[flagged]
So, no, it's not restrain that is rewarded by these savage attacks.
And while I condemn the terrorist attacks on innocent civilians by Hamas, we should not pretend they came out of a vacuum, or that the state of Israel is a pure peace loving innocent victim in all this.
And we shouldn't pretend that organized terrorism is justified by the things you've mentioned.
And the following two paragraphs seems to be incomprehensible to many:
Israel is an apartheid state. Palestines have the right to resist that oppression. Hamas (or any Palestine organisation) has no right to attack innocent civilians.
Hamas is a terror organisation. Israel has the right to defend itself. Israel has no right to attack innocent civilians.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel
I agree that death of any innocent civilian is regrettable but I question that all Palestinian citizens are innocent. Some of them fully support Hamas and worked with Hamas and for Hamas and would like to see all Jews dead just as much as Hamas and do everything in their power so that nobody can tell apart innocent civilian from a guilty one or from Hamas. I also question who's fault is it that these innocent civilians die. If a murderer is hiding between regular people shooting at cops who hunt him and at the people as well and cops try to stop him and accidentally shoot some of other people as well in the messy situation the blame is heavily on the murderer himself and very slightly on the police who undoubtedly did the right thing, were just a bit bad on technical implementation, though as good as they could be, given the circumstances.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid
I don't think all Palestinians are innocent. I know there are Israelis that are war criminals. None of those facts are excuses to kill Palestinians or Israeli indiscriminately. Letting people die just because they happen to belong to a certain ethnical group is plain racism.
Israel has long passed a scale of the killing that could be explained as "collateral damage".
"the civilian death toll as of 20 November is 16,413, with nearly 34,000 injured. This would mean one in every 142 Palestinian civilians killed in a month and a half."
"With an estimated 70% of the dead being women and children – and many of the slain men unlikely to have been combatants "
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/22/gaza-c...
If those atypical numbers are true it shows that defenders are not protecting their children like any sane population would but rather place them in obvious military targets to turn them into martyrs.
Personally I believe that those numbers should be treated as indication that they are not accurate. Author of the article prefers to take them as a proof of unique evilness of Israel.
But of course, we don’t know what and who to trust. Maybe we should ask why Israel is suppressing any reporting from the strip if they are interested in that the world gets to know the truth about what is happening there.
I think reporters are there, after all they are getting killed too. Again I can't blame Israel for trying to keep repoters away since their deaths are very impactful and also since Palestinians have a huge history of faking deaths and injuries for reporting purposes. Maybe history is the wrong word because there are cases of this even as recent as last hostage-prisoner exchange.
It’s a well known fact that Israel is limiting information coming out from Gaza. If all the reports about their indiscriminate killings were false, wouldn’t it be in their interest if more independent reporters were there, not fewer?
You have already made up your mind, and no evidence will ever make you change your mind. You are trying to explain away all the evidence, and when you can’t, you’ll just say it is lies created by Hamas.
Putin could do the same to half of Europe, eh. The fact that he doesn't, doesn't mean his actions are justified. Not applying overwhelming force doesn't mean that applying any other type of force is justified.
> Isreal has been trying to keep their morals for decades
There are no morals left, in that conflict, since the 1982 mass murder of thousands of Lebanese civilians in Beirut at the very least - if not earlier. Both sides have happily displayed the worst in human nature, multiple times, over the last 70 years.
> what Putin did to Ukrainie softened the morals of people to "it's ok if it's for the right reasons".
Again, that's hardly new. From Vietnam to Desert Storm to Afghanistan, significant chunks of any public opinion will determine it's ok to apply violence. That doesn't mean it's morally justified - morals are determined in ways that go beyond counting how many individuals are pro or against something.
Q: What would happen today if Hamas and supporters permanently gave up all their weapons and surrendered? A: Israel would immediately stop any wartime action.
Q: What would happen today if Israel gave up it's defenses and military, took down the borders? A: Iran and Hamas would kill every last Jew in Israel. They have to, it is their charter.
Also, how many Jews and Christians are living in Gaza openly vs Israel? What would happen to them in the above?
For some people, living comfortably isn't the most important thing they can have. Not getting conquered, invaded, or literally colonized is a good thing. Don't you agree?
If Israel wants peace, it shouldn't push for massive colonization efforts and shouldn't use its army to back any colonist living in the Westbank when an armed group finally decides to lay down arms.
If psychopathy is the only way for a group to prevent its own annihilation (whether it happens now or slowly), you will almost always get psychopathic behavior. That's true for everyone, hell in fact even Israel has that embedded in it's very own defense strategy with the Samson option. Which makes the Israeli side even less credible
Actually I don't. It depends on the circumstances and the price. Sometimes getting colonized is the best outcome possible. Especially if the alternative is getting wiped out by way stronger opponent.
US colonized large part of Mexico. Are people there better or worse because of that?
That's a personal judgement which fundamentally contradicts the populations' rights to self-determination, i.e. the basis of international law since WWI (famously enshrined by Woodrow Wilson, among others). It's the basis for US support for the independence of Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine, Taiwan, etc - all countries threatened by a "way stronger opponent" claiming their territory. US attitudes to Israel are fundamentally contradictory of pretty much all fundamental principles guiding US foreign policies for more than 100 years, they are simply baffling from the outside.
> US colonized large part of Mexico. Are people there better or worse because of that?
Considering the local population at the time (which was itself not even indigenous) was often displaced, I'd say people were worse off. The US also colonized the entirety of Native American land, and people there are definitely worse off. Your principle simply doesn't stand up to logical examination.
Are the people who are descendants of the Mexican citizens who survived the ordeal and now are US citizens better off than current Mexican citizens or not?
As for Poland and Baltic states it has nothing to do with any principles. It's about US weakening Russia. If US didn't have a business in that those countries would have zero support for their aspirations for independence. And they wouldn't be better off under the Russian rule because I'm not claiming it's always the case just it's sometimes the case. And only when you are subdued by more civisationally advanced country.
Lol, that's a solid foundation for a logical argument. "Sometimes maybe good, sometimes maybe shit", is a football-manager level of philosophy...
In the end, if we cannot build a coherent foreign policy based on solid humanitarian principles in the third millennium, what hope do we have to survive as a species? If might makes right, sooner or later we'll just nuke each other.
Oh and btw, your lovely american-mexican war reintroduced slavery to slavery-free territories, and was a great success for non-native populations. Colonization tends to be good for colonizers rather than the colonized, unsurprisingly. Obviously this is great, if one is among the colons.
Apparently we can't do that since we are keeping protected a group of people that want to have specific ethnicity dead so much that they put it into their constitution. I'm all for harmonic and humanitarian future, but to ever hope achieving that sworn murderers must be subdued.
> "Sometimes maybe good, sometimes maybe shit", is a football-manager level of philosophy...
But notice it's a practical philosophy that reflects reality. Wishing very hard that it wasn't exactly true won't change it.
> Colonization tends to be good for colonizers rather than the colonized, unsurprisingly.
Why do the Indians own more property in London than the British? Why the British are now a minority in their own capital? Could it ever have happened if UK didn't go on a colonization spree a while ago? In the long run being conquered sometimes brings insane benefits. Circling back to the topic I believe Palestinians would get immense benefits in the long run for laying down arms and joining the Israelis on their terms.
Most armed movements in contested territories are historically overcome not by "subduing", but by actually addressing the grievances of the mainstream population who helps them. Look at Northern Ireland: the IRA was never defeated by military means, but they were engaged politically to solve the mainstream grievances that were well-founded: removing most anti-catholic discrimination across society, allowing free movement across the Irish border, and allowing each person to define themselves as Irish if they wanted to (rather than British). Until Israel takes a serious integrationist approach that removes its apartheid-style structures, the mainstream in Gaza will continue to support armed resistance, because they have nothing to lose from doing so and nothing to gain from not doing so.
> notice it's a practical philosophy
No, it's just fatalistic shortsightedness. If you can't imagine a better world, obviously you can't build it.
> Why do the Indians own more property in London than the British?
Because they resisted their occupation, reclaimed their immense land and resources, and fought to get back on a level playing-field. Definitely not because they accepted white-man rule!
(And if you claim that living in London is something to crave, man, you've probably never been there for more than a week :)
But the issue is when the west supports fully and unconditionally one side but condemns another for doing the same. It generates alienation and resentment especially when we try to rationalize that support and morally justify it, when in reality we just don't care when our side does it.
Which again, I understand, but the sugar coating is what triggers me.
Palestinians have a right to exist and to defend themselves but what they were doing with crude rockets and attacks wasn't a defence. It was an attempt at genocide. And people only fail to recognize it at such because it was so inept due to Israel defensive power.
The problem is that, without serious ideological engagement, neither side will ever stop. The current state of play is the failure of the non-solution that is "Two States", aka "Israel and bantustans". Bantustans have historically been unsustainable for any government that tried to implement them.
This isn't about morals, since that would demand that every death is one too many. Killing just as many Palestinians as Jews were killed would be a fundamentally unmoral justification as well.
I think there is different expectation towards Israel, every country would have reacted to an attack like it happend to it and I don't see an alternative to topple the regime in Gaza.
The blockade of essentials is questionable, if done for an extended time. The previous blockade of goods wasn't though, it was requested by the PA and Egypt as well. Arguably it wasn't thorough enough.
There's plenty to criticize Israel for, but this isn't one of them. If Tijuana started sending terrorists over the border to San Diego, Mexico elected members of a known terrorist organization to public office and started a campaign to kick the US out of California "from the colorado to the sea?" and staged an attack on civilians the US would suddenly have a couple more territories and LockMart Grumman Atomics stock would skyrocket. The same applies for any other neighbor.
Especially if the US was already promoting and military enforcing colonization of more peaceful mexican territory around Tijuana lol
Highly recommend (not Spider-Man) Tom Holland's book Dominion for more on how that all played out.
Moreover, human actions is heavily influenced by circumstances. With low birth rate, it's better to protect children. With high birth rate, it's OK to sacrifice some young man to free some space, like farmers do for their crops, thus we see different messages in different circumstances even in countries with same religion and morale.
Moreover, humans are good at placing arbitrary boundaries, for example Catholics are OK to kill other nations en masse because "they are not Catholics, so they have no soul, so they are not humans, they are like pigs". Some versions of Islam even encourages holy war against non-Muslims. Some other minor religions are even promoting cannibalism. Even atheists are promoting mass killings, for example communists want to kill all rich(-ier than them).
So, while Christianity promotes peace, latest 2 world wars and current greatest war since WWII, are between Christians. Guess who will use nuclear weapon for second time in the history? North Korea? Iran? China? USA? Britain? Russia? Ukraine?