If an entire city is held hostage by a terrorist ruling party, does that mean that you have carte blanche to raze the city and displace or eliminate its civilian population?

> If an entire city is held hostage by a terrorist ruling party

Many governments are dictatorships or autocratic. Some are democratic. I dont think it matters. You have the same responsibility to civilians regardless of the form of government.

> carte blanche to raze the city

Generally not. But you can certainly destroy buildings used for military purposes. Where this conflict falls on this scale is pretty unclear thus far.

> eliminate its civilian population

Definitely not. Israel has not done this.

> displace ... its civilian population?

Maybe. There are certain circumstances under the geneva convention where this is allowed, and it seems likely the criteria was met in this conflict. You of course have to let them back once the fighting has subsided.

If you agree that you have to let them back as per Geneva, then the solution is obvious: let the 7million refugees back to the lands they were ethnically cleansed from in 1948 and onwards.

I generally agree that for refugees this actually happened to (not their descendents), allowing them back (or compensating them for lost property) is a reasonable request (assuming they are willing to live in peace with their new neighbours). However i think it should apply to all refugees from that conflict including jews who were displaced of which there were a significant number of from what i understand. I can't support anything that is a rule for one side if it isn't applied to the other equally.

For cases where the original person is now dead (1948 was 75 years ago), i think its reasonable that that person's descendents should split appropriate compensation.

What im getting at here is - if someone was driven out and owned a 1 bedroom apartment, they are only owed a 1 bedroom apartment. If they had 50 grandchildren they are still owed only the single apartment not 50 apartments, one for each heir.

The other big issue is this was 75 years ago. Much of this property probably doesn't exist anymore. I think due to pure practicality, cash compensation would have to be the way to address this issue.

Which Jews within Israel were displaced in the conflict? Rather, it was a net gain for the Jews in Israel. People, including Golda Meir the first prime minister, simply moved into existing homes of people who had to flee because of the murderous Zionist mobs and pogroms. Compensating refugees and descendants doesn't solve the problem that they don't have legal status in the land they were born in / driven from. They must be let back to their native land. Israel uses this same logic - although spanning 2k years and reliant on mythology as proof - to let any Jew from anywhere in the world immigrate and gain citizenship in Israel. So if you're committed to being equitable to both sides, why aren't Palestinians given the same right of return to their homeland?

A terrorist ruling party that your intelligence agencies funded and armed, early on, and which your ruling party has 'propped up'¹ for decades as both a way to have a convenient enemy and to divide the Palestinian people so as to make impossible the 'two-state solution' that your government is nominally committed to, at that.

Israel is far from blameless in the rise of Hamas. Especially Benjamin Netanyahu who as an Israeli I would love to see go to trial for supporting Hamas (in addition to his other ongoing corruption charges).

Still, there are levels of blame and the current situation. The Palestinians in Gaza are held hostage by an evil organization that keeps escalating and using ceasefires to increase armaments. I would love it if Netanyahu would be out of office right now and someone "competent" were running things. But this is the position we're at.