Ok, lets imagine a scenario where there are 2 developed countries right next to each other that hate each other. One raids the other and kills some people. Generally you might sanction a raid against the military targets that supported the raid, or perhaps targeted removal of the head of state or something.

But thats not the case here. Israel herded these people into this open air prison, removing them from and then settling their land. And kept them bottled up next to their settlements.

The only moral way to approach this situation would be for it to have never developed in the first place. Failing that, you would work to undo it. Heck, as you return every single refugee to their land, you can process them to see if they are a hamas fighter and jail them.

This is the truth of the matter. As Israel uses force to contain Gazans, they are effectively their government. They cant have Electricity, or Internet without Israeli approval. They cant pass border checkpoints without Israeli approval. The Israeli military frequently raids them. They do get black vanned and sent to Israeli prisons all the time. They are defacto Israeli subjects.

Therefore, this isnt a matter of warfare, this is a matter of policing. A civilian response would be best. There is no second country, and the people who benefit most from pretending there is a pseudo state in Gaza, are the Israelis, who use it to justify asymmetric warfare.

I don’t believe questions like that are asked in good faith. Maybe you are the exception, but I have seen too many people begin with exactly this question, and then end up justifying the Gaza genocide.

In case you are asking in good faith—and following the HN guidelines—I suggest you abandon this question and consider that maybe this is the wrong question to ask given the situation. If that is hard, then I ask you to consider that indigenous resistance against settler colonial violence has been a pretext for countless colonial oppression in the past, including many genocides.

Calling someone directly out/impugning their motives instead of responding is actually a violation of the HN guidelines. You can respond to topics, not posters. You are the one in violation.

This isn't the first time I've seem this 'you aren't in good faith' response on this topic, and is partly why again, HN just isn't a place where a real discussion can be had on this subject.

I want to be clear that my first sentence was speaking generally and not accusing my parent directly of being in bad faith. And in keeping with the spirit of HN I responded to my parent assuming good faith.

Otherwise you are right, I have accused others of being in bad faith on this topic, however when I do so, I tend to do it after many more interactions than what I have had with my parent above.

'Maybe you are the exception' isn't keeping in the spirit. You definitely called the person out lowkey without calling them out, then told them the question they asked was off limits instead of answering it, justifying violence in the process.

Whoever has power wins. It is the sad reality. Look at Ukraine. It can only be fair if all countries had nukes. Indigenous people - all of them lost because they don’t have power, you can steer yourself in illusion of it being otherwise, but it has always been about power. Palestinians don’t have power - they lose. Israel has power - they win.