4 ms·

It's an absurd claim because Israel completely pulled out of Gaza in 2005 but was subsequently forced to take measures to defend itself when Hamas started firin

It's an absurd claim because Israel completely pulled out of Gaza in 2005 but was subsequently forced to take measures to defend itself when Hamas started firing rockets at Israel. Egypt is also blockading Gaza, why do you think that is? Your claim that Hamas should be able to attack Israel with impunity and kill Israelis at will and Israel has no right to self defense is completely absurd. No sovereign state would leave such an attack unanswered and Israel is no different. Regardless of what you think, of course Israel will defend itself. As to whether it was "made abundantly clear" just because this is your interpretation it doesn't follow that it's abundantly clear. In fact the opposite is abundantly clear, that every state has inherent rights to defend its own citizens from being murdered by hostile armed groups.

runarberg 3y ago
There was a debate on another thread whether Gaza can correctly be categorized as occupied territory, and I’ve seen multiple denials of that fact elsewhere (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38985147 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38985147). > Your claim that Hamas should be able to attack Israel with impunity and kill Israelis at will and Israel has no right to self defense I never claimed that. It is just that any action Israel takes as a result is not war, but rather counter terrorism or counter insurgency. The British army also had to deal with terrorist groups from their occupied territory during the troubles, when they responded by firing live ammo into unarmed demonstrator, there were consequences. Ultimately the British failed to land a military victory over the terrorists, and finally ended their occupation over Northern Ireland with an agreement. Israel’s conduct here is as if the British army would have doubled down after Bloody Sunday, say by imposing a blockade, conducting bombing campaigns, and as the IRA’s terror would respond in kind, invade the territory with mass civilian casualties. What I’m saying is that Israel cannot act as if it has no control over what goes on in Gaza. Their conduct has to match their possibilities. And ending the occupation is one option which they have, but aren’t exploring.
- vasilipupkin 3y ago
  British Army and the IRA is not a relevant example. At no point did IRA want to destroy all of Britain and kill all British people. IRA phoned in bomb threats. It's a totally different situation. Hamas has 30 thousand fighters and its goal is actual destruction of Israel. Again, Israel ended the occupation of Gaza in 2005, it withdrew from Gaza and removed all settlements. The only thing that accomplished is worsen Israeli security, provided Hamas with a base to fire thousands of rockets from and ultimately culminated in October 7th. So, Israel is left with no options other than a full war against Hamas and yes, it is a war. Since Hamas is the official government in control of Gaza it is most definitely a war. If you prefer to call it armed conflict instead of war, that's fine, it doesn't change the reality of what's happening.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    My comparison between the IRA and Hamas was never anything more than that they both operated from occupied territory. I could have used the ANC, FLN, the French Resistance, etc. Hamas may be the government of Gaza, but they are still operating from a territory occupied by Israel. Hamas does control some things in Gaza, including the legislator, but the Israel army has the ultimate control. Look this has been debated before. If you choose to deny the occupation of Gaza, that is up to you. You are just wrong about it.
    - vasilipupkin 3y ago
      ANC, FLN, French resistance are all irrelevant examples because once again, as I explained, Hamas is an organization dedicated to destruction of Israel Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005. That is an undeniable fact. Subsequently, Hamas took over and started firing rockets at Israel, which caused Israel to impose a blockade on Gaza. Egypt also blockades Gaza, btw. Saying that Israel occupies Gaza without acknowledging that Israel actually pulled out of Gaza in 2005 is just silly. Israel did not control what happens inside Gaza strip for the simple reason that it did not have a presence inside Gaza strip, which is why Hamas was able to build all those tunnels. Why deny the facts? What's the point?
      - 3y ago

runarberg 3y ago

There was a debate on another thread whether Gaza can correctly be categorized as occupied territory, and I’ve seen multiple denials of that fact elsewhere (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38985147 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38985147). > Your claim that Hamas should be able to attack Israel with impunity and kill Israelis at will and Israel has no right to self defense I never claimed that. It is just that any action Israel takes as a result is not war, but rather counter terrorism or counter insurgency. The British army also had to deal with terrorist groups from their occupied territory during the troubles, when they responded by firing live ammo into unarmed demonstrator, there were consequences. Ultimately the British failed to land a military victory over the terrorists, and finally ended their occupation over Northern Ireland with an agreement. Israel’s conduct here is as if the British army would have doubled down after Bloody Sunday, say by imposing a blockade, conducting bombing campaigns, and as the IRA’s terror would respond in kind, invade the territory with mass civilian casualties. What I’m saying is that Israel cannot act as if it has no control over what goes on in Gaza. Their conduct has to match their possibilities. And ending the occupation is one option which they have, but aren’t exploring.

vasilipupkin 3y ago
British Army and the IRA is not a relevant example. At no point did IRA want to destroy all of Britain and kill all British people. IRA phoned in bomb threats. It's a totally different situation. Hamas has 30 thousand fighters and its goal is actual destruction of Israel. Again, Israel ended the occupation of Gaza in 2005, it withdrew from Gaza and removed all settlements. The only thing that accomplished is worsen Israeli security, provided Hamas with a base to fire thousands of rockets from and ultimately culminated in October 7th. So, Israel is left with no options other than a full war against Hamas and yes, it is a war. Since Hamas is the official government in control of Gaza it is most definitely a war. If you prefer to call it armed conflict instead of war, that's fine, it doesn't change the reality of what's happening.
- runarberg 3y ago
  My comparison between the IRA and Hamas was never anything more than that they both operated from occupied territory. I could have used the ANC, FLN, the French Resistance, etc. Hamas may be the government of Gaza, but they are still operating from a territory occupied by Israel. Hamas does control some things in Gaza, including the legislator, but the Israel army has the ultimate control. Look this has been debated before. If you choose to deny the occupation of Gaza, that is up to you. You are just wrong about it.
  - vasilipupkin 3y ago
    ANC, FLN, French resistance are all irrelevant examples because once again, as I explained, Hamas is an organization dedicated to destruction of Israel Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005. That is an undeniable fact. Subsequently, Hamas took over and started firing rockets at Israel, which caused Israel to impose a blockade on Gaza. Egypt also blockades Gaza, btw. Saying that Israel occupies Gaza without acknowledging that Israel actually pulled out of Gaza in 2005 is just silly. Israel did not control what happens inside Gaza strip for the simple reason that it did not have a presence inside Gaza strip, which is why Hamas was able to build all those tunnels. Why deny the facts? What's the point?
    - 3y ago