I just don’t understand how Israel is supposed to get aid into Gaza and distribute it to civilians without giving Hamas credit or cutting them in without first elminiating Hamas’ power in at least a limited area of Gaza.
Much more so for utilities like water and power. Who is going to run the distribution substations? That’s all controlled by Hamas, how does Israel get the power and water to the people directly?
It’s a bit of a tangent, but Israel/IDF could have been a LOT more protective of people in the West Bank instead of letting attacks by Jewish settlers go unpunished. It would have taken the wind out of a lot of sails in regards to accusations of ethnic cleansing. The West Bank is Israel’s territory, they should be protecting everyone in it equally but they aren’t.
Meanwhile - I’m not playing the game where I ask you for something then you demand I provide it. I asked YOU to demonstrate to me that any other alternative to what’s currently going on is worse that IDF’s current course of action. Were any alternatives even considered?
I’m sorry - is the siege of Gaza lifted? Did I miss that? Can fuel/food/water now flow freely into Gaza?
There are credible reports of people so thirsty they’re drinking brine or even sea water in Gaza. How long do you think those circumstances can continue before there are mass causalities? On top of the bombardment and the collapsing buildings.
Do you think a siege is incapable of killing the majority of people in Gaza? Please do read up a bit on the siege of Leningrad.
How long does the Israeli government intend to keep that siege up? I get that they want Hamas dead dead dead and don’t seem to care how much collateral damage is caused along the way but they’re delusional if they don’t think they’ll be judged for that. And that judgement will fall on every single Jewish person in the entire world even though Israel isn’t even quite half of the global Jewish population.
I’m not convinced Israel is a safe place. How safe is a place that requires the likes of the Iron Dome and a bomb shelter safe room in every home? Did the kibbutzes attacked on October 7 think they were great places for a Jewish community until suddenly they weren’t?
Zionism argues that the Jews will never be safe anywhere other than their own nation. Unfortunately, that nation was not founded on vacant land (there isn’t any, anymore) and decades later we have the current shit-show. I’m not going to argue that the US will always be a safe haven, either. I think the safest thing for Jews is to be dispersed worldwide so they’re hard to wipe out, but of course, that’s not safe, especially not for anyone caught in a pogrom, but it’s how the Jews have been so resistant to attempts to exterminate them for the last 2,000 years.
It’s not just the Jewish side of my family that were refugees. Ireland was a safe place to live until the Great Famine, at which point my great-grands left looking for a place with food. Not that the Irish were ever treated well by their English overlords. Germany was a safe place until my Catholic grandfather decided it wasn’t and stowed aboard a ship to America.
The main lesson I’ve taken from all that is don’t get so attached to a place you aren’t willing to leave it to save your life because bad stuff can happen anywhere. Everywhere and anywhere is safe until suddenly it isn’t, and that applies to everyone.
Please - the US has spent decades and trillions of dollars developing missiles that are more accurate to minimize collateral damage. The US has developed land mines that become inert after a certain amount of time instead of continuing to kill civilians forever. It’s fought wars (and lost them) with one hand tied behind its back to try to limit damage.
Perfect? Absolutely not. But I don’t buy any argument that the IDF is especially moral in regards to limiting civilian maiming and death.
^ This.
I don’t see a lot of room for discussing how awful Hamas is. The Israel side has more room for debate/discussion.
It is definitely possible to condemn both sides. It’s not binary where if you’re against one you’re automatically for the other. A pox on both their houses as far as I’m concerned. I’m in the debate, though, because a disastrous, decades long conflict between two parties manages to have global repercussions.
You don’t need anything “fissile” for a dirty bomb, you just need something radioactive in sufficient quantities. Based on some accidents that have occurred involving junk scrappers there’s sufficient stuff out there, it’s a wonder we haven’t seen dirty bombs yet.
Hamas bet that the Israelis wouldn’t be willing to kill so many civilians. Boy, that was stupid. Maybe they assumed that Israel was as “soft” as their US ally or Western Europe, two places that wring their hands a great deal over the deaths of innocents. Israel isn’t either of those two places. Also, in the past Israel has been willing to risk killing even their own citizens in kidnap/hostage situations, and Mossad has killed innocents when they mistook them for Nazis.
Well… yes. Up to a point. But how do you feel if Party A kills 100,000 of Party B trying to get the last Bad Guy?
We’re not at that point, currently here is how things break down based on a quick Google:
Israel: 1434 killed 5431 wounded 245 captured 40 missing
Gaza: 9061 killed 32,000 wounded 2030 missing
At some point this will get into “disproportionate response” territory. Where exactly that line is drawn will vary from person to person.
No: people can’t wait until the war is over. People need to eat today. And if that means that Hamas will continue to steal supplies, that is a regrettable side effect of keeping civilians from dying. Killing the shit out of Hamas can happen simultaneously.
Send in massive amounts of food and water and medical aid, knowing that Hamas will take whatever they need. Send in so much that civilians will get what they need as well. Kill Hamas and take back what they took.
The alternative–not sending in nearly enough, because you don’t want Hamas to take it–is unbearably cruel.
Hamas might–almost certainly will–take credit temporarily. That’s better than starving thousands of kids.
You have a really strange notion of war. Please name one war, in all of human history, where one side has done this. Then I will consider the plausibility of holding Israel to that standard.
Or maybe it’s a straw man. I’m fairly sure nobody here thinks that the plan here is to kill as many Hamas militants as possible and then leave the Gazans to their own devices in a pile of rubble.
Whatever makes you think that? I think Hamas wanted to provoke Israel into atrocities, so as to reduce international acceptance of Israel. And that Hamas is delighted to have Israel kill huge numbers of Palestinians, because that will help Hamas recruit the survivors.
Can I instead name wars where one side hasn’t created siege conditions that the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, the Human Rights fund, the World Health Organization, and every other major humanitarian organization decry? Will that be enough?
Are you talking about Hamas? Because Hamas necessitated the siege conditions.
“Look what you made me do” is abuser language, and I reject that, and so do all those humanitarian organizations I mentioned.
Control of land and resources, for example.
You can keep repeating this “abuser language” trope, but it’s utter nonsense. Actions have consequences. Israel responded to terrorist attacks for the security of its own people.
Yes, they did. They responded in a way that’s being condemned by all the major humanitarian groups. Hamas didn’t force them to make those choices; the government of Israel made those choices, and owns them, just like Hamas owns their own choices and doesn’t get to blame Israel for them.
Cool! I think the nonsense is saying things like Hamas “necessitated” Israel’s actions, as if the Israeli government has no agency.
I don’t see any alternative other than ignoring the attacks or giving in to Hamas’ demands, which is why I have argued that this would be unacceptable and worse.
I think Israel should evict the settlers entirely, just like they were evicted from Gaza. Hopefully that doesn’t turn out as disastrously as withdrawing from Gaza, of course.
Take that up with Hamas. The water is back on, food is coming in through humanitarian corridors, and Hamas has literally tons of fuel.
Have you read the news? Israeli forces have already entered Gaza. The “siege” ends when Israel defeats Hamas, and in the mean time Israel can bring aid into areas they control, once they gain control of populated areas.
That’s laughable. If they didn’t care then Gaza would be flattened by now. If Hamas had the kind of firepower that Israel does pointed at an Israeli city, that city would no longer exist. So it’s pretty laughable to claim that Israel doesn’t care about collateral damage.
Are you seriously blaming anti-Semetism on the existence of Israel? You give anti-Semites far too much credit by assuming there’s reason to their hatred. In case you didn’t notice, anti-Semitism was a problem long before the existence of Israel, and even if Palestinians managed to push us all into the sea I guarantee you that wouldn’t make the hatred stop.
Much of that was done in coordination with Israel. Israel is a world leader in precision targeting. What are you even talking about?
Hamas doesn’t give a rat’s ass about civilians. It happily lets 15-25% of its rockets land on their heads on the off chance that they might get past Iron Dome to hit a Jew.
As I said - it’s not really a debate that Hamas is loathsome and despicable. They are taking actions that actively harm the people they are supposed to be responsible for. We know they don’t give a damn about human life. So… not much discussion or debate here.
I’m not sure that’s a meaning distinction to the people dying under the rubble of Gaza at the moment.
Unfortunately by its very nature war is inhumane. There’s never been a war that didn’t kill non-combatants, bystanders, etc. A problem, though, is that it is all too easy to target civilians then claim they’re “collateral damage”. Is that happening at present? For Hamas the answer in an unequivocal “yes”. I honestly can’t say either way in regards to the IDF but it’s a question that’s going to come up in any war.
Israel knows that their people (civilians) are being held hostage in Gaza. They’re still bombing the shit out of Gaza. Apparently to Israel that’s an acceptable risk and acceptable losses.
But you said there’s one side trying to end killing civilians. That side certainly isn’t Hamas.
So you meant that Israel must win? Because, as I said, I’m unclear as to what you meant by that post.
Is Hamas even trying to claim that they’re “collateral damage”? Hamas is killing Jews (and any Palestinians who they happen to hit in the process). That’s their intention. It’s not “collateral” to somebody else they were trying to hit.
This is a vacuous comment. By this reasoning, there is never any meaningful distinction between deliberate murder and accidental death, since the dead person no longer cares.
The trouble is that judging on past performance, and on the record of this Israeli government in particular, it’s not clear that Israel’s response actually is in the best interests of the security of its own people, even leaving aside the disproportionate-response and collective-punishment and war-crimes debates.
I don’t imagine that anybody is Israel is thinking of the approach “just kill as many Hamas militants as possible” as a “plan”, but is there in fact a plan beyond that? If so, what?
That’s fine, but then we’re back to what I said earlier - supplying Hamas in this way is exactly what Netanyahu was doing that is criticized as having given Hamas legitimacy, and the calculus when making that decision was exactly what you describe above.
Now, if your argument is that Israel should have recognized that Hamas would never moderate years ago, and done this sort of ‘invade while sending in aid’ deal way back then - sure, I agree, in hindsight; but to be honest with you I also believed that Hamas would eventually moderate themselves because of the mistaken belief that despite their bluster they truly would do some realpolitiking and realize that they have no choice but to negotiate with Israel, and therefore was also opposed to a costly and deadly (on both sides) ground invasion until the events of Oct 7 made it clear how dangerously wrong I had been. I was very happy that Israel didn’t go in in 2014, for example.
It’s Orwellian that you would make this criticism, when so much commentary implies that Israel is the only party with any agency.
And Israelis themselves have also recently suffered the devastating consequences of leaving Hamas in place (and even surreptitiously empowering it) while blockading Gaza. I’m pretty sure everyone (especially Israelis themselves) understands that Netanyahu’s approach was a terrible plan.
But clearly Israel could not have just done nothing about terrorist attacks from Hamas against its people. So should they have invaded and completely removed Hamas from power a decade ago? What do you think they should have done?
“This Israeli government in particular”, if you mean Netanyahu’s pre-war coalition, is dead and buried. Israel’s government at this time is an emergency wartime cabinet that’s focused on removing Hamas from the leadership of the Gaza strip.
The questions you ask are good ones, but they are not ones that the current emergency government can answer. It would be incredibly undemocratic for it to do so, since this emergency government was not elected.
The question “what next” will need to be answered by the Israeli public, which means an election, which will happen once the situation in Gaza stabilizes. It seems that Bibi personally is completely discredited by the Oct 7 massacre, and my hope is that so is his party’s approach towards the Palestinians, but it remains to be seen exactly how things will shake out.