That is basically asking how moderate pals plan to control violent deranged elements like Hamas antagonizing Israel rather than living peacefully? — schopenhauer1

The first thing that needs happen is for Israel to stop its belligerent occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. Until that happens, Hamas is simply a resistance movement that is reacting to being occupied by Israel.

Armed resistance isn't even forbidden under such conditions according to international law, and Israel, being the occupier, cannot legally claim self-defense.

That is basically asking how moderate pals plan to control violent deranged elements like Hamas antagonizing Israel rather than living peacefully? Is there enough will on the Pals side to do this? — schopenhauer1

You do understand that there's a conflict between the Palestinians and Israel?

There's just the Palestinian Authority. But basically it's quite sidelined. As new settlements are still rising and Palestinians are forced out of their homes, what is the reason why the PA would start fighting other Palestinians? Hence the PA is not even in the position of Vichy France when it fought the resistance movement and 'Free French'..

Hamas is simply a resistance movement that is reacting to being occupied by Israel. — Tzeentch

Nah, I don't think that characterization is even true. It's stated ends and its means say otherwise. Jihadist and extremist characterize it more. Or, at least you are severely playing down that aspect as some kind of legitimate form of resistance. Just lambs resisting evil Israel rather than antagonizing them. Antagonizing here meaning being a deadly attacker that rapes, kills, mutilates burns and kidnaps people, and then uses their own people as human shields not giving one shit about their lives and put all their money into building tunnels and firing rockets and weapons and making themselves rich.

At the end of the day, does the "governing" Hamas (or past tense now perhaps), did they give a shit about the lives of their people? If Israel didn't, did they?

You do understand that there's a conflict between the Palestinians and Israel?

There's just the Palestinian Authority. But basically it's quite sidelined. As new settlements are still rising and Palestinians are forced out of their homes, what is the reason why the PA would start fighting other Palestinians? Hence the PA is not even in the position of Vichy France when it fought the resistance movement and 'Free French'.. — ssu

Ah you are STILL gaslighting and not answering the question. I will repeat:

So how does one counteract that kind of deranged barbarism?
How do the moderate Pals form a state with these kind of players to control? — schopenhauer1

Until that happens, Hamas is simply a resistance movement that is reacting to being occupied by Israel. — Tzeentch

If mass rape and beheading of babies is Hamas's idea of "resistance" then Israel will beat the shit out of them and any peoples that choose to be governed by them. And deservedly so.

Antagonizing here meaning being a deadly attacker that rapes, kills, mutilates burns and kidnaps people, ... — schopenhauer1

Resistance movements are often very unpleasant in their methods, simply because they cannot resist the oppressor through conventional means. The Vietcong were no different, nor were the Taliban, or the IRA.

If Israel wants it to stop, they should stop the occupation.

At the end of the day, does the "governing" Hamas (or past tense now perhaps), did they give a shit about the lives of their people? If Israel didn't, did they? — schopenhauer1

Again, Hamas is a resistance movement. Its purpose is to resist the occupier.

It's not a political movement.

Israel actually supported Hamas in order to disenfranchise the Palestinian political movements, so go figure.


The problem is that Israel wants to continue its illegal occupation no matter what, so Israel is at the center of this problem.

Hamas is a resistance movement. — Tzeentch

Resistance fighters don't behead babies in their cribs. They don't throw babies into ovens. They don't murder a child's parents and then play with the children afterwards while filming it. 80% of the victims showed signs of torture. Then there's the rapes. And Hamas has clarified that they wish to do this again and again.

If Israel wants it to stop, they should stop existing. — Tzeentch

FTFY. The state of Israel per se IS the occupation per Hamas. Hamas is committed to the annihilation of any independent Jewish state on that land. This is not about a few miles of Gaza or the WB.

:up:

Resistance fighters don't behead babies in their cribs. They don't throw babies into ovens. They don't murder a child's parents and then play with the children afterwards while filming it. 80% of the victims showed signs of torture. Then there's the rapes. And Hamas has clarified that they wish to do this again and again. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not sensitive to this type of moral framing. Israel spent the last month indiscriminately murdering civilians in Gaza, a large portion of which were children. They were burned, maimed, cut to pieces also.

Even in the limited context of present events there's no moral high ground for them to claim, I'm afraid.

But you're right in the fact that resistance movements have a tendency to commit acts of extreme violence. That's nothing new.

The state of Israel per se IS the occupation per Hamas. Hamas is committed to the annihilation of any independent Jewish state on that land. — BitconnectCarlos

Regardless of whether that's true or not, Israel should stop illegally occupying Gaza and the West Bank.

I'm not sensitive to this type of moral framing. Israel spent the last month indiscriminately murdering civilians in Gaza, a large portion of which were children. — Tzeentch

"Indiscriminately"? And what exactly would you have them do? Send engraved invitations to Hamas to please present themselves to the nearest Israeli authority for prosecution for crimes? I consider the Israeli actions since 7 Oct. to be a police action and as such not subject to any need for justification or any consideration of any history at all. Hamas is responsible for all of it and they can stop it any time they want. They simply do not want it to stop, and I suspect all of them are past ideologies by now, but instead are in it for money. Further, under the laws of most countries, conspiracy makes all participants equally liable. Thus every member of Hamas is - should be - subject to arrest. Can you say, "Hostages"? Where are they?

Regardless of whether that's true or not, Israel should stop illegally occupying Gaza and the West Bank. — Tzeentch

Don't rely on my word. Hamas leaders openly state it as it has been their position from the very beginning. This is not about Gaza. Gaza has been rid of Jews since '05.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBwzNAV4sWs&t=197s

At 2:15 the question is asked directly.

Even in the limited context of present events there's no moral high ground for them to claim — Tzeentch

I disagree. Hamas intentionally murders the innocent, Israel kills the innocent as a byproduct of striking legitimate military targets. The IDF does not indiscriminately murder. There is a difference between the indiscriminate, deliberate murder of civilians as Hamas does and targeting, e.g. the Hamas headquarters - a legitimate military target which unfortunately Hamas choose to have at al-Shifa hospital.

Israel should stop illegally occupying Gaza and the West Bank — Tzeentch

Legal schmegal.

Law is a good thing within a civil society. "States" are not citizens themselves. States have interests which they pursue. The business end of "states' interests" may be very unpleasant for those who experience it. Israel is pursuing its interests in the same way that China, UK, US, Russia, Nigeria, Iran, and every other state pursues its interests. There are agreements among sovereign states to do or not do X, Y, or Z, but enforcement depends on whose ox is getting gored at the time. .

Look, I don't like what's going on in various places around the planet, but "legality" is honored in the breach whenever it is expedient or convenient.

The relationship between Jews and Palestinians has been heavily freighted since before the beginning of the Israeli state. The whole Middle East has been heavily freighted by the activities of the Ottoman Empire, Arabs, Britain, France, Iran, et al. Just ask the Kurds and Yazidis. All sorts of dissatisfactions all round.

What states can try to achieve is reduced conflict over the long run. We can't eliminate conflict, but we can perhaps (maybe, possibly) manage it. What Israel is doing is eliminating a group that has fomented conflict within Israel. Hamas isn't a little cell of committed radicals--it's a military / terrorist element that the State of Israel can not tolerate.

Could more humane management be practiced for the Palestinians who are not part of Hamas? Maybe. Maybe not. There is only so many humanitarian solutions possible in a war.

The fact is that bad things happen to people who get in the way of a state's interests, and generally other states are willing to live with it. Up to an uncertain point. How will the present situation resolve itself? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure "law" isn't going to figure large in the conclusion.

Nah, I don't think that characterization is even true. — schopenhauer1

I think that is quite true. Hamas isn't ISIS or just a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood in general: their objectives are to fight the Israeli occupation. A bit of gaslighting from yourself there.

How do the moderate Pals form a state with these kind of players to control? — schopenhauer1

Have you not noticed that I've said that again and again the extremists have taken over?

Or do you assume that Palestinians are somehow uncapable or perhaps so inferior they cannot form a functioning state? Is that your idea?

I don't see 'moderates' in charge anywhere. What is there for 'moderate Pals' to do in Gaza or the West Bank, actually? You obviously didn't find 'moderate Germans' during WW2, but afterwards in peacetime you did find them.

First and foremost: Beyond their fierce rhetoric, actors in the Middle East are capable of being reasonable. But if you want to go with a line deranged babykillers cannot be tolerated and that Palestinians are them, I have to remind you that the PA did hideous terrorist attacks too and vowed to destroy Israel... until they did sit down and tried to make peace.

Hamas is only one actor that is basically now being destroyed. How the conflict continues from here on depends on many issues.

(Another good documentary, which especially tells well the Trump peace process why Arab states did normalize their relations with Israel and why the Saudi's were on the cusp of doing it, but then this war happened... )

I consider the Israeli actions since 7 Oct. to be a police action and as such not subject to any need for justification or any consideration of any history at all. — tim wood

Rather strange view on police actions. At least the Israelis themselves are far more honest than you and call it a war.

So how to fight?

I would say that they ought to fight as United States armed forces did in Iraq like in Fallujah. There in Iraq when they were fighting the terrorists, they (the US) were at the same time bringing assistance to the few civilians still there. The US Army understood that you simply cannot first fight the long urban fight and only after destroying the last terrorist stronghold start humanitarian assistance to the civilians. There wasn't a massive casualties. Even in Afghanistan the death toll of civilians compared to the Russian invasion is totally on a different, smaller scale.

So why, from the start, stop water for 2,2 million people? Would it be so disadvantage to still provide water for the people with so many children? It's really quite clearly simply about revenge and fulfilling the desire for revenge after the horrible massacres. And you can clearly see from the statements of the politicians of Gaza being the 'evil city' with 'human animals' that something like cool, calculated moves may not in the end prevail.

The whole idea that laws of war would prevent from a military from achieving victory is nonsense. Abiding to the laws of war is on the long run important especially if you consider the country to abide by international law in the first place. Not abiding those rules just tarnishes the cause however just it would be.

Of course from ancient history onwards sieges have been about starving those behind the walls, but I think similar actions today can be very counterproductive. At least for Israel at the present.

:100:

Thank you for having the patience to deal with the apologists on here with some basic facts, common sense, and humanity. As has been pointed out, if Israel's war crimes against the civilian population in Gaza, and the slaughter of thousands of civilians, including children, are justified by the excuse that Israel is "defending themselves" then the far more vulnerable Gazans are justified in "defending themselves" by also slaughtering as many Israeli civilians as they can.

Those of us who are against killing civilians out of the type of bloodlust and revenge that dominates on both sides in this conflict reject that logic but the apologists can't escape it. Every excuse they make for the mass murder and ill-treatment of Gazan civilians is also an excuse for Hamas's butchery. The most marked difference between the two is only of scale--the IDF is a far more efficient and dangerous killing machine than Hamas and has the actual potential to be an existential threat to Gazans compared to the imaginary existential threat the relatively tiny force of Hamas extremists pose to Israel.

But the way it's proceeding here is that the apologists will claim an existential threat against Israel to excuse Israel's existential threat against Gaza. They will point to Hamas's butchery of civilians to excuse Israel's butchery of civilians. They will claim Israel must stop Hamas's war against it to excuse Israel's extending the war indefinitely. They will claim Hamas must be eliminated to excuse the elimination of Palestinian children while more Hamas militants are created from their grieving families and the cycle of violence intensifies. Any they will always claim "Hamas started it" by ignoring Israeli provocations, including the ongoing occupation.

So, if your reaction to Palestinian civilians being starved, denied medical treatment, made homeless and generally being slaughtered by a far superior force is "Oh well, it's a war" (in other words you simply don't care) but your reaction to Israeli civilians being killed is one of shock and horror then you must be suspected of moral ineptitude or bias or both.

I've made this point before, but as an (imperfect but sufficiently apt) analogy, the IRA engaged in a long guerilla war with the British army in which it committed atrocities against British civilians. It had widespread support among the Catholic population in Northern Ireland and in certain cities, such as Derry, it dominated politically as does Hamas in Gaza. The British government wanted to eliminate and defeat the IRA but no one in their right mind ever suggested bombing Derry and slaughtering masses of Irish civilians as a means to kill IRA operatives because you cannot "eliminate" an embedded guerilla force without committing war crimes against the civilian population in which they are embedded. And trying to do so simply creates more extremism among the remaining population. The British and anyone with any common sense knows this and they remained within international law in dealing with the conflict. But by the logic of the apologists on here, their reaction could excusably have been "Oh well, it's a war" and they could have sent the bombers over Derry.

Why should the lives of Palestinian civilians be so worthless that they are not given similar consideration? Why should their antagonists not be bound by basic moral constraints? For the apologists, it seems to be that they are the wrong race, the wrong religion, too poor, and too far away. There can be no other reason, because the reason "because Hamas are bad" no more excuses the ill-treatment of the innocents of Gaza than Israel's current crimes excuse more Hamas slaughter of Israeli civilians, The cycle has to end somewhere, but it won't as long as selective empathy dominates.

But it's really not hard, if you can't manage empathy for Palestinian children being bombed, burned or buried alive at least apply some simple moral rules such as: War crimes are wrong, bombing refugee routes, hospitals, and schools is wrong, slaughtering people at concerts and in their homes is wrong, firing rockets at or bombing residential areas is wrong, killing large numbers of children to get at a far fewer number of military personnel is wrong. Very, very wrong. Then apply these rules unbiasedly. Don't be a supporter and apologist for the killing of innocents on either side or you are part of the problem. Step back and think about what you are really saying and the real consequences for real people. What way forward would or could lead to the least number of innocents (on either side) being killed? The least amount of violence now and in the future? Is this it? Surely no one in their right mind can claim it is.

— Baden

hospitals, and schools is wrong

these are normally off limits but since hamas launches operations from these buildings they become legitimate targets. using a hospital or school as an operations center/militarizing it is a war crime. striking a hospital or school that is being used as a military base is not a war crime.

Here's another thing, if you come at this from the point of view that Israeli lives are more important than Palestinian lives. If you would not make excuses for Hamas killing schoolchildren or doctors, nurses and patients, do not even bother replying because you have zero moral standing. Make it clear in your reply that you would apply exactly the same lack of moral standards to Hamas as you do the IDF or you do not have any ethical business here and can be simply dismissed as a partisan.

If you think bombing a school full of children and e.g. killing them all is justified because there also happen to be some militants in that school using it as a base then you are a very morally sick individual imo. I wish you the best.

If you want to qualify your statement and agree it would apply to the slaughter of Israeli children also, please do.

There can be no other reason, because the reason "because Hamas are bad" — Baden

As I have often pointed out here, if both sides are killing civilians, as happened in WW2, it is important to look at what both sides stand for. That is to say, what kind of world would we live in should each side come to power? Israel has shown that it would create a democratic world that respects women and minorities, particularly LGBTQ peopole. Hamas would create an Islamic shithole where Muslim men are on top and everyone else is treated like crap.

Which world would you prefer to live in, Baden? It's not really a hard choice is it?

Here's another thing, if you come at this from the point of view that Israeli lives are more important than Palestinian lives. — Baden

Israeli lives are more important than Palestinian lives. British lives were more important than Nazi lives, and American lives were more important than Japanese lives. War sucks. Hamas and Palestine brought it on themselves when they got in bed together. The South needed to be taught a lesson by Sherman in the Civil War and Palestinians need to be taught a lesson in this war.

I feel sorry for you.

To others who are less homicidal, Palestinian civilians are not Nazis, they are poor, dispossessed and a plurality are more likely to be critical of Hamas than support them. Certainly children, who represent a majority of Gaza's citizens, are not responsible for the extremist nutters who hold sway there. Wanting them dead to "teach them a lesson" is beyond reprehensible.

Finally, it's also counterproductive. The lesson you are teaching them is to be as murderous as their extremist overlords, as the IDF and as you are should you support such violence. The way out of this is not more bloodshed unless you are intent on killing every single Palestinian and even then you won't kill the idea that Israel deserves to be wiped out, but further foment it.

As for bombing schools, hospitals and residential areas, no you don't get ethical carte blanche to do that, the issue of proportionality must come into play. The idea you can kill as many civilians as you want per militant killed and irregardless of actual threat from a militant "base" (whatever that is defined as) has never been and will never be ethically justifiable. Which is why e.g. the British never even considered such military tactics in N. Ireland. And yes you could have just as easily called the Catholic population there Nazis and said they deserved it. But they weren't either and they didn't. More pertinently probably, they happen to be white, and Irish Americans have a political voice in the U.S. unlike Palestinians who are on the wrong side of power.

Finally, anyone who wants to argue Israel has not committed war crimes in Gaza, try it and you will lose that argument. Start with Wikipedia.

Which world would you prefer to live in, Baden? It's not really a hard choice is it? — RogueAI

I would prefer to live as far away as possible from people like you. I have met Palestinians. They're human. And I have no sympathy for Hamas who are homicidal extremists who don't give a damn about the lives of anyone, including their own population.

A child killed by an IDF airstrike on a hospital. If you're happy she was "taught a lesson", I again feel sorry for you. This does not have to keep on happening and neither is it necessary because it achieves nothing except to foment a store of more violence for the future. It's a conscious choice to take this path not some inevitability of war and if your main thought is not "how do we stop this", you're missing something.

To others who are less homicidal, Palestinian civilians are not Nazis, they are poor, dispossessed and a plurality are more likely to be critical of Hamas than support them. Certainly children, who represent a majority of Gaza's citizens, are not responsible for the extremist nutters who hold sway there. Wanting them dead to "teach them a lesson" is beyond reprehensible. — Baden

"Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip show a little less consensus but the overall majority supported the attack. A mass of 63.6% said that they supported the attack “extremely” or to a “somewhat” extent. A further 14.4% answered that they did not oppose or support the attack."
https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-773791


"As for bombing schools, hospitals and residential areas, no you don't get ethical carte blanche to do that, the issue of proportionality must come into play."

Sure you do. Countries don't fight wars proportionately, they fight them to win in the most efficient way possible. The Allies didn't scale their attacks down to match the Axis's dwindling militaries, nor should they have. Israel is not going to bring a knife to a gun fight. Good for them.

"The way out of this is not more bloodshed unless you are intent on killing every single Palestinian and even then you won't kill the idea that Israel deserves to be wiped out, but further foment it."

If Israel's neighbors continue to believe Israel should be wiped out, Israel should create an occupied buffer around itself so Oct. 7th can never happen again.

"Finally, anyone who wants to argue Israel has not committed war crimes in Gaza, try it and you will lose that argument."

The Allies committed war crimes bombing German and Japanese cities. The Allied commanders would have been hanged had they lost the war. So what? The Axis brought it on themselves. What did Hamas think would happen when they decided to behead babies and rape Jewish women to death? If you rape women to death and behead babies, you get what's coming to you.

War crimes are just fine? Ok, thanks for that. Anyhow, most of the casualties are not Hamas. I don't care what happens to Hamas militants. Put them in a pit with Likud and let them all kill each other. At this point though, you honestly do not appear to be capable of making an ethical argument, so let's just part verbal company as the ethics of the situation are what I'm interested in.

Which world would you prefer to live in, Baden? It's not really a hard choice is it?
— RogueAI

I would prefer to live as far away as possible from people like you. I have met Palestinians, they're human. And I have no sympathy for Hamas who are homicidal extremists who don't give a damn about the lives of anyone including their own population. — Baden

So this is not a hard question to answer. Yes, you would prefer to live in a world where Israel is in charge. The world is a better place without Hamas in it, and if Palestinians support the Hamas attacks, the world is a better place with fewer of them too. Peoples sometimes have to be dragged into the civilized world kicking and screaming. It happened with Germany and Japan. It will happen with Palestine too. They'll eventually get tired of voting for terrorists to rule them.

War crimes are just fine. Ok, thanks for that. Anyhow, most of the casualties are not Hamas. I don't care what happens to Hamas militants. Put them in a pit with Likud and let them all kill each other. At this point though, you honestly do not appear to be capable of making an ethical argument, so let's just part verbal company as the ethics of the situation is what I'm interested in. — Baden

I've made an ethical argument: both Israel and Hamas kill innocent people. Israel stands for democratic rule and protection of women and minorities. Hamas stands for Islamic rule and degradation of women and minorities. Therefore, we should prefer Israel wins.

The world is a better place without Hamas in it, — RogueAI

Yes

if Palestinians support the Hamas attacks, the world is a better place with fewer of them too. — RogueAI

No, no more than it would be a better place should we kill more Israeli civilians because they support Israel's war crimes. Honestly, you are extremely confused; you think Hamas's war crimes should be punished by Israeli war crimes and the killing of civilians seems to be not just a matter of a side effect but an actual goal of the war for you. You and the Hamas militants have very similar moral standards but somehow you can't see the irrational mess you've put yourself in with your outbursts.

I've made an ethical argument: both Israel and Hamas kill innocent people. Israel stands for democratic rule and protection of women and minorities — RogueAI

Maybe democracies and those who are in favor of minority rights should also be against war crimes? Anyway, honestly, that's it. You are writing nonsense. I'm moving on.