Israel vs Gaza 2021… wtf?

I am seeing plenty of evidence that the Israelis are taking pains to not deliberately hit civilians. However more Gazan civilians have certainly died, likely an element of worse communication/infrastructure in Gaza to warn people, and the lack of the ubiquitous bomb shelters that Israelis have, and the fact that Gaza can’t really shoot down Israeli missiles but Israel can shoot down many of the Hamas rockets.

I do not think Israel is being disproportionate in its military response. I do think we should analyze, and continue to analyze, Israel’s large responsibility for the state of the conflict there, particularly because Israel holds most of the power, and the powerful actor has the most options for resolving the conflict long term.

But I agree with chappachula we should be careful in saying things like “proportionate” and linking it to casualty numbers. It is not virtuous to want the dead “equalized” in some way, what is virtuous is advocating for positions that will lead to less future dead–and frankly fully acknowledging the part Israel has played in this, Hamas was still in the wrong to initiate deliberate rocket attacks targeting Israeli citizens.

Got it, so you think Israel should match up to Gaza and fire off a few hundred more bombs per day to keep up?

Here’s an article by reuters, a pretty respectable news agency.
It describes how Israel notifies civilians in Gaza to leave a building before it is destroyed.
There has never been an army anywhere in world history that took so many precautions to protect enemy civilians in a combat zone

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/taking-call-gaza-before-israel-takes-out-building-2021-05-14/

I agree. Israel’s response is ineffective; it is not serving their long term interest; I am against it for those reasons. But it is in no way disproportionate. In fact, I doubt any other nation would be as restrained in their response as Israel has been if in the same situation.

I’ll note when we started Operation Iraqi Freedom we launched extremely large amounts of munitions into central Baghdad and we were not taking similar steps to avoid civilian casualties. We did not deliberately target civilians, but we stray into an issue that I worry about a lot–in the West I think a lot of us feel that Israel default gets a lot of support and that in many ways we have turned a historic blind eye towards anytime Israel takes actions that aren’t appropriate. Because we as people aren’t good at moderation, I think there is an instinct to try to " correct this", and it frequently goes too far, in that it puts a scale and depth of scrutiny upon Israel that no other Western state normally faces for its behavior.

Really. Has anyone apart from the Israeli government characterized the strikes that way? I mean the UN, the WHO etc has said that all “attacks on healthcare” must end immediately. 40 schools and 4 hospitals have been partially or completely destroyed.

Yes I know that the claim will be that these were being used by Hamas as human shields. Can the international community see the evidence of that (I mean even after this round of conflict)? And also, can we know anything about the “rules of engagement” for what proportion of innocents they are willing to shoot through?

:roll_eyes: yeah, I’m sure Israel is blowing up Palestinian civilians for shits and giggles :roll_eyes:

Meanwhile Hamas brags about killing civilians and you sweep that under the rug.

I would say in all fairness, the default assumption should be to presume they are true. If we see facts to the alternative, let’s address them then.

I say this because as long established strategy and practice, Hamas deliberately uses civilian locations to stage rocket attacks to incite exactly this response when Israel fires back, for reasons that I think stray into the political, the press is derelict in not reporting on that fact as often or as clearly as they should be. But for me the claim that Hamas is using civilian infrastructure to wage rocket attacks is akin to the claim “Nazis are killing Jews”, it should be assumed true unless proven otherwise, because it has been broadly demonstrated as their standard operating procedure.

Yes, the source isn’t totally objective, but the link contains dry facts.

here’s another link, from The Atlantic, which also contains dry facts.
(paywalled, but allows 5 free readings)

It seems to me that if Israel wanted to destroy Gaza targets indiscriminately, it would not be making the effort to warn targets before launching attacks. Not only that, they could attack far more indiscriminately with much more collateral damage. Not just this time around but also many times in the past. They do not appear to be changing their methods of retaliation for missile attacks from Gaza. To me that suggests that between the two sides, Israel is the more trustworthy party.

Also, what do you imagine is the strategic advantage of bombing a school or a hospital as opposed to a viable military target?

While there’s been a lot of analysis of Israel’s behavior, including condemning some of their political and strategic moves (by myself included at times), and some good articles shared that I think highlight things not often talked about, I read an article in The Atlantic this morning that I think is also–in interest of fairness, worth everyone taking the time to read. It is from a journalist who worked for the AP in its Jerusalem bureau for 5 years, and it details allegations that there is a systemic interrelationship between NGOs and journalists who report on Israel/Palestine, that there is a revolving door effect of journalists going from being reporters to working at the NGOs in between assignments, and that the general cultural milieu of this segment of the media is “to paint Israel as a uniquely immoral country, and the Palestinians as almost wholly virtuous.” It details several instances in which Palestinian extremism was covered by reporters at the bureau, and then declined publication by editors, and other instances where the bureau declined to disclose its own dealings with Hamas, or even acknowledge the fact that many of its reporters have faced threats from Hamas in regard to their reporting. It even mentions that during the last Gaza conflict that AP reporters in the building in Gaza heard rockets being fired from near their offices, and this was also declined to be reported on.

I think the author has some things he’s said that are a little distortionary, but he makes a lot of sourced claims that I think bear strong consideration that the media at least in the context of the media on the ground in Israel covering the conflict, has a biased and non-journalistic viewpoint that colors reporting on the matter.

What the Media Gets Wrong About Israel - The Atlantic

This actually for me gets to the crux of why this is such a difficult subject to talk about.

Israel has valid claims to the region.
Palestine has valid claims to the region.

Israel has been attacked, unjustly, by its enemies many times.
Israel has taken and held land, that while illegal, is not inconsistent with how many other “great powers” have taken and won land in 20th century wars, and Israel faces special opprobrium for its actions.

There is an element of Palestinian society that is radicalized and extremist. This means they literally believe all Jews should be killed. Hamas is a radical, violent extremist group. They have a history of deliberately targeting civilians. They have a history of manipulating the media. They have a history of putting civilians in harm’s way specifically to turn the media against Israel.

The Arab world in general has a horrible track record in its treatment of ethnic and religious minorities from the period of the late 19th century to the present day–a consequence of the waves of nationalism that shook the Western and near Eastern world during that time. This includes multiple genocides and mass expulsions of people from ancestral lands. There are at least ten major expulsions, some of which included genocides, that are arguably linked with Arab nationalism. Israel is in some sense properly understood to be an island in a world in which that is the context. The initial attempts by the Arab coalition to invade Israel very much had this mindset in place, it was a war whose end goal was genocide against Jews.

However, a great many Palestinians are young people who have never done anything wrong to anyone, and who do not hate Jews or have special hatred for anyone. These Palestinians are caught in a terrible cycle of poverty and violence from which they cannot escape.

The Palestinian people have a right to statehood and self-determination, and Israel’s ever-expanding settlements, its evictions from East Jerusalem, its harassments and radicalization (leading to mobs of Jews and Arabs fighting in streets of Israeli cities), directly add fuel to the fire that makes people sign up to join Hamas, that helps open people’s minds to the poisonous thoughts of ethnic nationalism and religious radicalism

Israel also has an obligation as a democratic country and the far more powerful country in the Israel-Palestine conflict, the at least try to fix the broader situation. Partially because as the more powerful party, it actually has more options to try and fix it than do the Palestinians.

It should be recognized that Israel has shifting political moods and political parties which control it, and that at times even in Israel’s recent history, there have been good faith attempts at peace offered from the Israeli side–and those have always been rejected. However it should also be noted it would be difficult for any Palestinian negotiator to accept an offer, because Palestine is so dysfunctional no one can really speak for it or negotiate on its behalf.

This is a tragic situation, and I think emotions easily get wrapped up in it. I think we should not stray into holding Israel to an unfair standard compared to its democratic peer countries simply because we want to have a more balanced understanding of the conflict than what is sometimes presented in the U.S. (which mostly has a pro-Israel stance that is rarely closely examined.)

In terms of being unfair, I will say unequivocally, if America had faced a similar amount of rocket attacks from a much weaker neighbor populated with many Muslim extremists over multiple incidents over long stretches of years, we would not be talking about that issue today. We’d be talking about the nature preserve on that land, for they would all but certainly have been wiped off the face of the earth. We killed 7500 Iraqi civilians in the very first month of the 2003 invasion, we need to temper some of our criticism with Israel with a little bit of humility (I also know not everyone here is America, but as a board rooted historically to a Chicago newspaper article, it is predominantly American.)

Depends on your end goal. If it is to maintain conflict, then it’s an excellent strategy.

Fully in agreement.

Fully in agreement.

The Palestinians?

Fully in agreement.

I really appreciate your posts in this thread. While we may not agree on much in other areas, I do find everything you’ve said here to be well thought out and pretty fair over all. I do take issue with the claim that Palestine has a history of manipulating the media. Every government does that and I’m pretty sure Israel could teach the Palestinians a thing or two (or fifty) about this manipulation.

I just want to say, as I’ve been following this, I don’t think your characterization of those who think Israel is heavy-handed, is fair. Surely you don’t think anyone here wants you- or any other- Israeli killed as a means of making things fair. I’m pretty confident that the participants in this thread would prefer nobody got killed.

But Israel is neither at sole fault nor beyond reproach here.

Long thread, I’ll sum up my opinion quickly. There are a lot of terrible people who live in that region and none of them negotiate with each other or with us in good faith. We will as usual prevent the Israelis from wiping out their enemies and we will participate in a fool’s errand to find a peaceful solution. In the mean time both sides will continue to plan the destruction of each other.

In re the media–specifically Hamas is what I meant by “they”, not Palestinians as a whole. They have a reputation for harassing local reporters to show what they want, and they’ve also done a lot of shady shit like had members do interviews with western press where Hamas has claimed that “while we have a revolutionary background, in a Hamas ruled state we would not seek to interfere with anyone’s lives.” This resulted in a spate of poor reporting back in the early 2010s when some Western journalists were trying to liken Hamas to having progressed more along the lines of Sinn Fein, to no longer being a party of active terrorism etc. By all accounts that was complete bullshit, Hamas’ leadership and its membership are all actual Islamic extremists who believe fully in using violence to kill and terrorize other religious groups.

I forgot to respond to this part. You might recall that a very large number of said Americans, including the majority of voices on this board, were and remain absolutely appalled at that invasion.

Sure, but the same is true of Israel and its citizens. We are responsible on some ethical level as citizens of a democracy for the actions of our government.

But that’s not what is apparently wanted by surrounding nations. It would petty change to support Palestine and create a functional state but the support seems to go to terrorist organizations and not the Palestinians. Hamas and hezbollah are using it as a civilian shield to wage war.