9 ms·

Israel's response tends to stem from a history of oppression which is where it gets touchy. Jewish have not exactly been treated well for most of the 20th centu

Israel's response tends to stem from a history of oppression which is where it gets touchy. Jewish have not exactly been treated well for most of the 20th century. Not saying that is a reason to invoke that upon someone else, but it tends to be where most thoughts come from. A sense of if we don't do something we'll lose "our" home.

hef19898 3y ago
That explains what happened in 50s and 60s. Leveling Gaza in 2023 doesn't fall in that category, Hamas never had the power to do anything about Israel's existence as a state.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  The Zionist project began long before WW2 (and before WW1)
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Not sure what that has to do with it. The current conflict between Palsetinians and Israel roots back to the foubdation of Israel as a state after WW2. Which I get, jews came pretty close to extinction, and arguably not a lot of people actually cared about that. Hence the need for a state of their own. 80 years and a bunch of wars, insurgencies, counter-insurgencies, terror and air campaigns later, interseded with a handful of peace initiatives, the situation is truely FUBAR. I am not convinced so that leveling Gaza actually does a lot to solve that problem.
    - Maken 3y ago
      The origins of Israel go back to the post-WW1 Ottoman partition. WW2 just fed them more colonists.
- lolinder 3y ago
  From the perspective of Israel's defense forces, Hamas doesn't have that power because Israel responds the way it does. I'd imagine that for many in Israel the lesson of the 60s is that if given an opening all of their neighbors will attack, so Israel cannot ever be seen as responding lukewarmly to an attack, even one by a party that couldn't destroy them singlehandedly. (I'm not arguing that this position is correct, just trying to explain another possible perspective.)
  - hef19898 3y ago
    That's the problem, isn't it? If you put yourself in the shoes of either side, you can see how they have very good reason to do what they do (except Israelian settlement policies, those basically amount to borderline ethnic cleansing, and force the IDF to move in after the fact, but that's a different beast). And since both sides are "right", there is no way this can end without outside intervention. An intervention that won't come, becaues nobody who could intervene is neutral enough, nor willing to be drawn into this.
    - falserum 3y ago
      It’s multigenerational vendeta. Both sides have what to avenge for. Three ways how piece can be achieved here: - side a is wiped out - side b is wiped out - both sides turn the other cheek and shake hands. Both sides know that, and neither of them believe in cheeky business.
      - hef19898 3y ago
        I saw an interview a while ago of an Israeli father who lost his kid in one of the previous wars, and who now works a Palestinian father, who also lost his kid, in order to find a peaceful solution. He confirmed your point by saying, I paraphrase, "we are doomed to live share this land together, or the graveyard under it". I really, really hope it will be tze "cheely" solution, the alternatives are, unfortunately, very much imaginable and incredibly painful and ugly.
      - prewett 3y ago
- amluto 3y ago
  I think that what’s going on in the minds of those calling the shots on Israel’s side (or at least most of them) is: they’re not trying to level Gaza. They’re trying to fight a war against Hamas, and Hamas is fighting from positions in cities that are often literally on the grounds of or inside what ought to be protected civilian sites: hospitals, mosques, etc. And they are surely making what seems a straightforward tactical calculation: they could send infantry in to try to minimize civilian casualties at enormous cost to their infantry, or they could use their massively superior firepower to just destroy the Hamas positions from a distance. And the Israeli command feels the need to fight on the ground in the first place because Hamas is holding obviously innocent hostages and shooting militarily-useless but nonetheless quite dangerous explosive-filled rockets over the border. Hamas is goading them very effectively. If Israel could magically snap its fingers to destroy Hamas, get rid of all of Hamas’ weapons, and leave Gazan civilians, buildings and infrastructure alone, of course they would! One might ask why Hamas is doing any of the above. I don’t think Hamas is at all on the side of the residents of Gaza. Their strategy seems much better explained by some rather different goals: improving their own status in the world, raising money, making a really big show, weakening Israel, seeming and feeling important, and recruiting more militant members. I think that every Gazan civilian injury and death is in Hamas’ favor. Israel making itself look bad is in Hamas’ favor. More Gazans who hate Israel and feel hopeless and marginalized is in Hamas’ favor. So of course Hamas wants to keep holding hostages and randomly blowing stuff up in Israel. To be clear: I do not think Israel is making an ethically or strategically appropriate decision here. But I understand where they’re coming from. And I don’t think Hamas is making the right decisions either, ethically or strategically, at least if the goal is making a good, safe life for residents of Gaza.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Politically, Hamas has something in common with Nethanyahus government: the urge to stay in power. From that perspective, at least for now, both sides, Israels politicak leadership and Hamas leadership, have achieved their goal. Another thing both have in common: they don't give a fuck about the price other people have to pay in order to achieve that goal.
stoorafa 3y ago
That’s an interesting parallel, Gazan’s response is also borne of a history of oppression. Living with food insecurity, being an intergenerational refugee unable to return to home a few miles away, watching family members harmed, etc seems to motivate a lot of Palestinian behavior.
- ifdefdebug 3y ago
  "being an intergenerational refugee" is one of the most absurd problems that exist in this conflict. Nobody should be a refugee just because their grandparents were. They should be plain citizens of whatever region they were born in. If we extrapolate this stance to other past conflicts, we'd have today tens of millions of German "intergenerational" refugees sitting in Germany and waiting for their return to their home a few miles away, across the Oder river.
  - Georgelemental 3y ago
    Yes, that's why the Palestinians need a proper state of their own, so the absurdity can end.
    - lolinder 3y ago
      The idea that every nation needs a state (and every state exists to serve one nation) is part of the absurdity! It's what got us into this mess in the first place—the Jews needed a state of their own because the rest of us couldn't stand to let them make their home near us. The problem of intergenerational refugees will not be solved by carving out a new state and shipping everyone back there.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- natch 3y ago
  Their ancestors lost their homes when they needlessly started, and then lost, a war against people who owned land outright and others who moved onto the land only after the UN divided it and gave a vast proportion of it to Jordan, and part to Israel… ancestors who also abandoned their land after the war defeat on the advice of their warlike leaders. The ones who stayed behind became Israeli (Arab muslims, Christians, etc.) and kept their land as long as they held valid documented title to it, and many of those who made that move (or whose parents did) say they would prefer to live under Israeli rule versus PA rule. The Youtuber TravelinIsrael has some good videos on history about this. Obviously there are also modern alleged losses of land and homes but each case has its own details. In some, Israelis (often settlers) are clearly in the wrong, but in others, it is less clear and more disputed than common rhetoric about “oppression” and “occupation” would imply.
noworriesnate 3y ago
[flagged]
- Maken 3y ago
  If the UN was a properly working organization, it would have intervened long ago to force a ceasefire. But we all know that only applies to very poor countries with no economic or political relevance.
  - nielsbot 3y ago
    I am sad and angry that the US was the sole vetoer of the most recent attempt. Also sad that Israel's vengeful assault on the people of Gaza is enabled and funded by the US.
  - vladgur 3y ago
    A ceasefire without releasing hostages? There are still more than a 100 of hostages being held in Gaza to this day?

hef19898 3y ago

That explains what happened in 50s and 60s. Leveling Gaza in 2023 doesn't fall in that category, Hamas never had the power to do anything about Israel's existence as a state.

wahnfrieden 3y ago
The Zionist project began long before WW2 (and before WW1)
- hef19898 3y ago
  Not sure what that has to do with it. The current conflict between Palsetinians and Israel roots back to the foubdation of Israel as a state after WW2. Which I get, jews came pretty close to extinction, and arguably not a lot of people actually cared about that. Hence the need for a state of their own. 80 years and a bunch of wars, insurgencies, counter-insurgencies, terror and air campaigns later, interseded with a handful of peace initiatives, the situation is truely FUBAR. I am not convinced so that leveling Gaza actually does a lot to solve that problem.
  - Maken 3y ago
    The origins of Israel go back to the post-WW1 Ottoman partition. WW2 just fed them more colonists.
lolinder 3y ago
From the perspective of Israel's defense forces, Hamas doesn't have that power because Israel responds the way it does. I'd imagine that for many in Israel the lesson of the 60s is that if given an opening all of their neighbors will attack, so Israel cannot ever be seen as responding lukewarmly to an attack, even one by a party that couldn't destroy them singlehandedly. (I'm not arguing that this position is correct, just trying to explain another possible perspective.)
- hef19898 3y ago
  That's the problem, isn't it? If you put yourself in the shoes of either side, you can see how they have very good reason to do what they do (except Israelian settlement policies, those basically amount to borderline ethnic cleansing, and force the IDF to move in after the fact, but that's a different beast). And since both sides are "right", there is no way this can end without outside intervention. An intervention that won't come, becaues nobody who could intervene is neutral enough, nor willing to be drawn into this.
  - falserum 3y ago
    It’s multigenerational vendeta. Both sides have what to avenge for. Three ways how piece can be achieved here: - side a is wiped out - side b is wiped out - both sides turn the other cheek and shake hands. Both sides know that, and neither of them believe in cheeky business.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      I saw an interview a while ago of an Israeli father who lost his kid in one of the previous wars, and who now works a Palestinian father, who also lost his kid, in order to find a peaceful solution. He confirmed your point by saying, I paraphrase, "we are doomed to live share this land together, or the graveyard under it". I really, really hope it will be tze "cheely" solution, the alternatives are, unfortunately, very much imaginable and incredibly painful and ugly.
    - prewett 3y ago
amluto 3y ago
I think that what’s going on in the minds of those calling the shots on Israel’s side (or at least most of them) is: they’re not trying to level Gaza. They’re trying to fight a war against Hamas, and Hamas is fighting from positions in cities that are often literally on the grounds of or inside what ought to be protected civilian sites: hospitals, mosques, etc. And they are surely making what seems a straightforward tactical calculation: they could send infantry in to try to minimize civilian casualties at enormous cost to their infantry, or they could use their massively superior firepower to just destroy the Hamas positions from a distance. And the Israeli command feels the need to fight on the ground in the first place because Hamas is holding obviously innocent hostages and shooting militarily-useless but nonetheless quite dangerous explosive-filled rockets over the border. Hamas is goading them very effectively. If Israel could magically snap its fingers to destroy Hamas, get rid of all of Hamas’ weapons, and leave Gazan civilians, buildings and infrastructure alone, of course they would! One might ask why Hamas is doing any of the above. I don’t think Hamas is at all on the side of the residents of Gaza. Their strategy seems much better explained by some rather different goals: improving their own status in the world, raising money, making a really big show, weakening Israel, seeming and feeling important, and recruiting more militant members. I think that every Gazan civilian injury and death is in Hamas’ favor. Israel making itself look bad is in Hamas’ favor. More Gazans who hate Israel and feel hopeless and marginalized is in Hamas’ favor. So of course Hamas wants to keep holding hostages and randomly blowing stuff up in Israel. To be clear: I do not think Israel is making an ethically or strategically appropriate decision here. But I understand where they’re coming from. And I don’t think Hamas is making the right decisions either, ethically or strategically, at least if the goal is making a good, safe life for residents of Gaza.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Politically, Hamas has something in common with Nethanyahus government: the urge to stay in power. From that perspective, at least for now, both sides, Israels politicak leadership and Hamas leadership, have achieved their goal. Another thing both have in common: they don't give a fuck about the price other people have to pay in order to achieve that goal.

stoorafa 3y ago

That’s an interesting parallel, Gazan’s response is also borne of a history of oppression. Living with food insecurity, being an intergenerational refugee unable to return to home a few miles away, watching family members harmed, etc seems to motivate a lot of Palestinian behavior.

ifdefdebug 3y ago
"being an intergenerational refugee" is one of the most absurd problems that exist in this conflict. Nobody should be a refugee just because their grandparents were. They should be plain citizens of whatever region they were born in. If we extrapolate this stance to other past conflicts, we'd have today tens of millions of German "intergenerational" refugees sitting in Germany and waiting for their return to their home a few miles away, across the Oder river.
- Georgelemental 3y ago
  Yes, that's why the Palestinians need a proper state of their own, so the absurdity can end.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    The idea that every nation needs a state (and every state exists to serve one nation) is part of the absurdity! It's what got us into this mess in the first place—the Jews needed a state of their own because the rest of us couldn't stand to let them make their home near us. The problem of intergenerational refugees will not be solved by carving out a new state and shipping everyone back there.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
natch 3y ago
Their ancestors lost their homes when they needlessly started, and then lost, a war against people who owned land outright and others who moved onto the land only after the UN divided it and gave a vast proportion of it to Jordan, and part to Israel… ancestors who also abandoned their land after the war defeat on the advice of their warlike leaders. The ones who stayed behind became Israeli (Arab muslims, Christians, etc.) and kept their land as long as they held valid documented title to it, and many of those who made that move (or whose parents did) say they would prefer to live under Israeli rule versus PA rule. The Youtuber TravelinIsrael has some good videos on history about this. Obviously there are also modern alleged losses of land and homes but each case has its own details. In some, Israelis (often settlers) are clearly in the wrong, but in others, it is less clear and more disputed than common rhetoric about “oppression” and “occupation” would imply.

noworriesnate 3y ago

[flagged]

Maken 3y ago
If the UN was a properly working organization, it would have intervened long ago to force a ceasefire. But we all know that only applies to very poor countries with no economic or political relevance.
- nielsbot 3y ago
  I am sad and angry that the US was the sole vetoer of the most recent attempt. Also sad that Israel's vengeful assault on the people of Gaza is enabled and funded by the US.
- vladgur 3y ago
  A ceasefire without releasing hostages? There are still more than a 100 of hostages being held in Gaza to this day?