Israel was formed on violence, just like this. Even more brutal, if you read the history books. Why do you support country founded on so much hate and violence? First prime ministers of Israel were well known terrorists.
I don't disagree with you about the history of Israel. I don't believe the state of Israel should have been created in the first place. Not because I'm opposed to the idea of a Jewish homeland, but because I'm opposed to the idea of colonisation (I say this as a pakeha (white) New Zealander who's ancestors colonised NZ).
But at this point, Israel exists. People have been born and died there. Its people's homes. Just as I rail against Israel causing forced displacement of Palestinans - a crime against humanity - I will not call for the same crime to be visited on Israelis.
Both peoples exist, have rights and deserve to exist in peace. Currently, Palestinians are treated as subhumans by the state of Israel and that has to stop, but none of that means that we shouldn't support Israel's right to exist. The alternative is to visit upon them the very same despicable crimes we criticise them for committing.
It is the same argument as with apartheid South Africa; I don't buy it. Even today, 80y after WW2, jews are (rightfully) fighting to return their real estate, etc confiscated during the war. Those exchanged multiple owners, but ultimately get returned to their rightful owners. A stolen house is still a stolen house, no matter if generations or two were born there.
I'm pretty sure everyone here agrees that Israel can not exist on its own. Even with its nuclear capabilities, it's very small country and vulnerable. What do you think a war with Hamas or Iran would last if they don't receive daily shipments of weapons from allies, mainly the US? It's fully dependent on its Western allies; like any other colony, it will eventually collapse when money finally runs out.
No- The Israeli (extreme) right used to say "two banks to the river jordan, one is ours and so is the other" (loose translation). This is very different than "from the river to the sea". Also the Israeli right is willing to generally accept muslims/arabs/Palestinians as equal citizens in that ideological dream.
But, how about Israel's declaration of independence? Arguably more representative of the consensus.
"WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions."
And guess what, those that listened are now part of the one million Israeli Arab citizenry.
I think if we see nuance we can acknowledge it. The worldwide campaign against Israel is devoid of nuance. Some western leaders pay lip service to the idea of removing Hamas and that Israeli hostages should be released but in fact they are taking actions that prolong the war and embolden Hamas. Basically the way the world looks at it is "we told Israel to stop and it doesn't" vs. the way it should be looking at is "What would any other country in the world be doing in these circumstances and what are the conditions Israel is looking for to end the violence and how do we get to those conditions.". There is also orchestrated pressure via social media and media like Al Jazeera that pushes narratives that we're seeing in this thread and is not factual. The cries of genocide started before Israel barely fired a shot after it was attacked and what we're reading today is the same talking points that have been flooding social media for the last two years alongside with an unprecedented flood of war imagery we have not seen in any other conflict because the sole purpose of Hamas is to get as many people killed and injured and attack Israel's image. It's been doing that really well.
Being critical of Israel's actions is 100% ok. I am very critical. But what we're seeing is public lynching, not criticism. There is nothing Israel can ever do that is right here. There are no suggestions or proposals for Israel to adjust course that make any sense. Calls for a "cease fire" don't and haven't made any sense because cease fire (which we've had) means Hamas remains in control of Gaza, can re-arm and attack Israel again, and keeps the hostages. Typically this is where the discussion goes to the standard talking points of "didn't start Oct 7th", "Gaza was occupied", "UN blah blah blah", and rhetoric which ignores Hamas and the role of Palestinians in getting where are today. We have maybe 5% of the people in these discussions (on both side - I'll admit that) who have any sense of nuance. We have maybe 1% of people who have enough knowledge on the topic/history etc. We have ideology and propaganda being the dominant forces.
So this is why this shouldn't be on Hacker News. There are enough other avenues for online "discussion" (which this is not) on the dividing topics of the day.
> Isn’t the only just response to completely eliminate the offending group, Hamas?
Israel is eliminating far more than the "offending group" and they're doing it in a cold blooded, inhumane manner. That's why it's not "self defense". It's shameful.
Total deaths in Gaza are 1/4 comparable numbers for total deaths in similar conflicts in recent memory, like Fallujah. Not to be flippant, but wars suck, and people die. I would rather that there not be a war, but Israel didn't ask for Oct 7th to happen, and I don't see how any other response would have worked. And just looking at the numbers, the IDF is actually doing far better than any other army in protecting civilians, given the dense urban war fighting conditions. At least as far as the numbers go.
> Total deaths in Gaza are 1/4 comparable numbers for total deaths in similar conflicts in recent memory, like Fallujah
This is factually incorrect, and even if it were true it's not exactly a great example for you to rest your case on.
> the IDF is actually doing far better than any other army in protecting civilians
According to who, Israel? Not according to the thousands of women and children they've murdered. Who likely far outnumber the number of militants they've killed.
> Rocket attacks by the thousands took place. A terrorist attack with rape and mutilation took place. Women were dragged through the streets naked with blood on their groin.
Wasn’t sure who you were talking about there. Still not.
"Attacks began in 2001. Since then (August 2014 data), almost 20,000 rockets have hit southern Israel,[35][36] all but a few thousand of them since Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in August 2005."
...
"Some analysts see the attacks as a shift away from reliance on suicide bombing, which was previously Hamas's main method of attacking Israel, as an adoption of the rocket tactics used by the Lebanese group Hezbollah."
If you are charged with murder, but you killed because someone was attacking you, it is a legal defence that you were defending yourself.
There is no such defence against a charge of genocide.
The lawyers who wrote the international treaty, many of whom themselves survived the Holocaust and lost their relatives in it, carefully considered whether to add such a defence. They did not add it. They considered that genocide is a crime for which there is no excuse. That is should be possible to defend yourself without resorting to it.
In any case, the group at issue is not Hamas. The genocide is being conducted against all Palestinians.
Your argument also conveniently omits the extreme level of military dominance which Israel has over the Palestinians.
The real reason many Israelis cannot conceive of a solution other than killing or expelling them, is: how can we leave them there, after the level of hatred, murder, violence, and abuse we have heaped on them over the last two years? We have taken revenge for our 36 dead children, won't they want revenge for their 20,000?
israel offered solution multiple times: hamas disarms. it's leaders leave gaza. gaza handed over to international force. this was discussed as far as november 2023. there are only 2 problems with it
Is everyone in Gaza a member of Hamas? Is it only the 200,000 Gazan casualties so far? How many more hundreds of thousands of Gazans need to be eliminated to wipe out Hamas?
I hope the answer to that last question includes those joining Hamas because of the first couple hundred thousands of Gazans killed.
Genocide according to the genocide convention which is what we're talking about can occur even when a single person is killed as long as there is "intent". This is why we keep seeing the reference to certain Israeli MK statements as proof of intent. So according to Israel's critics, which seems to be everyone here, because Yoav Gallant said that we'll shut the water to Gaza as a response to the Oct 7th attack the first bomb dropped on Hamas on Oct 8th constitutes genocide. There is no possibility of self defense.
What Israel's critics will add to that is that Israel has no right to self defense because it was occupying Gaza before the Oct 7th attack.
They'll also downplay the Oct 7th attack, claim Israelis killed their own, there was no sexual violence etc.
Then they'll look at the number of casualties as another proof. It's not "proportional". Israel is only allowed to kill a certain number of people in its wars. Otherwise it's clearly not self defense. But only for Israel, for other countries, still self defense.
People see bodies, children, on their social media feeds and destruction and that makes it very clear who the good guys and who the bad guys are.
Israel can't win this argument. Don't look for logic. Days after the Oct 7th attack Israel was already accused of genocide. Nothing Israel can do here is right and the actions western countries have taken (e.g. US post 9/11 or western response to ISIS) are not available to Israel because Israel shouldn't even exist and therefore should definitely not be allowed to defend itself (vs. the Americans and the Canadians who have lived on their land for 10,000 years and definitely didn't just steal it from the natives and kill all of them).
The only thing Israel can win is the actual war on the ground and so the leadership of Israel, while making many mistakes, is determined to win the war on the ground. Not all Israelis agree with that either. Personally I don't know if any other options really exist.
All that said, you can't really argue with the fact the population of Gaza is suffering immensely, many of them have lost everything they've had, many killed and injured, they live in terrible conditions. I mostly blame Hamas. I also blame the west for prolonging this war and not offering any reasonable solutions to Israel. Israel has faults and can and should do better but for the most part its hand is forced and has been forced by Palestinian violence/actions for some time. Maybe Gaza should have been taken immediately after Hamas took over in 2007. Maybe there would have been other courses of actions including post Oct 7. I donno. Oct 7th stunned me, it was an utter failure. Not really seeing anything proposed here at this point in time and don't recall seeing anything productive going back.
So all in all it's terrible. There's human suffering. We need to end it. The only way out I see is for Hamas to surrender. Let's get there and then we can debate what words mean, two states, one state, where do we go from here. This was is not going to end e.g. by the US telling Israel to end it.
I agree and it means that the critics have part in why Israels only action is to see it through and more or less upend Hamas. And it probably will go on for many months.
With pressure on Hamas to surrender after being defeated in a war they started, this conflict would probably be over long ago.
No, I don't think it would have. Israels objective is to occupy everything as it is and have been using illegal settlements to achieve. This prolonged war and genocide of Palestinians is just an excuse to further that goal.
The oppression is the biggest reason Hamas can grow. If that stopped I think with time Hamas would weaken and disappear. Like IRA in Northen Ireland eventually did.
Wrong. It is only their goal to occupy "everything" because they got attacked and need to secure their borders.
Israel already tried to completely withdraw from Gaza which evidently isn't a feasible solution. And this behavior, which cannot sensibly disputed, would also directly and thoroughly contradict any ambitions for genocide as well for that matter.
Israel has to leave the west bank eventually and what they do is wrong. But it is only tangentially related to the current war in Gaza.
Wild blaming Israel's critics for something the Israeli government and military are doing. How can Hamas possibly remain a threat at his point? How many tens of thousands of more Palestinians need to die? Enough is enough!
However it still has considerable weaponry and underground facilities and it is still holding Israeli hostages. The issue isn't Hamas tomorrow. The issue is the consequence of letting Hamas retake the entire Gaza strip and rebuild itself, and the loss of deterrence when Hamas is going to declare they won the war once it ends on their terms.
I can relate to your point though and many people would agree with you. Let's stop killing people and see where this takes us is not an unreasonable position. But Israel is still in PTSD from Oct 7th and the mood is that it can't afford to take a chance here and that any stop/pause will just result in a higher price for Israelis and Palestinians paid a little down the line. The truly totally "unreasonable" side here is Hamas and I see how you can't understand their calculus because it is so death-cult fanatical.
Pressure Hamas to surrender would have saved many people from getting killed, but only a day after Israel was attacked the criticism against Israel started. The reality is that it was not the aggressor in the latest war, which also shines light on the accusation of genocide.
It is sad how history repeats itself.. how the country who should have been on the forefront of preventing genocide is actually the one who does it. Israel is even using similar reasoning for continuing the fight. Similar how the Nazis in Norway was furious over the resistance there.
I think a lot would have been won if the illegal settlements stopped and the apartheid like system ended. Hamas (and any other resistance) lives on the resentment created from that.
It think if Israel went back to the border of -67 and then did not try to expand its territories. It would with time resolve.
If Israel went back to the borders of 1967 it would be continuously attacked from both Gaza and the West Bank. Israel already went part way. Fully in Gaza and partially in the West Bank where it handed over territory to the PA.
What would happen is exactly what did happen. Hamas would take over the entire territory. Arm to the teeth. Dig tunnels. And launch endless attacks against Israel.
I'm not a fan of the settlements but they are not the issue. The issue is Jewish presence in the middle east. When there were no settlements Israel was attacked. Pre-1967 it was still attacked. Pre-1948 Jews were still attacked. I don't think there should be any settlements and I would support dismantling them. I also condemn the settler violence against Palestinians. But again, this isn't really the issue, this is an outcome. Israel should have either annexed the west bank and given citizenship to all Palestinians or not allowed Israeli civilians to live there.
Tell me how the Jewish people murdered German civilians, broadcasted that to the world, committed hundreds of suicide bombing attacks in German cafes, supermarkets, malls and theaters, and fired 20,000 rockets at major German cities. Just so I can complete your analogy in my head. Also explain to me how what Israel is doing in Gaza to Palestinians is in any way comparable to the Nazis murdering six million Jews by rounding them up, loading them on trains to concentration camps, and then packing them in gas chambers. How does this compare with Israel targeting Hamas combatants, evacuating civilians population, and providing them with aid?
> explain to me how what Israel is doing in Gaza to Palestinians is in any way comparable to the Nazis murdering six million Jews
It's the mass murder of civilians part they have in common. Sure they haven't hit the million mark yet but they're getting there.
> Nazis murdering six million Jews by rounding them up, loading them on trains to concentration camps, and then packing them in gas chambers. How does this compare with Israel targeting Hamas combatants, evacuating civilians population, and providing them with aid
Somewhat similar if your look at the effect on innocent civilians. The Israelis are accused of starving them, blocking aid (and even targeting aid workers), and other crimes.
> It think if Israel went back to the border of -67 and then did not try to expand its territories. It would with time resolve.
I can’t remember, was that the third or fourth time in 20 years that all of Israel’s neighbors simultaneously invaded it and lost territory? It’s hard to keep track with all of the wars of aggression against Israel that Israel won and gained territory from.
Hamas and the Palestinians need to capitulate in the same way Japan did in WW2. Complete surrender. Then let someone come rebuild it into a functioning country.
I think you're overthinking this. We're taking about a country committing genocide here. You either support them or you don't.