7 ms·

I'm in the same camp tbh. I think Israel should not be putting all of Gaza under siege. It's not moral. This will also not work because the Hamas doesn't care a

by YZF 1y ago

I'm in the same camp tbh. I think Israel should not be putting all of Gaza under siege. It's not moral. This will also not work because the Hamas doesn't care about Gazans. It's also not helping Israel (other than some internal politics between Netanyahu and his right wing extremists). Totally agree on people need to be able to change their minds based on new data and as the situation changes. I'm personally constantly trying to evaluate that. You do need to keep in mind though that data coming out of Gaza is still to a large extent controlled by Hamas. There is definitely a humanitarian crisis but it's amplified by Hamas for obvious reasons (trying to force Israel into stopping the war and allowing it to recover Gaza). Hamas is also benefiting from the crisis and it's actively fueling it. It also needs to have enough food for its fighters to keep going. Technically from an international law perspective a siege is legal as long as civilians have a chance to leave. Israel can legally lay siege to Gaza city and the northern Gaza strip as long as it allows civilians to move south. This isn't working because the civilians don't want to move, or are forced to not move, or can't move, or have no place to really go to, so it's just not a good idea. Another thing you're missing IMO is that some of the people attacking Israel here aren't generally in the camp of supporting Israel's right to defend itself against Hamas or use force to free the hostages. If your starting point is either denying Oct 7th or trying to somehow excuse Hamas or even support Hamas then you are not in the same camp as these politicians and you'll never be. For the people who genuinely care and want to see an end to the war and a path forward, we need to find a way to get Hamas to yield. If there was a path that could get us there from an immediate ceasefire and end to the war I'd get behind it. It's not clear that path exists. In the absence of this path then Israel can and should do better to aid civilians but the war is not going to end.

ivape 1y ago
[flagged]
- jahewson 1y ago
  The problem is not the narrative. The problem is Hamas.
  - kalberg6429 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - YZF 1y ago
      I think us Zionists are pretty consistent and what we are saying agrees with the objective reality. It's the anti-zionists who are cherry-picking and can't form a coherent argument other than "colonialism" or something and are excusing the agency of Hamas and the Gazans. It's true that Netanyahu is and was opposed to a Palestinian state and that dividing the Palestinians between Hamas and the PA was strategic in that regard. However he misjudged Hamas as not having motivation or ability to attack Israel. A by the way is that since 2007 Israel has attacked Hamas in Gaza and Hamas attacked Israel as well so it's not exactly like they were pals. It was more of the devil we (thought we) know kind of situation. But there is a previous there which is the failure of the Oslo accords due to Hamas' suicide bombing campaign on Israel. Hamas bombed the peace process to death (alongside with hundreds of random civilians) and also directly cause the rise of the right in Israel and the change of opinion in the Israeli public from accepting the idea of a two state solution to a belief that Israel can not accept that solution. Dividing the Palestinians as a strategy came after the Palestinians showed Israelis that living side by side is impossible. And if the Israelis needed further proof we got the Oct 7th attack. It's also worth mentioning that short of re-taking Gaza (which we see is not simple) Israel didn't really have a lot of choices once Hamas took and established itself in Gaza. Maybe the right thing to do was to retake Gaza immediately in 2007. I'm sure the world, including you, would scream bloody murder occupation if that happened. Otherwise there's not a lot that could have been done. The civilian aid that made its way into Gaza and Hamas' hands was also a result of international pressure on Israel under the idea that if there was some sort of stability/prosperity in Gaza that would lead to peace. What happened in practice is Hamas channeled all of that into its military efforts and we see where that led us.
      - kalberg6429 1y ago
        [flagged]
- YZF 1y ago
  You're confusing hatred for Palestinians with hatred for Gazans. Most Israelis do not hate Palestinians. There might be some. There's definitely a lot of hate to Gazans after Oct 7th which is understandable. As to the "what are we supposed to do" part- What are they supposed to do? How would you navigate this better after Oct 7th given the setup/hostages etc.? Israel has officially said many times they are not targeting civilians but they are targeting Hamas. Israel is even arming Palestinians that oppose Hamas: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyn2m9yk0vo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyn2m9yk0vo - "Netanyahu confirms Israel arming clans opposed to Hamas in Gaza" So Israel is certainly not universally saying that everyone in Gaza is Hamas and the official Israeli position is one of separating the uninvolved from Hamas. There is a lot of nuance here. Some Israelis, including soldiers, do consider the entire Gaza population to be complicit in Hamas' crimes. A large number of Palestinians support Hamas, support the Oct 7th attack on Israel, and there are even "civilians" who participated in murder and looting on Oct 7th and in abuse of hostages. Some hostages were held by "civilians". Hamas makes it intentionally hard/impossible to distinguish between a civilian and a combatant and they report all their deaths as civilian deaths. The devastation of large swaths of the Gaza strip is real. But not all of Gaza is devastated. There are still some parts of Gaza city that are not. You can't tell and media will show you the parts that are not. You can notice however how the narrative magically switches from "Israel destroyed all the hospitals" to "injured people treated in hospitals from some IDF attack" as is convenient without people for a second questioning how the hospitals are still functioning despite Israel supposedly having bombed them all to the ground. We also had images early on in the war that told us "everything is devastated" but yet the IDF keeps toppling more buildings (that supposedly according to the media were already all bombed a year ago). The various UN groups still have buildings, warehouses, etc. In Gaza. There's little doubt Gazans are suffering a lot in this war. But they're definitely staging a lot of stuff as well. Anything to manipulate public opinions is game. Truth is not a requirement. They've shared images from Yemen and Sudan claiming those to be Palestinians. They misrepresent other medical conditions as starvation. Check out: https://gazawood.com/ https://gazawood.com/ Now I'm not naive, both sides are pushing a narrative, the Palestinians are actually suffering, but it's not as clear cut as you're trying to paint it either. Who benefits and who loses from news of "starvation in Gaza"? Hamas benefits. Israel loses. If you look you'll find images out of Gaza of people trying to make a buck by selling aid packages in the markets. How many times since the war began have we heard about famine and starvation? The truth is likely somewhere in the middle. There are likely poor people or people who can't fight with the others that steal aid who are doing badly. There are people who can afford to or who use violence to procure food for themselves (e.g. Hamas). There is certainly not an abundance of food and certainly whatever is available isn't the most nutritious. Gazans have and do use civilian infrastructure extensively for military purposes. They booby trap houses. They have tunnels running everywhere.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
mjevans 1y ago
These terrorists, yield? Already faulty logic. Their proclaimed goals and historic record show that will never happen and their budget for violence knows no limit. It's as tough as desalinating water, but removing the civilians from the terrorists must happen. Otherwise the result will either be genocide of the 'salt water', or of the 'plants' the salt in that water is bent on destroying. What is an acceptable plan for reaching the result of the civilians on both sides being safe? This is a political question, but it is one all must consider; at least as it informs our own votes where we reside.
- YZF 1y ago
  I'll give you my honest opinion here and a criticism of Israeli government all at once. Israel should have moved the Palestinians civilians into Israel proper, e.g. the Negev. It should have created refugee camps for them there and provided them with all the support/aid while it went after Hamas. They'd be able to filter the people going in, make them surrender their weapons etc. No tunnels, no weapons caches, etc. It's a very tough one to swallow for Israelis. I'm also not positive it would have worked. But I think it would be worth a try. I think in the beginning of the war there was some thought of Egypt playing that role but it was pretty clear that wasn't going to happen. The problem is throughout the war Israel had no appetite/desire to own the problem of Gazan civilians. Israel intentionally left that part to Hamas and the UN and at no time during this conflict has controlled any piece of land with Palestinian civilians.
  - trustinmenowpls 1y ago
    If they had done this they would be accused of ethnic cleansing as well as genocide. the negev isn't an altogether welcoming place, any death natural or otherwise that happened there would be blamed on the jews as proof and it would be an even bigger PR disaster. Egypt and the sinai would have a similar problem. Even Trump's recent suggestion of temporary resettlement to a populated area has been met with calls of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Most of the supposed supporters of the palestinian people don't care so much about their fate so much as they hate Jews and love the easy cudgel they make for attacking jews. Putting that aside, no one, not Hamas, not the Israeli public, not Netanyahu, and certainly not the IDF, not any neighboring countries, not the wider world believed the war would drag on this long. Everyone thought it would be over fairly soon. Hamas probably didn't think there would be a war because israel itself was on the brink of a civil war, the Israeli public with their strong belief in their military might thought the war would be over before the new year and the IDF and politicians (BN included) likely had a similar belief, that A) Hamas didn't have an apatite for a long war, and B) the IDF would be able to quickly return the hostages. Everyone else also believed in the might of a stronger more organized force against a much weaker force that supposedly also had to care for their own people. Instead Hamas showed they had no concern for their own people, and they had significantly deeper fortifications than the israeli security establishment knew about. So here we are almost two years later, and no end in sight.
4gotunameagain 1y ago
You are framing it as if the problem is Hamas and the existence of Hamas. Isn't the existence of Hamas only strengthened by the war, by the actions of Israel ? I would argue that the October 7 attack was highly beneficial for the expansionist plans of Israel. Highly beneficial for Netanyahu, who now can stay in power under martial law instead of fearing prosecution for his previous crimes. Hamas will not magically cease to exist when Palestinians are treated like that. Imagine the amount of hate that is brewed against Israel again right now. Would you ever forget or forgive if as a child you were starved, and witnessed endless horrors ? Your city in shambles, rubble and blood everywhere, death and misery wherever you look at ?
- epolanski 1y ago
  Let's quote Netanyahu himself in 2019, at a party meeting: > Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas. This is part of our strategy — to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."
- sudopluto 1y ago
  The Germans did, because they love their children more than they hate their enemies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944%E2%80%931950) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_German...
  - ashoeafoot 1y ago
    actually they didn't https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkssturm https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkssturm they heil-hitler-hamased to the bitter end. They just had a working state with working institutions that carried on, prussian, protestant bureaucracy carrying on even after the die hard nazis had died out. Islamic culture is unable to produce these institutions .
    - sudopluto 1y ago
      I mean I was trying to show that the Germans don't suicide bomb busses in Kaliningrad even after their own much worse version of the Nakba. In general, most losers of wars, especially of wars of aggression that they themselves started, don't spend then next century suicide bombing and turning down deals that they deem beneath them. They take what they can get and get on with their lives, being productive and improving the future for their children.
xg15 1y ago
> Technically from an international law perspective a siege is legal as long as civilians have a chance to leave. Israel can legally lay siege to Gaza city and the northern Gaza strip as long as it allows civilians to move south. Yeah no, that's wrong on multiple levels. It's not legal if there is no intention to ever let the civilians return - then you have forced displacement and ethnic cleansing. But even just assuming it were - we can agree that "leaving" would mean actually leaving the besieged area and get out of danger, right? The IDF is laying siege to the entire strip, not just Gaza city. No one is leaving when they are being pushed - or "concentrated" as your defense minister lovingly put it - into ever-smaller areas inside the combat zone.
- YZF 1y ago
  Israel has ordered civilians to leave northern gaza: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c299pl8j8w7o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c299pl8j8w7o Most of the combat is happening there as well. Israel is operating three food distribution centers in the southern part of the strip but only one in the north. "The IDF has been directing civilians towards the “expanded humanitarian area” in al-Mawasi, a narrow coastal strip of agricultural land that was first designated as a “humanitarian zone” in October. The expanded zone now measures 60 sq km. The IDF said the area includes “field hospitals, tents and increased amounts of food, water, medication and additional supplies”. A satellite image captured on 8 May shows what appears to be a new field hospital which has been constructed in Deir al-Balah." Clearly life in the "humanitarian zone" sucks. But a lot less than in northern Gaza. Despite the often repeated mantra that "nowhere is safe in Gaza" that designated humanitarian zone is significantly safer (and there's data that shows that). The IDF is not laying siege to the entire strip. It's not even laying siege to Northern Gaza. It's air dropping food in northern Gaza (following pressure - but still). There are three food distribution centers in southern Gaza (and I think they've also seen less violence but I'm not sure). In the south there are armed Palestinian factions that are collaborating with Israel. Anyways, I'm appointing you to the general in charge of the war from the Israeli side. Your goal is to return the hostage and defeat Hamas. I'm interested in what your plan looks like.

by YZF 1y ago

ivape 1y ago

[flagged]

jahewson 1y ago
The problem is not the narrative. The problem is Hamas.
- kalberg6429 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - YZF 1y ago
    I think us Zionists are pretty consistent and what we are saying agrees with the objective reality. It's the anti-zionists who are cherry-picking and can't form a coherent argument other than "colonialism" or something and are excusing the agency of Hamas and the Gazans. It's true that Netanyahu is and was opposed to a Palestinian state and that dividing the Palestinians between Hamas and the PA was strategic in that regard. However he misjudged Hamas as not having motivation or ability to attack Israel. A by the way is that since 2007 Israel has attacked Hamas in Gaza and Hamas attacked Israel as well so it's not exactly like they were pals. It was more of the devil we (thought we) know kind of situation. But there is a previous there which is the failure of the Oslo accords due to Hamas' suicide bombing campaign on Israel. Hamas bombed the peace process to death (alongside with hundreds of random civilians) and also directly cause the rise of the right in Israel and the change of opinion in the Israeli public from accepting the idea of a two state solution to a belief that Israel can not accept that solution. Dividing the Palestinians as a strategy came after the Palestinians showed Israelis that living side by side is impossible. And if the Israelis needed further proof we got the Oct 7th attack. It's also worth mentioning that short of re-taking Gaza (which we see is not simple) Israel didn't really have a lot of choices once Hamas took and established itself in Gaza. Maybe the right thing to do was to retake Gaza immediately in 2007. I'm sure the world, including you, would scream bloody murder occupation if that happened. Otherwise there's not a lot that could have been done. The civilian aid that made its way into Gaza and Hamas' hands was also a result of international pressure on Israel under the idea that if there was some sort of stability/prosperity in Gaza that would lead to peace. What happened in practice is Hamas channeled all of that into its military efforts and we see where that led us.
    - kalberg6429 1y ago
      [flagged]
YZF 1y ago
You're confusing hatred for Palestinians with hatred for Gazans. Most Israelis do not hate Palestinians. There might be some. There's definitely a lot of hate to Gazans after Oct 7th which is understandable. As to the "what are we supposed to do" part- What are they supposed to do? How would you navigate this better after Oct 7th given the setup/hostages etc.? Israel has officially said many times they are not targeting civilians but they are targeting Hamas. Israel is even arming Palestinians that oppose Hamas: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyn2m9yk0vo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyn2m9yk0vo - "Netanyahu confirms Israel arming clans opposed to Hamas in Gaza" So Israel is certainly not universally saying that everyone in Gaza is Hamas and the official Israeli position is one of separating the uninvolved from Hamas. There is a lot of nuance here. Some Israelis, including soldiers, do consider the entire Gaza population to be complicit in Hamas' crimes. A large number of Palestinians support Hamas, support the Oct 7th attack on Israel, and there are even "civilians" who participated in murder and looting on Oct 7th and in abuse of hostages. Some hostages were held by "civilians". Hamas makes it intentionally hard/impossible to distinguish between a civilian and a combatant and they report all their deaths as civilian deaths. The devastation of large swaths of the Gaza strip is real. But not all of Gaza is devastated. There are still some parts of Gaza city that are not. You can't tell and media will show you the parts that are not. You can notice however how the narrative magically switches from "Israel destroyed all the hospitals" to "injured people treated in hospitals from some IDF attack" as is convenient without people for a second questioning how the hospitals are still functioning despite Israel supposedly having bombed them all to the ground. We also had images early on in the war that told us "everything is devastated" but yet the IDF keeps toppling more buildings (that supposedly according to the media were already all bombed a year ago). The various UN groups still have buildings, warehouses, etc. In Gaza. There's little doubt Gazans are suffering a lot in this war. But they're definitely staging a lot of stuff as well. Anything to manipulate public opinions is game. Truth is not a requirement. They've shared images from Yemen and Sudan claiming those to be Palestinians. They misrepresent other medical conditions as starvation. Check out: https://gazawood.com/ https://gazawood.com/ Now I'm not naive, both sides are pushing a narrative, the Palestinians are actually suffering, but it's not as clear cut as you're trying to paint it either. Who benefits and who loses from news of "starvation in Gaza"? Hamas benefits. Israel loses. If you look you'll find images out of Gaza of people trying to make a buck by selling aid packages in the markets. How many times since the war began have we heard about famine and starvation? The truth is likely somewhere in the middle. There are likely poor people or people who can't fight with the others that steal aid who are doing badly. There are people who can afford to or who use violence to procure food for themselves (e.g. Hamas). There is certainly not an abundance of food and certainly whatever is available isn't the most nutritious. Gazans have and do use civilian infrastructure extensively for military purposes. They booby trap houses. They have tunnels running everywhere.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

mjevans 1y ago

These terrorists, yield? Already faulty logic. Their proclaimed goals and historic record show that will never happen and their budget for violence knows no limit. It's as tough as desalinating water, but removing the civilians from the terrorists must happen. Otherwise the result will either be genocide of the 'salt water', or of the 'plants' the salt in that water is bent on destroying. What is an acceptable plan for reaching the result of the civilians on both sides being safe? This is a political question, but it is one all must consider; at least as it informs our own votes where we reside.

YZF 1y ago
I'll give you my honest opinion here and a criticism of Israeli government all at once. Israel should have moved the Palestinians civilians into Israel proper, e.g. the Negev. It should have created refugee camps for them there and provided them with all the support/aid while it went after Hamas. They'd be able to filter the people going in, make them surrender their weapons etc. No tunnels, no weapons caches, etc. It's a very tough one to swallow for Israelis. I'm also not positive it would have worked. But I think it would be worth a try. I think in the beginning of the war there was some thought of Egypt playing that role but it was pretty clear that wasn't going to happen. The problem is throughout the war Israel had no appetite/desire to own the problem of Gazan civilians. Israel intentionally left that part to Hamas and the UN and at no time during this conflict has controlled any piece of land with Palestinian civilians.
- trustinmenowpls 1y ago
  If they had done this they would be accused of ethnic cleansing as well as genocide. the negev isn't an altogether welcoming place, any death natural or otherwise that happened there would be blamed on the jews as proof and it would be an even bigger PR disaster. Egypt and the sinai would have a similar problem. Even Trump's recent suggestion of temporary resettlement to a populated area has been met with calls of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Most of the supposed supporters of the palestinian people don't care so much about their fate so much as they hate Jews and love the easy cudgel they make for attacking jews. Putting that aside, no one, not Hamas, not the Israeli public, not Netanyahu, and certainly not the IDF, not any neighboring countries, not the wider world believed the war would drag on this long. Everyone thought it would be over fairly soon. Hamas probably didn't think there would be a war because israel itself was on the brink of a civil war, the Israeli public with their strong belief in their military might thought the war would be over before the new year and the IDF and politicians (BN included) likely had a similar belief, that A) Hamas didn't have an apatite for a long war, and B) the IDF would be able to quickly return the hostages. Everyone else also believed in the might of a stronger more organized force against a much weaker force that supposedly also had to care for their own people. Instead Hamas showed they had no concern for their own people, and they had significantly deeper fortifications than the israeli security establishment knew about. So here we are almost two years later, and no end in sight.

4gotunameagain 1y ago

You are framing it as if the problem is Hamas and the existence of Hamas. Isn't the existence of Hamas only strengthened by the war, by the actions of Israel ? I would argue that the October 7 attack was highly beneficial for the expansionist plans of Israel. Highly beneficial for Netanyahu, who now can stay in power under martial law instead of fearing prosecution for his previous crimes. Hamas will not magically cease to exist when Palestinians are treated like that. Imagine the amount of hate that is brewed against Israel again right now. Would you ever forget or forgive if as a child you were starved, and witnessed endless horrors ? Your city in shambles, rubble and blood everywhere, death and misery wherever you look at ?

epolanski 1y ago
Let's quote Netanyahu himself in 2019, at a party meeting: > Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas. This is part of our strategy — to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."
sudopluto 1y ago
The Germans did, because they love their children more than they hate their enemies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944%E2%80%931950) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_German...
- ashoeafoot 1y ago
  actually they didn't https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkssturm https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkssturm they heil-hitler-hamased to the bitter end. They just had a working state with working institutions that carried on, prussian, protestant bureaucracy carrying on even after the die hard nazis had died out. Islamic culture is unable to produce these institutions .
  - sudopluto 1y ago
    I mean I was trying to show that the Germans don't suicide bomb busses in Kaliningrad even after their own much worse version of the Nakba. In general, most losers of wars, especially of wars of aggression that they themselves started, don't spend then next century suicide bombing and turning down deals that they deem beneath them. They take what they can get and get on with their lives, being productive and improving the future for their children.

xg15 1y ago

> Technically from an international law perspective a siege is legal as long as civilians have a chance to leave. Israel can legally lay siege to Gaza city and the northern Gaza strip as long as it allows civilians to move south. Yeah no, that's wrong on multiple levels. It's not legal if there is no intention to ever let the civilians return - then you have forced displacement and ethnic cleansing. But even just assuming it were - we can agree that "leaving" would mean actually leaving the besieged area and get out of danger, right? The IDF is laying siege to the entire strip, not just Gaza city. No one is leaving when they are being pushed - or "concentrated" as your defense minister lovingly put it - into ever-smaller areas inside the combat zone.

YZF 1y ago
Israel has ordered civilians to leave northern gaza: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c299pl8j8w7o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c299pl8j8w7o Most of the combat is happening there as well. Israel is operating three food distribution centers in the southern part of the strip but only one in the north. "The IDF has been directing civilians towards the “expanded humanitarian area” in al-Mawasi, a narrow coastal strip of agricultural land that was first designated as a “humanitarian zone” in October. The expanded zone now measures 60 sq km. The IDF said the area includes “field hospitals, tents and increased amounts of food, water, medication and additional supplies”. A satellite image captured on 8 May shows what appears to be a new field hospital which has been constructed in Deir al-Balah." Clearly life in the "humanitarian zone" sucks. But a lot less than in northern Gaza. Despite the often repeated mantra that "nowhere is safe in Gaza" that designated humanitarian zone is significantly safer (and there's data that shows that). The IDF is not laying siege to the entire strip. It's not even laying siege to Northern Gaza. It's air dropping food in northern Gaza (following pressure - but still). There are three food distribution centers in southern Gaza (and I think they've also seen less violence but I'm not sure). In the south there are armed Palestinian factions that are collaborating with Israel. Anyways, I'm appointing you to the general in charge of the war from the Israeli side. Your goal is to return the hostage and defeat Hamas. I'm interested in what your plan looks like.