12 ms·

What does it even mean 'to want nothing more than to end the conflict'? As far as I can tell it doesn't mean anything. Everybody wants the conflict to end, in

by lottin 1y ago

What does it even mean 'to want nothing more than to end the conflict'? As far as I can tell it doesn't mean anything. Everybody wants the conflict to end, including the Israelis and the Palestinians. They just want it to end differently, of course.

xg15 1y ago
In theory, we want to end it through the Two-State Solution (though even what this means is vague - certainty not the borders of 1967 that Palestinians and Arabs are demanding) But yeah, in practice, we seem to want it to end with full Israeli dominance, and the Palestinians either emigrating to Egypt and Jordan or vanishing into thin air, I suppose.
- mjevans 1y ago
  I'd like better news coverage of that: What exactly ARE the goals / demands of every side. Both what they say in public, and what's generally accepted as the rational real goals each side requests / demands / etc via peace talks as well as through violence. The breakdown could even focus on factions within the nebulous term of 'sides'. An average citizen is likely to have looser criteria than a government / terrorist.
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    The problem with enunciating real positions to domestic audiences are that the extremists on both sides will literally murder anyone who compromises. Let's not forget Israel's domestic orthodox/right-wing Jewish terrorism and Yitzhak Rabin's assassination. Ergo, there's even more incentive for leaders to continually espouse positions they know will never happen, but which play well at home. As a violence in poli sci professor of mine once quipped, this is a 'the only solution is killing the grandmothers' conflict. Because generational narratives of victimization are so ingrained in large parts of both societies that there is no room for compromise. Silence extremist voices forcefully, wait a generation, and then there might be a path to peace. :(
    - dh2022 1y ago
      Who will provide the force to silence these extremist voices? Maybe there are some parallels in this situation and late 1800’s-mid 1900’s Western Europe. The civil war on the European continent between Germanic states on one hand and French/British ended when two powerful outsiders (US and Soviet Russia) invaded and split the continent. During this occupation west Europeans nations learned how to live with themselves and to atone for their mistakes and to not repeat these mistakes. But they only learned this because they were under military occupation. This scenario will most likely not happen in the Middle East and so I think there will not be peace there for generations.
      - ethbr1 1y ago
        The greatest chance for this was probably the US-Arab world, but the Shia/Sunni sectarian-political feudalism made that a non-starter, especially in the context of the Cold War. As a colleague from Bahrain once quipped, 'the countries of the Arab world love to use Palestinians as propaganda for domestic purposes, but none of them actually give enough of a shit to make hard choices to solve the problem.'
  - jfengel 1y ago
    Hamas' explicit goal is "from the river to the sea". If there is an alternative that they are willing to settle for, nobody knows what it is. The individual Gazans almost certainly have one in mind, likely some variant of the two state solution. But Hamas is in charge, and there is nobody else to talk to about it. Ordinary Gazans don't much like Hamas but they are the only thing standing between them and Israel, who as you know is attacking with impunity. Israel's nominal goal is to remove Hamas and engage such a negotiation, though there is significant doubt that this tactic is going to lead there. And they know that. Israelis are roughly equally divided on what they want. About half want to wipe out Gaza and have control of (but not responsibility for) the West Bank. They are the ones in government. The other half is much more amenable to a two state solution, but they are extremely skeptical of finding it. Long before the October 7 attacks, Israelis routinely have to shelter from rocket attacks. We hear little about them because they are largely ineffective, but it does not give Israelis a lot of confidence in any kind of negotiated settlement. That side is also happy to have Gaza walled off. And all of these sides are backed by powerful outside forces for whom the conflict itself is their goal. That is an extremely high level breakdown, as neutral as I can be.
    - lazyasciiart 1y ago
      Didn't they remove that from their charter, same as Likud?
  - avip 1y ago
    Here's the coverage you've asked (opinions my own, I do not pretend to rep. anyone) Israel stated goals of war: 1. Return the hostages 2. Remove Hamas regime from Gaza 3. (arguably done) bring north-Israel communities safely back home Unstated goals: 1. Open Egypt-Gaza border. This had failed. 2. Create safe zone on the Gaza-Israeli border. This is mostly done in practice. This goal cannot be stated (though it'll save many lives) Hamas goals: Read Hamas chapter, or see interviews with captured Hamas militants post 7/10 attack (if you believe it's not scripted) Gazan who are not part of Hamas regime goals: survive
    - realo 1y ago
      Hum... when I look at pictures of the very thorough destruction in Gaza (hospitals, civilians etc) it would seem that the israelis think "Remove Hamas" actually means kill everyone one in Gaza. If not a genocide, at the very least an ethnocide. Next step: Riviera Gaza!
      - coryrc 1y ago
        [flagged]
        realo 1y ago
        Ah ... I understand your point. All those jew death camps in Gaza must be closed down, for sure. All those Gaza tanks and those Gaza fighter jets must be taken down. And don't forget the Gaza navy patrolling the sea, preventing the israelis from fishing for their subsistence. Totally agree with you. Now... back to reality...
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        It’s absolutely the case that Hamas hasn’t sued for peace with unconditional surrender. (Or recognised that the hostages confer leverage on Israel, not themselves.) Both Hamas and Israel remain belligerents in this conflict until one of them withdraws or surrenders, that’s just how war works. There are a lot of atrocities being committed in this conflict. But bombing a school that was used as a missile launch site really isn’t one of them.
  - rurp 1y ago
    Unfortunately this Israeli government has consisently refused to articulate any sort of positive goal. Netanyahu is only publicly against things. He is adamant about preventing a Palestinian state and crippling Iran, but seems to have no plan for what should happen in Palestine, hence the seemingly endless horrible situation there.
  - birn559 1y ago
    Hamas wants to destroy Israel, they are pretty open about it. They are also not really holding back about their antisemitism. The mass murdering on 7th October pretty much demonstrates what Hamas is about in general. They also murdered the Gazan opposition after they were voted into power and have not really allowed voting since. They are pretty much not interested in increasing the situation for the people in Gaza. That's also why they are a terror organization.
- pydry 1y ago
  In precisely the same way that the Nazis wanted their conflict to end with Jews emigrating to Africa (Madagascar according to their original plan) or vanishing into thin air.
- judahmeek 1y ago
  At this point, I think the Two-State Solution has proven to be incredibly naive. As long as there are outside forces, such as Iran, willing to embed & fund militants among the Gazan population, the -only- practical solution towards peace is assimilation: have Gazans broken up & spread out through Israel until law enforcement can be practically achieved. Now assimilation sucks & will likely result in all sorts of social injustice, but I consider it a better alternative to the current ethnic cleansing. EDIT: @casspipe suggested the option of subsidized resettlement and I agree that is another option that should be explored.
  - cassepipe 1y ago
    Even assimilation seems hard at this point. If I were a gazan I'd ask the international community to have Israel buy me decent housing somewhere safe in an arab speaking country. Like, I get it you are stronger and don't want me here but give me.somewhere decent to go. I often wonder what are the options for Palestinians and especially gazans who do want to get out of there.
    - judahmeek 1y ago
      Assimilation definitely would be a hard option. I agree that subsidized resettlement should be another option explored by middle east nations.
      - samtheDamned 1y ago
        That would still amount to ethnic cleansing by israel though.
    - avip 1y ago
      Why would any Arab-speaking country accept 2M Palestinian refugees?
    - ChadNauseam 1y ago
      There are not necessarily Arab countries that want to take on millions of Palestinian refugees. There is a broader issue that what you suggest is not considered good for the Palestinian cause. I'll give an example. UNRWA uses a specific definition for Palestinian refugees that differs from the general refugee definition used by UNHCR. They define Palestinian refugees as "persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict". This status also extends to their descendants. This means children and grandchildren of the original 1948 refugees maintain refugee status even if born outside Palestine. When you think about it, this is kind of the opposite of what you suggested. It creates a massive class of legal Palestinians who live in and are citizens of other countries (particularly Jordan), but are ostensibly waiting for their opportunity to return (or receive some other "durable solution" such as compensation). In general, Arab states and Palestinian leadership argue that naturalizing refugees would undermine their right to return to their original homes. You can interpret this cynically: because many Arab states are not too friendly with Israel, having a massive class of refugees putting political pressure on them could be advantageous, and is probably one of the only ways to "defeat" Israel as a jewish state (because if all of those refugees had the right to live in Israel, jews might become a minority.) But it is true that removing refugee status without a just solution would erase Palestinian claims and rights under international law.
- edanm 1y ago
  > But yeah, in practice, we seem to want it to end with full Israeli dominance, and the Palestinians either emigrating to Egypt and Jordan or vanishing into thin air, I suppose. No, the majority of the West strongly wants a two-state solution (on the 1967 border, roughly). So did many Israelis, who voted people into office intent on achieving that goal many times. The problem is, Israel and Palestine never managed to sign an agreement leading to a two-state solution. And in parallel to the peace process, some Palestinians launched the second intifada, a terror campaign which killed many hundreds of Israelis. This eventually lead most Israelis to think that a two-state solution is impossible.
  - dizlexic 1y ago
    Not to mention that all the Palestinian borders are made up, and they've actively disagreed with them as defined by intermediaries every time.
    - xg15 1y ago
      What exactly are the borders of Israel then?
      - dizlexic 1y ago
        I'd "assume" they're very similar to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine
  - kubb 1y ago
    The Israeli PM who pushed for a two state solution was assassinated by a right wing Israeli citizen.
    - edanm 1y ago
      No, you're wrong in multiple ways: 1. You call it "The Israeli PM who pushed for a two state solution" (referring to Rabin), but actually there were other PMs who were negotiating a two state solution with the Palestinians and were elected after - Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert (Ehud Olmert was ten years after the assasination of Rabin). 2. The PM the succeeded Rabin, Ariel Sharon, a long-time right-wing hawk, didn't negotiate with the Palestinians, but did shift Israeli policy to simply leaving the territory without a negotiated settlement. He's the one who pulled Israel out of Gaza, and by all counts, he was poised to do the same and leave the West Bank before he had a stroke. Olmert, also a historic right-wing hawk, succeeded Sharon, and campaigned openly on the idea of starting to pull settlements out of the West Bank. And he won, with this campaign. Olmert, btw, to this day is a big peace-advocate, working together with Palestinian partners on trying to bring about a two-state solution. He's also a big critic of the current Israeli government (and famously wrote a piece saying that Israel was committing war crimes in Gaza). 3. Funny enough, another way in which you're technically wrong is that Rabin himself didn't directly advocate for a two-state solution, at least not officially. That was probably his direction, but both Barak and Olmert went much further than him in what they were offering the Palestinian leadership in terms of a deal. Bonus 4th point: Worth mentioning that calling the person who assassinated Rabin a "right wing Israeli" is pretty wrong too. He was a member of a very extremist right-wing group that did not and does not have any broad support in Israel, as opposed to standard "right wing" positions which do have broad support.
johnebgd 1y ago
[flagged]
- xg15 1y ago
  If that were true, the Palestinians in the West Bank should be living in peace and prosperity. Yet they aren't...
  - avip 1y ago
    They are considerably better off than Gazans, though I'd agree "living in piece and prosperity" would not be the first adjective comes to mind.
- cropcirclbureau 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - Filligree 1y ago
    Not to mention, the claim that because you’re a boy in your late teens you’re a valid target… it’s just so incredibly… Do I call it sexist? Stereotyping? What? It entirely denies the existence of males as anything other than enemies, and these are still children we’re talking about.
    - jdkoeck 1y ago
      You just discovered the concept of male expendability. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_expendability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_expendability
      - Filligree 1y ago
        I understand the biological incentives, but we’re supposed to be better than that.
- andrepd 1y ago
LightBug1 1y ago
[flagged]
- avip 1y ago
  Is there a way for IDF to fight Hamas without "inflict war crimes, or terrorism on civilians" though? How would that work in practical terms?
  - brenschluss 1y ago
    If fighting X requires you to inflict war crimes, perhaps you should question the premise of why you are fighting in the first place.
    - avip 1y ago
      And assuming the answer to the questioning is that the war is currently required. Let's say in order to return the hostages (considered popular amongst the Zionists). Now what is the practical way to execute the war without the abovementioned consequences?
    - dlubarov 1y ago
      What's the alternative?
      - bigyabai 1y ago
        Quit meddling in Arab democracies?
      - LightBug1 1y ago
        Move Israel to somewhere in the middle of the USA ... if it weren't for logistics and ancient ghost stories, that would be the solution. However, war crimes are not a solution.
  - mjevans 1y ago
    I'm reminded of an episode of Saga of Tanya the Evil where a 'guerilla military unit' had 'taken over a captured city'. The progag's military unit had to go 'clear the city'. Their military commanders had given clear orders that all hostile forces were enemy soldiers who must be killed. They started by issuing a demand to release the hostages and allow them to exit the war zone. One of the few who didn't want to fight was shot while trying to escape. From that point it predictably went in a very bad direction. As far as I'm aware, the citizens of Israel are free to leave that country* (free to enter another country is another issue, but they're also free to move about). It's terrorism and illegal military action to knowingly fire upon civilians. I agree with that for all sides of a conflict. The issue with the other side(s) in this conflict is that they do not present as a clearly identified military force. IMO the most proper solution is the same as evaporatively purifying water. Issue sufficient (<< heavy lifting here) warnings for civilians to leave an area, with an area for them to move to. Then any who remain in the military action area are combatants. Probably just like in the anime episode that showcases this circumstance. (war is hell, that's one of the hells.)

by lottin 1y ago

xg15 1y ago

In theory, we want to end it through the Two-State Solution (though even what this means is vague - certainty not the borders of 1967 that Palestinians and Arabs are demanding) But yeah, in practice, we seem to want it to end with full Israeli dominance, and the Palestinians either emigrating to Egypt and Jordan or vanishing into thin air, I suppose.

mjevans 1y ago
I'd like better news coverage of that: What exactly ARE the goals / demands of every side. Both what they say in public, and what's generally accepted as the rational real goals each side requests / demands / etc via peace talks as well as through violence. The breakdown could even focus on factions within the nebulous term of 'sides'. An average citizen is likely to have looser criteria than a government / terrorist.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  The problem with enunciating real positions to domestic audiences are that the extremists on both sides will literally murder anyone who compromises. Let's not forget Israel's domestic orthodox/right-wing Jewish terrorism and Yitzhak Rabin's assassination. Ergo, there's even more incentive for leaders to continually espouse positions they know will never happen, but which play well at home. As a violence in poli sci professor of mine once quipped, this is a 'the only solution is killing the grandmothers' conflict. Because generational narratives of victimization are so ingrained in large parts of both societies that there is no room for compromise. Silence extremist voices forcefully, wait a generation, and then there might be a path to peace. :(
  - dh2022 1y ago
    Who will provide the force to silence these extremist voices? Maybe there are some parallels in this situation and late 1800’s-mid 1900’s Western Europe. The civil war on the European continent between Germanic states on one hand and French/British ended when two powerful outsiders (US and Soviet Russia) invaded and split the continent. During this occupation west Europeans nations learned how to live with themselves and to atone for their mistakes and to not repeat these mistakes. But they only learned this because they were under military occupation. This scenario will most likely not happen in the Middle East and so I think there will not be peace there for generations.
    - ethbr1 1y ago
      The greatest chance for this was probably the US-Arab world, but the Shia/Sunni sectarian-political feudalism made that a non-starter, especially in the context of the Cold War. As a colleague from Bahrain once quipped, 'the countries of the Arab world love to use Palestinians as propaganda for domestic purposes, but none of them actually give enough of a shit to make hard choices to solve the problem.'
- jfengel 1y ago
  Hamas' explicit goal is "from the river to the sea". If there is an alternative that they are willing to settle for, nobody knows what it is. The individual Gazans almost certainly have one in mind, likely some variant of the two state solution. But Hamas is in charge, and there is nobody else to talk to about it. Ordinary Gazans don't much like Hamas but they are the only thing standing between them and Israel, who as you know is attacking with impunity. Israel's nominal goal is to remove Hamas and engage such a negotiation, though there is significant doubt that this tactic is going to lead there. And they know that. Israelis are roughly equally divided on what they want. About half want to wipe out Gaza and have control of (but not responsibility for) the West Bank. They are the ones in government. The other half is much more amenable to a two state solution, but they are extremely skeptical of finding it. Long before the October 7 attacks, Israelis routinely have to shelter from rocket attacks. We hear little about them because they are largely ineffective, but it does not give Israelis a lot of confidence in any kind of negotiated settlement. That side is also happy to have Gaza walled off. And all of these sides are backed by powerful outside forces for whom the conflict itself is their goal. That is an extremely high level breakdown, as neutral as I can be.
  - lazyasciiart 1y ago
    Didn't they remove that from their charter, same as Likud?
- avip 1y ago
  Here's the coverage you've asked (opinions my own, I do not pretend to rep. anyone) Israel stated goals of war: 1. Return the hostages 2. Remove Hamas regime from Gaza 3. (arguably done) bring north-Israel communities safely back home Unstated goals: 1. Open Egypt-Gaza border. This had failed. 2. Create safe zone on the Gaza-Israeli border. This is mostly done in practice. This goal cannot be stated (though it'll save many lives) Hamas goals: Read Hamas chapter, or see interviews with captured Hamas militants post 7/10 attack (if you believe it's not scripted) Gazan who are not part of Hamas regime goals: survive
  - realo 1y ago
    Hum... when I look at pictures of the very thorough destruction in Gaza (hospitals, civilians etc) it would seem that the israelis think "Remove Hamas" actually means kill everyone one in Gaza. If not a genocide, at the very least an ethnocide. Next step: Riviera Gaza!
    - coryrc 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - realo 1y ago
        Ah ... I understand your point. All those jew death camps in Gaza must be closed down, for sure. All those Gaza tanks and those Gaza fighter jets must be taken down. And don't forget the Gaza navy patrolling the sea, preventing the israelis from fishing for their subsistence. Totally agree with you. Now... back to reality...
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        It’s absolutely the case that Hamas hasn’t sued for peace with unconditional surrender. (Or recognised that the hostages confer leverage on Israel, not themselves.) Both Hamas and Israel remain belligerents in this conflict until one of them withdraws or surrenders, that’s just how war works. There are a lot of atrocities being committed in this conflict. But bombing a school that was used as a missile launch site really isn’t one of them.
- rurp 1y ago
  Unfortunately this Israeli government has consisently refused to articulate any sort of positive goal. Netanyahu is only publicly against things. He is adamant about preventing a Palestinian state and crippling Iran, but seems to have no plan for what should happen in Palestine, hence the seemingly endless horrible situation there.
- birn559 1y ago
  Hamas wants to destroy Israel, they are pretty open about it. They are also not really holding back about their antisemitism. The mass murdering on 7th October pretty much demonstrates what Hamas is about in general. They also murdered the Gazan opposition after they were voted into power and have not really allowed voting since. They are pretty much not interested in increasing the situation for the people in Gaza. That's also why they are a terror organization.
pydry 1y ago
In precisely the same way that the Nazis wanted their conflict to end with Jews emigrating to Africa (Madagascar according to their original plan) or vanishing into thin air.
judahmeek 1y ago
At this point, I think the Two-State Solution has proven to be incredibly naive. As long as there are outside forces, such as Iran, willing to embed & fund militants among the Gazan population, the -only- practical solution towards peace is assimilation: have Gazans broken up & spread out through Israel until law enforcement can be practically achieved. Now assimilation sucks & will likely result in all sorts of social injustice, but I consider it a better alternative to the current ethnic cleansing. EDIT: @casspipe suggested the option of subsidized resettlement and I agree that is another option that should be explored.
- cassepipe 1y ago
  Even assimilation seems hard at this point. If I were a gazan I'd ask the international community to have Israel buy me decent housing somewhere safe in an arab speaking country. Like, I get it you are stronger and don't want me here but give me.somewhere decent to go. I often wonder what are the options for Palestinians and especially gazans who do want to get out of there.
  - judahmeek 1y ago
    Assimilation definitely would be a hard option. I agree that subsidized resettlement should be another option explored by middle east nations.
    - samtheDamned 1y ago
      That would still amount to ethnic cleansing by israel though.
  - avip 1y ago
    Why would any Arab-speaking country accept 2M Palestinian refugees?
  - ChadNauseam 1y ago
    There are not necessarily Arab countries that want to take on millions of Palestinian refugees. There is a broader issue that what you suggest is not considered good for the Palestinian cause. I'll give an example. UNRWA uses a specific definition for Palestinian refugees that differs from the general refugee definition used by UNHCR. They define Palestinian refugees as "persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict". This status also extends to their descendants. This means children and grandchildren of the original 1948 refugees maintain refugee status even if born outside Palestine. When you think about it, this is kind of the opposite of what you suggested. It creates a massive class of legal Palestinians who live in and are citizens of other countries (particularly Jordan), but are ostensibly waiting for their opportunity to return (or receive some other "durable solution" such as compensation). In general, Arab states and Palestinian leadership argue that naturalizing refugees would undermine their right to return to their original homes. You can interpret this cynically: because many Arab states are not too friendly with Israel, having a massive class of refugees putting political pressure on them could be advantageous, and is probably one of the only ways to "defeat" Israel as a jewish state (because if all of those refugees had the right to live in Israel, jews might become a minority.) But it is true that removing refugee status without a just solution would erase Palestinian claims and rights under international law.
edanm 1y ago
> But yeah, in practice, we seem to want it to end with full Israeli dominance, and the Palestinians either emigrating to Egypt and Jordan or vanishing into thin air, I suppose. No, the majority of the West strongly wants a two-state solution (on the 1967 border, roughly). So did many Israelis, who voted people into office intent on achieving that goal many times. The problem is, Israel and Palestine never managed to sign an agreement leading to a two-state solution. And in parallel to the peace process, some Palestinians launched the second intifada, a terror campaign which killed many hundreds of Israelis. This eventually lead most Israelis to think that a two-state solution is impossible.
- dizlexic 1y ago
  Not to mention that all the Palestinian borders are made up, and they've actively disagreed with them as defined by intermediaries every time.
  - xg15 1y ago
    What exactly are the borders of Israel then?
    - dizlexic 1y ago
      I'd "assume" they're very similar to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine
- kubb 1y ago
  The Israeli PM who pushed for a two state solution was assassinated by a right wing Israeli citizen.
  - edanm 1y ago
    No, you're wrong in multiple ways: 1. You call it "The Israeli PM who pushed for a two state solution" (referring to Rabin), but actually there were other PMs who were negotiating a two state solution with the Palestinians and were elected after - Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert (Ehud Olmert was ten years after the assasination of Rabin). 2. The PM the succeeded Rabin, Ariel Sharon, a long-time right-wing hawk, didn't negotiate with the Palestinians, but did shift Israeli policy to simply leaving the territory without a negotiated settlement. He's the one who pulled Israel out of Gaza, and by all counts, he was poised to do the same and leave the West Bank before he had a stroke. Olmert, also a historic right-wing hawk, succeeded Sharon, and campaigned openly on the idea of starting to pull settlements out of the West Bank. And he won, with this campaign. Olmert, btw, to this day is a big peace-advocate, working together with Palestinian partners on trying to bring about a two-state solution. He's also a big critic of the current Israeli government (and famously wrote a piece saying that Israel was committing war crimes in Gaza). 3. Funny enough, another way in which you're technically wrong is that Rabin himself didn't directly advocate for a two-state solution, at least not officially. That was probably his direction, but both Barak and Olmert went much further than him in what they were offering the Palestinian leadership in terms of a deal. Bonus 4th point: Worth mentioning that calling the person who assassinated Rabin a "right wing Israeli" is pretty wrong too. He was a member of a very extremist right-wing group that did not and does not have any broad support in Israel, as opposed to standard "right wing" positions which do have broad support.

johnebgd 1y ago

[flagged]

xg15 1y ago
If that were true, the Palestinians in the West Bank should be living in peace and prosperity. Yet they aren't...
- avip 1y ago
  They are considerably better off than Gazans, though I'd agree "living in piece and prosperity" would not be the first adjective comes to mind.
cropcirclbureau 1y ago
[flagged]
- Filligree 1y ago
  Not to mention, the claim that because you’re a boy in your late teens you’re a valid target… it’s just so incredibly… Do I call it sexist? Stereotyping? What? It entirely denies the existence of males as anything other than enemies, and these are still children we’re talking about.
  - jdkoeck 1y ago
    You just discovered the concept of male expendability. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_expendability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_expendability
    - Filligree 1y ago
      I understand the biological incentives, but we’re supposed to be better than that.
andrepd 1y ago

LightBug1 1y ago

[flagged]

avip 1y ago
Is there a way for IDF to fight Hamas without "inflict war crimes, or terrorism on civilians" though? How would that work in practical terms?
- brenschluss 1y ago
  If fighting X requires you to inflict war crimes, perhaps you should question the premise of why you are fighting in the first place.
  - avip 1y ago
    And assuming the answer to the questioning is that the war is currently required. Let's say in order to return the hostages (considered popular amongst the Zionists). Now what is the practical way to execute the war without the abovementioned consequences?
  - dlubarov 1y ago
    What's the alternative?
    - bigyabai 1y ago
      Quit meddling in Arab democracies?
    - LightBug1 1y ago
      Move Israel to somewhere in the middle of the USA ... if it weren't for logistics and ancient ghost stories, that would be the solution. However, war crimes are not a solution.
- mjevans 1y ago
  I'm reminded of an episode of Saga of Tanya the Evil where a 'guerilla military unit' had 'taken over a captured city'. The progag's military unit had to go 'clear the city'. Their military commanders had given clear orders that all hostile forces were enemy soldiers who must be killed. They started by issuing a demand to release the hostages and allow them to exit the war zone. One of the few who didn't want to fight was shot while trying to escape. From that point it predictably went in a very bad direction. As far as I'm aware, the citizens of Israel are free to leave that country* (free to enter another country is another issue, but they're also free to move about). It's terrorism and illegal military action to knowingly fire upon civilians. I agree with that for all sides of a conflict. The issue with the other side(s) in this conflict is that they do not present as a clearly identified military force. IMO the most proper solution is the same as evaporatively purifying water. Issue sufficient (<< heavy lifting here) warnings for civilians to leave an area, with an area for them to move to. Then any who remain in the military action area are combatants. Probably just like in the anime episode that showcases this circumstance. (war is hell, that's one of the hells.)