Than them dropping bunker busters? Yes, yes, I do.
The IRA was never carrying out terroristic violence against British enemies or Irish civilians as a government in control of a territory. And the IRA ceased to exist as a terrorist organization, Sinn Fein is a non-violent political party.
The short term Israeli objective is the removal of Hamas as a terroristic governing power. In the medium term, Hamas terrorist cells will no doubt continue to exist and be dealt with as terrorist cells. Eventually, if through a political process that might in some ways parallel the Irish situation some entity that still wants to call itself some variation of “Hamas” evolves into a political party that disavows violence and wants to participate in a peaceful two state solution, I don’t think anyone wants to quibble over the fact that the word Hamas has not been defeated.
This is a worthless argument because it assumes the conclusion that this is abuse rather than a justified violent response to violence. It may be true that the Israeli response is wrong, but that should be argued directly - it adds nothing to vaguely assert that they are “using the language” of abusers. People who are right in responding to aggression with appropriate counterviolence use similar language of cause and effect when talking about their reasons for acting. The language tells us nothing.
*ETA: The reason that abusers use that language to deflect is precisely because it is exactly the same language of cause and effect that people use when explaining justified responsive acts. That’s why cause-and-effect language in itself tells us absolutely nothing.
In general, out in the world, I cannot be the only person tired of being told what I should think about this topic.
I have some thoughts on the matter formed over years of experience and I am forming new ones based on the avenues of information I trust. And that is it. A Facebook copy-paste or Yahoo! Mail editorial isn’t going to sway me and I am so tired of the attempts.
You seem to be forgetting the history where BEFORE 10/7, Israel invested heavily in passive defenses - walls, Iron Dome - and absorbed plenty of rocket barrages mostly without retaliation, and on those occasions where the rockets got out of hand or terrorist incursions resulted in kidnap or murder, went in with limited engagements and targeted assassinations that killed way fewer non-combatants than is happening in the current full-scale invasion. They supplied water and fuel and electricity, and did so whether during ceasefire periods or during the prior engagements.
But the 10/7 massacre went too far, and proved how completely impossible it will be for Israel to protect its citizens from Hamas using only passive defenses and limited engagements. They tried all the other things, and they did not work to de-escalate the conflict, instead all it did was embolden Hamas. They have been left with no other choice.
Perhaps the analogy would be that Israel and Hamas had been in a bar fight for years, with Hamas getting the worst of it, but for the most part just fisticuffs. Then Hamas pulled out a knife and stabbed Israel, at which point Israel started blasting away with a shotgun attacking Hamas but also hitting many other bystanders in the process.
Another analogy might be that Israel has its hands around the neck of Palestine and is slowly strangling the life out of it. Israeli settlement-building in the Palestinian West Bank would be the most obvious manifestation of this. Every so often, there are spasms of violence by the weaker Palestine against the stronger Israel and Israel cries: “What violence! This man is hitting me!” and squeezes a bit harder. Of course, this analogy does not go into how they came to be in this situation in the first place.
Palestinians pose almost no threat to the existence of Israel. Israelis pose an absolutely existential threat to the existence of Palestine. If things continue as they are, there will come a point where there is no Palestinian land, only Israel.
This is not exactly right. Substantial number of Palestinians want to eliminate the nation of Israel. If these partisans don’t currently pose a danger to Israel’s existence, it’s because Israel has prevented them from gaining power over the last many decades. If Hamas et al had better access to resources from Iran, they’d post much more of an existential threat.
It’s also not exactly the right point. While they don’t currently pose an existential threat to Israel as a nation, they are very well positioned to cause terror within Israel. Those Palestinians who comprise Hamas aren’t well-metaphorized as “spasms of violence”, as that removes their moral agency.
You’re looking at it through the lens of Hamas saying these things. I don’t think anyone involved believes Hamas to be blameless and good. Hamas is not being abused by Israel.
Look at it from the perspective of innocent Palestinians, because they’re the ones being abused. By Hamas, yes, but also by Israel.
The reason Palestinians pose no threat is because Israel is suppressing and repressing them. Not just “partisans”, but the people as a whole.
People’s opinions are affected by the situation they are experiencing. They are not static.
In a 2002 poll, 72% of both Palestinians and Israelis supported a peace settlement based on the 1967 borders. Over the last couple of decades, support for a two-state solution has declined on both sides.
If one believes there is no goodwill on the opposing side, then one is likely to take a hardline approach. It is impossible to regard Israeli settlement-building in the Palestinian West Bank as anything other than bad faith and anti-peace.
Did you say this right? Because it sounds like you’re saying that absent suppression and repression, Palestinians will pose a threat. Is that what you mean?
This is a non sequitur to what I wrote.
As I said, in 2002, the overwhelming majority of Palestinians would accept a peace based on a two-state solution. Now, only a minority do. Why has that changed?
I would suggest that the opinion polls are affected by the perception of Israeli restraint in their actions towards Palestinians and of Israeli goodwill towards the idea of a peace based on the concept of Palestinians having their own state.
I would argue that Palestinians do not perceive either of these things to be true, hence they have moved to a hardline view of things. Hardline views imply a greater threat, moderate views imply a reduced threat, in terms of intent at least, rather than practical means.
Ground warfare can kill a lot more people. It grinds away and isn’t as singularly spectacular as a big bomb, but it chews up human lives as civilians get caught in the crossfire.
A lot of things have changed. Just as I’ve refused to accept IDF’s blaming Hamas for their actions, I refuse to accept Hamas’s blaming IDF for their actions.
No. It’s merely pointing out that this is rhetoric that stereotypically is associated with abusers. It’s not a syllogism about cause and effect.
Legitimate users of violence don’t say things like “Why’d you make me hit you?”.
Especially not when the person being attacked as a response is not the original attacker.
Sure. That’s why it bothers you so much, because it tells us nothing.
I disagree. Not with modern arms and any modicum of discrimination on the part of at least one side.
As we’ve been assured will be the case.
The reason I’ve called it abuser language is the abdication of responsibility. There are times when I might choose to use violence; but the choice is mine, and I should accept responsibility for making that choice. Abusers don’t want that responsibility. They want to blame the victims of their violence for the choice to use violence.
It’s true that the supporters of mass bombing aren’t exactly doing that. They’re telling the victims of their violence to blame Hamas for their choice to use violence. But the underlying idea–that they’re justifying violence by blaming someone else for their own choices–is reprehensibly similar to abuser language.
But again, a claim that Israel is abdicating responsibility needs to be addressed directly. Does the purported reason justify the Israeli response, or is it being used to deflect from indiscriminate violence?
The form of language “we are doing Y because X” tells us absolutely nothing. There is no such thing as “abuser language”, an abuser deliberately uses the exact same form of words as someone with a bona fide justification in order to make the deflection sound more credible.
And nobody has used this exact form of words in this conflict. But (as an example) I have certainly seen good LEO, devastated and in tears, use this form of words when, despite obvious efforts on their part to deescalate, a suicide-by-cop has forced a lethal response.
Claiming a causal connection between things may be wrong and dishonest or it may not, it is not a something peculiar to abusers that we can use to identify them. We identify them by their actions.