He has botched several hostage rescue attempts, moved the goalpost on permanent ceasefire deals that could've seen these hostages freed, and failed to secure his borders and adhere to blatantly obvious intelligence. But it's not going not happen because Netanyahu would be in prison if not for the immunity of being in office. Please, stop trying to justify the actions of this war criminal.

                    And no, border security and the iron dome really is it. It really is the most effective way. It's not difficult to stop motorcycles and para-gliders. The planning of this simplistic attack took countless resources and months if not longer of planning and could've easily been stopped by a competent leadership and military. Right here I have both protected Israelis, and prevented the mass slaughter of innocent Gaza civilians. I once again reiterate that Israel has committed a scale of destruction against innocent civilians that Hamas could not possibly have achieved in 50 or 100 years with the resources they had. So in that respect, and in regards to thinking about the innocent civilians, it's no wonder why I believe it is in fact Israel who is the larger terrorist threat.

                    Remember: Under bibi they've ignored intelligence, killed their own hostages who were unarmed and had a white flag, botched a rescue when they could've been saved by a permanent ceasefire, and bombed humanitarian aid convoys despite coordination with IDF command as instructed. This demonstrates profound incompetence that also explains the gross civilian casualty count.

                    Ultimately here are the conditions for you to convince me that what Israel is doing is morally justified:

                      1. You have to provide good reason on how Israel is REDUCING radicalization and therefore will REDUCE terrorism by killing so many civilians, and not in fact increase the rate of radicalization
                      1. You have to give a reasonable explanation as to how, by Israel doubling down on defense, Hamas could ever be able to commit the equivalent ~25 x October 7ths — equivalent to the civilian death toll Israel has incurred in Gaza in less than a year upon Israel.
                      1. You have to explain to me why it even makes sense for Israel to attack the pawns in Gaza as opposed to the puppeteers in Iran or Lebanon.
                      1. You have to explain to me what the red line is for you where the response becomes more heinous and inhumane than the original attack that prompted said response.

                    • You don't seem to understand what "execution" means. Let me put it to you this way: an execution is when you intend to kill someone specific. When the government sentences someone to death and shoots them in the head behind the prison, that is an execution. When the Israeli government is trying to warn people that they're going to attack a place, Hamas refuses to evacuate them, and they die as a result, that is not an execution.

                      If Israel is going around, finding civilians, putting them against the wall, and shooting them in the head, that is wrong. But the Geneva Conventions are clear that simply because a military installation has civilians in it does not mean the installation is no longer a legitimate target. That's the question at hand here. Hamas has been using civilian buildings as military installations for the entire war. Therefore, Israel is justified in bringing those buildings down. One point you are constantly missing is that not only are the combatants in the building holding the civilians hostage, they are an active threat to people miles away. The longer they aren't dealt with, the worse the situation will become. If they can't go in there and clear the building floor by floor to specifically only kill the combatants - which is precisely the situation Israel is in - then they have no choices other than to bomb the place or to allow the assaults to continue. It's a lose-lose situation, but they have an obligation to their own people first and foremost. Why should Israel take the blame when Hamas is the organization that is putting weapons and personnel into a civilian building, launching assaults at them, and refusing to allow the civilians to leave?

                      October 7th has had a long, long history leading up to it, on both sides. This just happens to be the worst incident in a long time. It likely wouldn't be as bad as it is today if none of that had happened, or if Israel had listened to their intelligence.

                      Alright, I will directly answer your questions.

                      Where, exactly, does the line finally begin to be blurred for you, I wonder…? When Israel begins targeting civilians simply for the sake of killing civilians. Like Hamas does. How many civilians are you willing to execute per alleged Hamas target? This is a false dilemma. You can't put a precise number on how many civilians should be allowed to die vs. how many Hamas fighters need to die, when it isn't even clear how many of them are civilians and how many are Hamas fighters. Another confounding factor is the fact that Hamas is actively using its civilian population as a human shield. If they're allowed to continue doing this, then they'll just be able to kill every Jew with impunity by strapping babies to themselves, walking through Jerusalem, and shooting anyone they see. Quite simply, I'm not going to put a number on it. Obviously Every measure should be taken to minimize civilian casualties, which Israel has been doing by warning people before the bombs fall and giving them a chance to evacuate. And tell me further, would you also defend Israel if they were to drop a nuke on Gaza? At this point, a nuke is uncalled for. If Gaza had a nuke of their own with the capability to destroy Israel with it, then I would put a stop to that by any means necessary, including a nuke. So tell me, how far does this logic extend? If you're talking about the logic of accepting civilian casualties in war, then the simple answer is that the military shouldn't be killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians. They should be as precise as possible with their strikes and avoid killing anyone beyond what is absolutely necessary. As far as I know, the Israeli military is not just going "Hey, let's kill a bunch of civilians today, it'll be great." That's Hamas's MO, though. How does killing this many civilians and destabilizing the region by leveling all civilian infrastructure including undermining the capacity for hospitals to operate truly lead to less and not more radicalization in the years to come? It doesn't. What it does is destroy the enemy's capability to fight, and when the majority of their country wants your people dead, then that makes sense. Hamas could have prevented every single civilian death over the past year by simply not teaching their people that the Jews must be destroyed, and then acting on that belief by raping and killing over 1,000 innocent people. They brought this upon themselves. What do you think is going to happen to all those orphans and parents of dead children in the decades to come? I can tell you exactly what I would do if I was in their shoes, after all… Nothing pretty. But if the Israeli government allows Hamas to kill Israeli civilians with no retaliation whatsoever, then they're going to do just that, until there are no more Jews left to complain about the genocidal government next door. How many children is Israel morally permitted to kill in their end goal? None directly for the sake of killing children. But if Hamas holds the children in one hand and spraying bullets from a rifle in the other, then it is ultimately Hamas's fault if the children get hit with return fire.

                      I agree that a leadership change is necessary. But as far as I can tell, you have offered no solutions to the problem of an active war other than "let the Jews die." If Israel gets rid of its idiotic governors and installs people who will at least listen to their intelligence reports, that's a good start, but right now they also have to contend with a genocidal government next door. While you're cleaning up inside the government, what would you do about the soldiers killing your people?

                      "Border security" means nothing against a foe with a tunnel system that's practically as large and developed as the surface of the country. If you'd like to bury Israeli soldiers underground waiting for Hamas to tunnel to them, I welcome you to relay that to the IDF. Yes, more civilians have died on the Palestinian side, but if Hamas would stop strapping babies to themselves to make it suddenly morally unjustifiable to shoot back, then those deaths wouldn't have happened.

                      they've ignored intelligence We've been over this, I agree that was stupid. killed their own hostages who were unarmed and had a white flag That was a bad snap decision made out in the field, not by Bibi. botched a rescue when they could’ve been saved by a permanent ceasefire No ceasefire with Hamas has ever been permanent. and bombed humanitarian aid convoys I agree that was a failure of intelligence.

                      Now, since I've answered your questions, I'd like to ask you some as well.

                      1. Was October 7th justified?
                      2. Is Hamas responsible in any way for the deaths of their civilians when they use civilian buildings as military installations and refuse to allow evacuations? Why or why not?
                      3. How many civilian deaths per verifiable Hamas fighter KIA are acceptable to you?
                      4. How many Palestinian civilian deaths per Israeli civilian death are acceptable to you?
                      5. When a neighboring nation is run by a government that has dedicated nearly every resource possible to waging a racial/religious war against you, is unwilling to compromise in its position, and is raising its population to believe that you must die, how would you respond when they attack your country?
                      6. When that neighboring nation has been the first to attack your country during every truce period within the last 16 years, how can you expect them to behave peacefully this time?
                      7. Suppose there are a hundred gunmen wandering through a city, each with five babies strapped to him. It is clear that they intend to kill anyone they see. If one of these gunmen is killed, all five of his babies will also die as a result. Is it justified to kill the gunmen before they have a chance to kill any innocent people? If not, how many innocent people do the gunmen have to murder before it becomes justified to kill them?
                      8. If Russia began trucking 10 civilians to the front lines in Ukraine for every soldier they sent and the majority of these civilians were doomed to die as human shields, would the Ukrainian military be justified in fighting against the Russian invaders as long as they took measures to avoid intentionally killing these civilians?

                      • (Comment 2 of 2)

                        1. Just as to whether the scale of the Israeli response was unjustified — No.

                        2. Yes. There is a shared responsibility between the hostage taker and the person willing to shoot the hostage(s) alongside the hostage-taker. To me it speaks more of the "good guy," who is so willing to level the hostages than it even does the terrorist for whom we already know lacks moral values. To me it (a) makes zero logical sense in stifling radicalization in the long-term, and (b) it undermines a fundamental western philosophy that actually underscores our entire judicial philosophy: That "it is better that 10 guilty persons go free than 1 innocent person be imprisoned." It's the same reason the US negotiated with Russia to free innocent people in exchange for giving them back scum. The value of our innocent people is greater than their scum. Naturally, I would respect Israel more if they actually cared about civilians of all types a little bit more as opposed to justifying what is, on paper, far worse than the original attack.

                        3. I'm not sure a ratio, but I'll say up to but not exceeding 1,200 total or whatever the official toll of October 7th was. As Robert McNamara once said, "Proportionality should be a guideline to war."

                        4. Ideally, none.

                        5. There is no real government of Gaza; and there is no national identity. There is a gang and that gang like a pimp offers protection to the Goliath next door who is equally no friend but rather a right-wing nationalist state with an obvious interest in creeping territorial annexation that can be tracked going back decades. Both sides of shown an unwillingness to compromise ultimately, which again dates back to the assassination of Israel's former prime minister. My direct answer: Studying how radicalization occurs; why some humans radicalize and others do not. The answer isn't all that difficult in my view.

                        6. I'm not sure I buy the premise; there were countless times where IDF has murdered and yes, even raped in between truces; established blockades and invoked clear provocations in their own right.

                        7. To make this analogy work, you need to move these people across the border and into the streets of Israel. For that to happen, they need to get through a heavily-defended border, and yes, if that's going to happen, then sure. But I'll tell you what's really happening: You're leaving your home and deciding to wander into an adjacent city of people holed up in their own homes with babies on them and deciding, "Okay we'll just blow you up where you are even though you are not clear and present danger to the civilians of OUR city — nor ever would be if we actually took adequate measures to secure the bridge to our city properly.And in fact, we don't even fully know for sure IF there is a target in this area but we're just going to level it on a lead anyway." Quite a bit different, no? I'm going to also take a wild guess and say that Hamas isn't going so far as to do that and is simply hiding wherever they possibly can because Gaza isn't even that big, and that if they were strapping babies to themselves then they probably would face quite a bit of backlash even from those whom they try to oppress.

                        8. Russia basically is doing this with their mobilization and obvious attempts to purge ethnic minorities and other undesireables inside Russia. Unfortunately Ukraine has no choice given the the threat. But again, notice the difference in that Ukraine is legitimately playing defense.

                        I'll conclude with a reiteration of my original point: that in being Pro-Civilian, I cannot in good conscience believe that Israel is making a concerted effort to reduce civilian casualties; nor can I see how this will ever prevent further radicalization in the future without invoking genocide itself. The amount of civilian murders by Israel in their calculations to kill Hamas is on a scale that Hamas could not achieve for 50 or even 100 years. And within that time frame, I'm certain we could've figured out a better solution.

                      • (Comment 1 of 2)

                        It's critical we work through this because I see no discernible difference between:

                        • Accepting that executing 3-4 civilians for every 1 Hamas target is okay (which is the ongoing trend).

                        • And leveling a building knowing civilians are inside to eliminate an alleged Hamas target. (again at a 3-4:1 ratio).

                        Fundamentally zero difference. If you're justifying the latter but not the former, then I highly encourage you to truly reflect on this for a little longer, for this is the heart of what I see is your cognitive dissonance. (a) In both instances, there is a willingness to execute civilians — whether that's pulling the trigger behind their heads, or releasing the payload of a large bomb from above them. Either way, the calculus was made that their lives are worth trading. The only thing that changes is how visceral and close the action is. The calculation was always there (and further below I'll respond to your other point with a source to provide evidence of this).

                        When Israel begins targeting civilians simply for the sake of killing civilians. Like Hamas does.

                        So to be clear: You're okay with plausible deniability behind them claiming they're NOT going out of their way to kill civilians, but are rather being so reckless that they are killing civilians in great droves either way? That is, if the number of civilian deaths incurred remained the same, but instead of them going, "oops we dropped a JDAM sorry we tried!" they went, "yeah we're going to kill as many as we feel like" — the former is perfectly A-Okay to you, but the latter is not... Even though the amount of actual innocent human suffering remains identical? It's merely whether the murderer tried is how you distinguish good from evil?

                        This is a false dilemma. You can’t put a precise number on how many civilians should be allowed to die vs. how many Hamas fighters need to die, when it isn’t even clear how many of them are civilians and how many are Hamas fighters.

                        Per AP and Reuters in corroboration with the UN and WHO — historically, the Gaza Health Ministry's numbers have been quite reliable. But why can't you put a precise number?

                        Another confounding factor is the fact that Hamas is actively using its civilian population as a human shield. If they’re allowed to continue doing this, then they’ll just be able to kill every Jew with impunity by strapping babies to themselves, walking through Jerusalem, and shooting anyone they see. Quite

                        Will they? We'll cross that bridge when we get there. Pretty sure you're putting the cart before the horse, considering, you know that would necessitate them to find a way over the border and iron dome that I originally provided as the easy solution to this problem. At this rate, it seems far more likely that Israel is going to commit genocide on Palestinians than the other way around, don't you think? All the while claiming to be the good guys.

                        Obviously Every measure should be taken to minimize civilian casualties, which Israel has been doing by warning people before the bombs fall and giving them a chance to evacuate.

                        Is every measure being taken? Because it doesn't seem that way. After all as I've pointed out they've killed Humanitarian aid convoys, bombed refugee camps, killed their own hostages no less. In fact, it's the worst conflict in history for humanitarian aid workers and that's largely due to Israel. Forget the contradictory information for where the civilians are supposed to go, the miscommunication breakdown and the unfeasible logistics of moving people who are on the brink of famine and under disease to move from one side to another — all the while humanitarian aid is restricted in the first place.

                        I mean much of the world is beginning to turn against Israel. At its core, Bibi is a far right wing nationalist little different than the neoconservative far-right nationalist Bush administration who invaded Iraq and little different than the far-right nationalist government of Putin. Ultimately, this is an exploitable crisis for (what went ignored in your post) Bibi to escape active criminal charges as he maintains immunity in his position of power. You seem intelligent but I'm astonished that you cannot see this.

                        At this point, a nuke is uncalled for.

                        I mean why not? Since you seem to believe that ends justify the means and that you're unwilling to commit to a ratio of civilians to Hamas target deaths, why not just be done with it? Evidently there IS some point in your mind that you seem to begin to question the morality and I wonder why bombing mosques and apartment buildings and so forth with an alleged (albeit rarely proven) Hamas target inside, all the while people like the father who loses his wife and 3-day-old newborn twins as he's registering their births must suffer — is okay. But after all, like you said using your logic, isn't nuking Gaza simply an extension of the same logic you're already using for their blatantly indiscriminate use of large bombs in densely-populated areas with obvious civilian casualties worse than any recent conflict, including what Putin is doing in Ukraine? After all, can't your conscience be assuaged by your own logic in saying, "Hey, the nuke was necessary; after all, Israel wasn't going out of their way to target civilians; rather Gaza was simply a collective human shield for Hamas that we simply could not ignore!" Herein lies another instance of what I view as cognitive dissonance in your defense of Israel's alleged war crimes (as per the ICC who also has charges against Sinwar and Putin for the record).

                        As far as I know, the Israeli military is not just going “Hey, let’s kill a bunch of civilians today, it’ll be great.”

                        Yeah... About that. Here IDF whistle-blowers (multiple) report specific targeting of civilian infrastructure and ignoring collateral damage asessments.

                        But if the Israeli government allows Hamas to kill Israeli civilians with no retaliation whatsoever, then they’re going to do just that, until there are no more Jews left to complain about the genocidal government next door.

                        When have Jews or Israel been under any sort of threat like that that isn't profoundly exacerbated by the actions of Netanyahu as of recent? What I mean is that now you've only fueled the fire of Lebanon and Iran and created the next generation of pawns to do their bidding. You've only sowed the seeds of resentment; and congratulations, you destroyed civilian infrastructure... That does nothing in terms of permitting Hamas to regroup. It just ensures that civilians are radicalized in greater numbers. Remember, we Americans tried this in Afghanistan and Iraq only to let Taliban take over and ISIS to come out of Al Qaeda. You should learn from the mistakes of Americans that this is utterly failed strategy, not to mention your extremely low value for the alleged human shields that Hamas is using (though in fairness, Bibi has shown he doesn't even care about the Israeli hostages all that much either).

                        But if Hamas holds the children in one hand and spraying bullets from a rifle in the other, then it is ultimately Hamas’s fault if the children get hit with return fire.

                        That's quite not happening when they're bombing these densely-populated buildings, though. Hamas bullets cannot reach Israel from Gaza; their rockets can be shot down as they routinely are. This is falsely analogous.

                        Nobody said anything about, "Let jews die." I simply said, "1) Listen to your intelligence reports 2) Secure your 25-mile border, and 3) Double your Iron Dome defense system. 4) Ditch the far-right war criminal leader and put someone competent who knows how to actually negotiate in good fait. Doing this, another October 7th is quite likely impossible.

                        Hamas didn't attack by tunnels. There are also incredibly easy methods of detecting underground tunnel networks via sonar systems that are already employed around the world. I'm giving you real, functional solutions to problems that don't even exist yet. Israel is resourceful; they could certainly do this.

                        That was a bad snap decision made out in the field, not by Bibi.

                        Who put those soldiers on the front-line in a situation where that was a risk of that occurring? Who sent those IDF soldiers to attempt a high risk operation where it was obviously a risk that Hamas would execute hostages? Who chose to do that instead of agree to the ceasefire brokered by other middle east nations and the US? The buck stops with Bibi as leader, and I frankly find it wild that you're trying to deflect responsibility.

                        No ceasefire with Hamas has ever been permanent.

                        This one could've been. We'll never know.

                        Places with no radicalization are places who have agency, prosperity, and space to breath and prosper in the manner of their choosing. Gaza under routine territorial annexation, sieges has never had this. Israel hasn't even been able to support a 2 state solution, after all.

You've viewed 91 comments.