During the Falklands War the discussion was around military deaths, not civilian deaths.
The problem people have with Israel is not that they're killing Hamas fighters or that IDF soldiers are being killed. It's that they're killing civilians (amongst other war crimes and crimes against humanity).
It's a completely different situation.
Edit: just to flesh out my position here a bit. Civilian deaths are unavoidable in war. But the attacker _must_ take measures to prevent that as much as possible. Israel have not. In fact they've done the opposite.
> The problem people have with Israel is not that they're killing Hamas fighters or that IDF soldiers are being killed. It's that they're killing civilians (amongst other war crimes and crimes against humanity).
There is also a deliberate propaganda effort to blur the distinction between Hamas and Palestinians. Look at every conservative news source that reports on pro-Palestinian protests. Every one of them uses the term "Pro-Hamas protestors" instead, even though you'll find very few people there who support Hamas terrorists. This is clearly deliberate.
See also the deliberate conflation of IDF = Israeli government = Israeli people = the Jewish Ethnicity = Judaism. So, thanks to propaganda, if you oppose one of them, they think you oppose them all and are antisemitic.
Those warnings are rarely given, and also warning someone that you're about to bomb their home and store and hospital and aid and aid workers, doesn't justify the crime of doing those things.
If all innocent civilians are equal, then it's not acceptable to kill 35,000 Palestinian ones to avenge <2,000 Israeli ones, or even to prevent another <2,000 future Israeli casualties. That math makes no sense from the outside perspective, unless one discriminates based on race, or otherwise believes Israel civilians are somehow more valuable than Palestinian civilians.
As for "sympathizers": someone disagreeing with you doesn't justify exploding them, either.
Note before reading that my following post is NOT a justification of the evil massacre that Hamas perpetrated. It is however a comparison meant to illuminate something about the concept you've noted.
So, food for thought: a lower ratio of civilians to military and security personnel was killed on October 7th (according to Israeli published figures) than tends to be killed in even precision bombings.
Note: I can only fairly say "tends to be killed" because it can be difficult to truly get accurate data on military bombing casualties -- but one can absolutely find many individual cases of dozens of civilians being considered valid collateral for 1-3 military targets.
So notice that these figures are looking between 1.86 and 3.13 civilians per soldier dead.
That means an essentially random massacre which deliberately TRIED to target civilians, but which was primarily performed by individual soldiers, couldn't even cause nearly as many deaths as precision bombings do.
And note that, from what I could gather, those figures on Israeli deaths don't include government workers as being valid combatants, when I doubt any Hamas pencil pushers that may exist would get the "luxury" of not being counted as non combatants.
The can of worms opened up here only gets messier still if you then start going more philosophical issues like how they seem to have spent the last few decades uncertain if Palestine is basically a mini case of Escape From NY, under outright Israeli military occupation, or an entirely independent country. I'd want to ask the Israeli government if this is a war or a policing action.
A minor counterpoint to something you wrote though: I don't think this is often something in terms of their civilians being less valuable, at least not publicly due to the obvious bad optics. I rather think it's a case presented more like a need for some civilians to die now to prevent more from dying later or being "oppressed under illegitimate government" type concerns, etc.
These allegations of Hamas violations of international humanitarian laws—even if true—does not devalue the lives of Palestinians, nor does it give Israel an excuse for further violations.
> The only real violations of international law apply to an army purposefully going, unprovoked, into a civilian area and starting to shoot everyone. Hamas does that, as they've proven on many occasions (including their own civilians), Israel doesn't.
Israel has been shown to do this on multiple occasions. Take, for example, them doing exactly this to their own surrendering hostages, which they mistook for surviving, surrendering Palestinian civilians as they combed through the rubble of their bombings. Or maybe there was no mistake.
Given Israel's assault on the free press in Gaza (ranging from shutting off power and communications to literally shooting and bombing press workers), we may never know the true extent of these cleansings, especially when it really is "just" surviving, surrendering Palestinian civilians.
I’m also thinking about the Jenin hospital raid[1] where the Israeli army stormed a hospital wearing civilian clothing (i.e. hiding among civilians) and extra-judicially killed three wounded (and as a result inactive; i.e. unprovoked) operatives.
I’m also thinking about the massacres during the great march of return[2], where Israeli soldiers fired indiscriminately at unarmed protestors. In the protests, and the ensuing conflict, Israel killed 223 people, by far majority of whom were unarmed civilians. You can argue that mass demonstration is provocative, but the response of indiscriminately killing unarmed protestors is not a proportionate response.
And finally, I’m also thinking about the flour massacre[3], where the Israeli army purposefully went, unprovoked, into a civilian area and started to shoot everyone. At least 118 civilians were killed and 760 were wounded when the Israeli army shot at people trying to gather food after having been deliberately starved by Israel the months before.
The parent (who I’m trying not to engage with) is also just wrong when they claim no international law is broken by Israel. They currently have one ICJ case ruled against them, that of the illegal border (or apartheid) wall in the west bank, which the ICJ ruled illegal in 2004[4] and demanded they take down (which Israel hasn’t). The have several condemnations by a pletora of international humanitarian organizations. There are two ongoing ICJ cases against them, one for genocide, and their leaders stand recommended for indictments at the ICC.
There are many more examples than the three above of Israel blatantly violating international humanitarian law. Which is why the UN general assembly overwhelmingly voted to press charges at the ICJ to find out what the consequences of these gross violations should be[5].
Everybody's seen these arguments ... and knows exactly how true they are. I mean you put one absurdity after another and treat it as fact. I'm not even going to bother.
I don’t understand, are you implying that none of these events actually occurred, that those pictures of Israeli operatives wearing civilian clothing as they raid the hospital in Jenin are fake? That the Israeli army did no shoot indiscriminately at aid seekers near the Al-Nabulsi roundabout in Gaza? That the collective memory of the event is wrong, recordings and satellite photos of the event are just false?
I know you are trying to hold onto the position that these events were taken out of context, and that the IDF has a different story, which somehow excuses these events. But just so you know, there is international consensus that the IDF versions don’t survive scrutiny. Israel has been under investigation for human rights violations for a long time. Multiple human rights organizations have come to the same conclusion that Israel is a serial human rights violator, and unlike Israel, these human rights, and international organizations, have evidence which support their claims, evidence which actually holds up to scrutiny.
Since you've continued taking HN threads deeper into hellish flamewar, and breaking the site guidelines badly, despite our requests to stop, I've banned the account.
Regardless of which side you're on in a conflict, and regardless of how right you are or feel you are, you simply can't abuse this forum and break its rules this way.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
> These allegations of Hamas violations of international humanitarian laws—even if true—does not devalue the lives of Palestinians, nor does it give Israel an excuse for further violations.
When I said that, I was referring to my parent’s allegations of Hamas’ use of human shields, hiding among civilian populations etc. But this also applies to your accusations of Hamas’ terrorist actions.
But let’s step back and see what you are doing here. You are claiming that because of Hamas’ atrocities, International humanitarian laws does not apply to Israel. However, there is no such clause in International Humanitarian law. It applies to everybody, even if your enemy breaks them.
So basically what you are saying here is that Israel—a state actor—is as bad as Hamas—a terrorist organization. This argumentation does not look good for Israel. That said, Israel is a state actor and should not be held to the same standard as a terrorist organization. We can expect Hamas to continue committing as long as the Palestinian people are treated unjustly. Hamas is a resistance movement, and they will resist. Israel, however, is a state actor, and is bound to international treaties. In the ongoing conflict, they are the oppressors, giving unjust treatment of other peoples. They are fighting to keep oppressing, to prevent justice for Palestinians. And they are bound by international law to not do that.
I don't think you were breaking the site guidelines as badly as the account I've just banned (at least, I haven't seen it if you were)—but you've been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle, and that's also a line at which we ban accounts. That needs to change if you want to keep posting here. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
That may be so, but I doubt it, this was Hamas's most successful attack in history, and will never happen again, with or without Israel's genocide of unrelated Palestinians. The claim that Israel definitively saved >35,000 lives by killing as many, is simply implausible. And that's to say nothing of the denial of (and attacking of) supplies.
Having said that, none if it justifies the crimes or racial discrimination I mentioned above. As I said: If all innocent civilians are equal, then it's not acceptable to kill 35,000 Palestinian ones to avenge <2,000 Israeli ones, or ——>even to prevent another <2,000 future Israeli casualties.<—— That math makes no sense from the outside perspective, unless one discriminates based on race, or otherwise believes Israel civilians are somehow more valuable than Palestinian civilians.
I think an argument can be made that validating human shield tactics may result in much greater loss of live in the long term. More groups will use such tactics, and groups which don't value human life will gain leverage over those that do. It's hard to predict long term geopolitical effects, but it seems like a pretty dangerous trend.
If you don't buy that though, it still seems reasonable enough for Israel to prioritize their own security. It may not be morally correct from a utilitarian perspective, but it's what pretty much any country would do, just as any parent would save their own child first in an emergency.
I am not sure that argument can be made, since there doesn't appear to be data to support it. If anything, the data show the opposite.
What we do have data to support is that bombing apartment blocks and hospitals and refugee camps and aid convoys and aid warehouses all full of innocent civilians is illegal, even if you shout "human shield!" first, even if you really want to achieve your political or military aims, even if you claim you're saving more innocent civilian lives by doing so, even if you really want to "prioritize security". It's all still illegal, hence the court cases.
Would Israel tolerate the IDF killing innocent Israeli civilians in as great a number as they have killed innocent Palestinian civilians, to achieve the same aims? Likely not, which would make the behavior discriminatory based on race, religion, and/or national origin, too.
> it still seems reasonable enough for Israel to prioritize their own security. It may not be morally correct from a utilitarian perspective, but it's what pretty much any country would do, just as any parent would save their own child first in an emergency.
This makes it sound like you recognize Palestine as a different country (and thus deserving of international recognition, freedom, independence, self-determination, safety, and security). If so, good on you :) If not, Israel is obliged to protect Palestinian civilians under its rule equally to Israeli civilians under its rule. I wish I could say "there's no 3rd option where Israel abuses Palestinians under their rule for decades while taking no responsibility for their well-being", but we've all seen the past decades.
That's not really responsive to what I wrote. I was pondering the long-term effects of validating human shield tactics, which has nothing to do with the laws of war, or semantic questions of what constitutes a state.
Every country "discriminates" based on nationality; to expect otherwise would be unreasonable. If a country truly valued all human interests equally, there would be no reason for citizenship.
If Israel was governed by moral saints, they might reach a conclusion that any military response would lead to negative net utility, so it's better to allow Hamas and Hezbollah to attack with impunity until they eventually conquer Israel and cleanse it of Jews. Moral sainthood isn't a reasonable expectation, though, and it's certainly not a standard anyone applies to other countries.
Your post isn't very responsive to what I wrote. Aside from seemingly ignoring the whole point of this ruling (that Israel's behavior is illegal and inexcusable, meaning the excuses you cited don't excuse the behavior), you also rehashed this:
> Every country "discriminates" based on nationality;
You've twisted my words: I said race, religion, or national origin, not nationality. Their national origin is Palestine. Their nationality is either Israeli or Palestinian. If Palestinian, that means Palestine is a different country (and thus deserving of international recognition, freedom, independence, self-determination, safety, and security). If Israeli, that means Israel is obliged to protect Palestinian civilians under its rule equally to Israeli civilians under its rule. Israel believes Palestine is not an independent country, therefore they are bound to the obligations of the latter, and cannot discriminate against their national subjects based on national origin.
Let's be clear here: Nobody expects Israel to admit any wrong here, or to do any good here, despite the international condemnation. This is just explaining that condemnation.
> it's better to allow Hamas and Hezbollah to attack with impunity until they eventually conquer Israel and cleanse it of Jews.
Please, we're being serious here. Hamas' latest attack, after years of planning, was their most successful in history, and it killed some 95% fewer than Israel has cleansed in the months since then, on a moment's notice. One cannot discuss this "threat" as anything other than a joke -- it's simply unrealistic given Hamas' means and history. Even so, as mentioned above, it's not an excuse for Israel's literal genocide of tens of thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians so far, with millions more in the crosshairs.
Their nationality certainly is not Israeli. One could say Palestinian, or Gazan, since Hamas' rule of Gaza makes it more of a separate state in practice. If one were to take the view that neither Palestine or Gaza are states (a semantic question which I don't take a position on), then they would be stateless people with no nationality.
Even if you want to make the argument that Israel is occupying (Hamas-controlled parts of) Gaza, that wouldn't make Gazans Israeli citizens, and realistically every country prioritizes the safety of their citizens; it wouldn't be reasonable to expect otherwise.
> One cannot discuss this "threat" as anything other than a joke
You're ignoring the role of asymmetric warfare and human shield tactics. The IDF is struggling to make progress as is, despite obvious military superiority. If they caved to demands to e.g. stay out of Rafah, then Hamas terrorists would essentially be untouchable, an noone can fight an untouchable enemy.
> Their nationality certainly is not Israeli. One could say Palestinian, or Gazan, since Hamas' rule of Gaza makes it more of a separate state in practice. If one were to take the view that neither Palestine or Gaza are states (a semantic question which I don't take a position on), then they would be stateless people with no nationality.
Israel treating their Palestinian-born subjects as stateless would be illegal, so a decision must be made by Israel between the two options I described, with the respective consequences I described. By effectively exerting rule over Palestinians (especially in the West Bank), they have chosen the route that doesn't recognize Palestine as a country, and thus are obliged to treat Palestinian-born subjects equally to any other subjects under their rule. The fact that Israel denies citizenship to the millions of Palestinian-born subjects under their rule, is particularly gross.
> You're ignoring the role of asymmetric warfare and human shield tactics. The IDF is struggling to make progress as is, despite obvious military superiority. If they caved to demands to e.g. stay out of Rafah, then Hamas terrorists would essentially be untouchable, an noone can fight an untouchable enemy.
That, in turn, ignores that Israel's actions are still illegal. Put simply, the defense you cite isn't good enough to justify Israel's actions. They tried that defense, it did not succeed, here we are. The reason is that the laws were made with the possibility of "human shields" in mind, and they still made the actions illegal. It's not some novel occurrence excepted from the rules.
It does sucks to be IDF right now, but their lives aren't worth more than civilian Palestinian lives, and thus it is immoral for them to take many civilian lives to reduce their own risk of loss, and illegal for them to do so to the extent they have, even if it means they get to kill a terrorist in the process.
Here's the most important metric (superceding any Israeli desire): Fewer civilians will die if Israel withdraws and simply secures the border than will die if Israel invades. You don't have to trust me: An independent court actually evaluated both sides here and came to the same judgement, as described in the article we're discussing. Israel will either accept that they can't do whatever they want, up to and including genocide, just because they want to, or continue to parallel Russia's and North Korea's international pariah journey while angrily feigning ignorance and righteously pointing fingers at everyone but themselves. Probably the latter.
If you want my interpretation, it's that Gazans are effectively citizens of Gaza, which Hamas is the de facto government of. (Palestinians in the West Bank are a separate matter.) Gaza should have been a place of freedom, independence, and self-determination since 2005, but Hamas' aggression has unfortunately made that impossible for now.
I was never commenting on legality. It seems unreasonable to expect a country to essentially give up on its own defense, whether or not such defense is deemed illegal and/or leads to more deaths overall.
I appreciate your interpretation, and I don't want this to sound dismissive: The point is that Israel doesn't get to eat their cake and have it, too. Either they treat Palestine as an independent country with all the same rights as Israel, or they treat the Palestinian-born subjects under their rule as citizens with all the same rights as the Israeli-born subjects under their rule. Apartheid and genocide aren't legal options, despite Israel perpetrating both.
> Hamas' aggression has unfortunately made that impossible for now.
On the contrary: as the world has expressed on multiple occasions in multiple ways, Israel's genocide of Palestinians is what continues to make that difficult. After all, the world sees how Israel abused Palestinians for decades before October 7th. Israel can't say the world didn't warn them as they spiral into the same pariah status as Russia and North Korea.
> It seems unreasonable to expect a country to essentially give up on its own defense
The "abiding by international law means essentially giving up our defense" claim was put forth by Israel and judged not to be the case. It was expected, both when the law was drafted, and when the case was brought against Israel, given their frequent repetition of the now-debunked claim. It just wasn't credible: neither the court nor most countries or people actually believe Hamas is going to somehow conquer the state of Israel. Indeed, it's inconceivable that over their entire remaining existence Hamas will ever deal out even a small fraction of the damage Israel has dealt to innocent Palestinian civilians over the course of less than 1 year.
If, however, one isn't interested in discussing the legality of Israel's behavior (in an HN submission about precisely that), and the topic is reduced to whether Israel will say "whatever, I do what I want" a la Putin or Cartman, then I will submit a bet that they will, and leave it at that.
> Either they treat Palestine as an independent country with all the same rights as Israel
Are you saying that as an independent country, Gaza's sovereignty can't be violated? This isn't absolute; there are exceptions like self-defense, whether we're look at this from a legal perspective (UN article 51) or an ethical one.
Indeed my point was never about law; this thread began with your argument which seemed to be about utilitarian ethics. So the ICJ order isn't related to my point, unless we consider the ICJ an arbiter of morality.
> Are you saying that as an independent country, Gaza's sovereignty can't be violated? This isn't absolute; there are exceptions like self-defense, whether we're look at this from a legal perspective (UN article 51) or an ethical one.
Not Gaza, Palestine. That includes Gaza and the West Bank, which has been under Israeli apartheid for a long time. There is rarely an unrestrained right to self-defense of a country engaging in apartheid and genocide, against those upon whom they are perpetrating it. Does Israel grant Palestinian-born subjects in the West Bank (a territory Israel dominates) freedom, self-determination, safety? Does it treat them equally to Israeli-born subjects? No, and that's illegal (and apartheid).
The "self defense exception" was cited by Israel, and the court judged that their illegal actions go beyond legal self defense. If we take a moral perspective rather than a legal one, it would be immoral to substitute Israel's judgement for that of the ICJ, a less biased and more informed body. From a utilitarian objective standpoint, we arrive at the same conclusion: It's unlikely Israel has some magical higher understanding that all other countries lack. Plus, legitimizing claims by defendants like Putin, Bibi, Sinwar, Kony, Gallant, or Haniyeh et. al, that they somehow know better than the court, would kinda defeat the purpose of the court.
It seems like you're veering into a different topic with the assertion that West Bank is an apartheid system. If we're talking about Gaza still, Hamas is the de facto government there, having won the election and the subsequent war. The PLO's declaration and aspirational claim of Gaza doesn't change the reality of Hamas' rule.
From a moral perspective, it seems like you're saying the ICJ would be a better arbiter of morality than Israel, but my point didn't involve an appeal to any authority; that just doesn't seem necessary when discussing morality.
We've covered Israel's actions being illegal in the eyes of the world, immoral in the eyes of the world, and unhelpful to peace in the eyes of the world. I appreciate your offering of another viewpoint, because a diversity of viewpoints is good, and indeed your viewpoint is valid. Valid enough that the world has heard it, and took it into account when forming the above consensus.
> [consensus] just doesn't seem necessary when discussing morality.
That would not be an entirely unexpected claim from any given person who doesn't like the humanitarian consensus, Just like it was not entirely unexpected to see Israel claim that international laws don't seem necessary when violating international laws they don't like.
I think we're both smart enough to realize what would happen if each person on earth decided that they were the true arbiter of law and morality, and had the right to do whatever they wanted, regardless of the law or what anybody or almost everybody else thought. So it is good that the consensus is that consensus is indeed necessary when writing and enforcing and judging the laws we wrote, around such moral standards as "don't genocide people".
By rejecting the concept of this consensus, which you call an "appeal to authority", it seems this topic is indeed being reduced to whether Bibi will say "whatever, I do what I want" like Putin or Cartman or Kony or Sinwar, while his country continues to spiral into international pariah status. So, I will submit a bet that he will, and leave it at that.
It seems like you're treating law and ethics as more or less interchangeable, which I think is a mistake. International law is more about politics than ethics.
For example, parts of international law come from UN security council resolutions, which are passed based on 9/15 security council votes, and no vetoes from the 5 permanent members. The permanent members include Russia and China, and non-permanent members often include other authoritarian states, like UAE until recently. Trump may soon have authority over US votes. Do you trust these political entities as bastions of morality?
I'm not treating law and ethics as interchangeable, simply pointing out that the global consensus is that Israel's behavior is wrong in both a legal sense and an ethical sense (and a moral sense, if you distinguish that from the former), and thus is unhelpful to peace.
I understand Israel disagrees with this consensus. I understand you may disagree with this consensus. I accept that if global consensus hasn't already changed their minds, I might not, either. That is okay. Consensus doesn't require buy-in from any single particular person or country. But as a general rule of thumb, if a great majority say you're in the wrong, and you say they're all in the wrong for saying you're in the wrong, that means you're probably in the wrong, so it's worth seriously considering the possibility.
Your latter observation doesn't seem to apply here, as it seems the ICC and ICJ based their findings and rulings on laws and ethics, not politics or bias, and it doesn't seem like the laws themselves are biased against Israel in particular, either.
Okay that fair, but it's a rough consensus among political entities, each with their own flaws. Some are authoritarian, some don't share Western values, some represent countries with deeply ingrained antisemitism. It's not a consensus among impartial ethicists or something.
If ethical systems of all shapes and sizes sampled from around the world, all agree that actions are ethically questionable, shouldn't that give the actor even more pause than a small minority of them?
There's no evidence the opposition is driven by antisemitism. The large amount of jewish people who oppose the Israeli genocide of Palestinians should give a clue that judaism isn't the issue here. Russia is trying to do the same thing to Ukraine as Israel is trying to do with Palestine, and receiving equal condemnation worldwide. Only they exclaim "russophobia!" when criticized, rather than "antisemitism!"
If people who support an immoral attack are military combatants, then clearly we should consider that the vast majority of Israel's population, who support the current genocide, are military combatants.
Of course, this is completely insane logic and I don't believe so at all. Killing a civilian is abhorrent, whether that civilian might support an atrocity or not, as long as they weren't actually involved in it.
Again, the same argument can be made for the other side. Two things can be true at the same time; both Hamas and Israel do/did terrible things and its tiring that people defend one side no matter what.
Their [the Palestinans] story is they didn't have a choice once others violated it and they had to defend themselves, and they make a very strong case.
Obviously you find Christian countries in general (and in number, they are the largest faction in the UN general assembly) ... extremely opposed to any enforcement, because they blatantly violated international law again and again and again.
Well, the first thing you do is stop doing it if you're the one killing the civilians. If your own leaders are doing it, you try to stop them, especially as a citizen of a democratic country. If someone else in the world is doing it, you try to engage the UN and other international bodies to help, hopefully with a diplomatic solution. Failing all this, and assuming it's your people being killed, you will have to take up arms and defend.
This is roughly what the Palestinians did when they found themselves attacked by the Israeli settlers, back at the formation of Israel. It's important to always remember that in this conflict, Israel has been the first aggressor, not the defense. And since Israel had the full support of the UN, and later of the USA, the Palestinians really couldn't spend too much time waiting for those to fix their problem (though they are actively engaged even today).
Now, for Israel to stop these attacks on their own people, especially before October 7th, the solution is actually relatively simple: stop attacking the people of Palestine, and they will stop attacking back. Recognize Palestine as a state, including a corridor to link Gaza and the West Bank, give back the territory stolen by illegal colonists in the West Bank, stop blockading their borders. Condition this on a free cross-Palestinian election, maybe even explicitly blocking Hamas from it.
The problem is that Israel's goal is not simply to stop the attacks on their civilians. Israel's goal, as many top leaders in Israel, including Netanyahu, openly declare, is to expand Israel's borders while excluding Palestinians from being Israeli citizens. Netanyahu has been supporting Hamas for more than a decade, and has many times openly admitted to this, as a great ally in ensuring that a two-state solution will never be reached.
So, what if a few Israeli citizens are killed every year? That's a price that Israel's government is willing to pay to keep the status quo and not get their hands too dirty with Palestinian blood. Of course, Oct 7th changed that: it challenged them and showed they are not all powerful, and that is not acceptable, so the people of Gaza had to be punished.
And just one final note - Israel performed two October 7th-level attacks just in the last twenty years - 2004's Operation Cast Led (1200+ civilians killed), and 2014's Operation Protective Edge (2200+ civilians killed). Except of course those were much worse, since Israeli bombs also destroyed many thousands of homes, displacing tens of thousands of civilians atop those killed.
This war is not being fought to simply stop Hamas. That much is absolutely evident, from so many public declarations from virtually every member of Israel's government. The purpose of this war is, again, to punish all the people of Gaza for their colective guilt; and, it is also fought to actually retake some of their land for illegal Israeli settlers.
The reason this is clear is also because killing Hamas achieves nothing, if you also destroy so much of the livelihood (and lives) of those living there. Even if Israel kills each and every last Hamas operative, in 5 years time at the worse, there will be new fighters taking their place, even more radical: what other reaction would anyone expect from people whose families you murdered, whose house you destroyed, whose entire future you've erased?
And again, the solution to all of this was (and still is, in the long term) to stop killing the people of Palestine and stealing more and more of their land. If Israel just accepted the victory they've already achieved in their conquests in the 1940s and later, and allowed Palestine to be an independent, functional country, as almost achieved in the Oslo accords (before Israel sabotaged that process), then Palestinians would have also stopped attacking Israel, a long time ago.
And please remember that Netanyahu has prouded himself for a long time in his ability to prevent a two-state solution, and considers Hamas a good ally in this goal. When, after this war, a new terrorist organization rises up instead of Hamas as a reaction to the slaughter, you can bet that Netanyahu or another similar Israeli politician will again favor them and seek to allow them to control Gaza, so that no dialog can ever happen and they get to keep the people of Gaza living in inhuman conditions.
Anyone who sincerely wants more lives to saved can only want a two-state solution to be achieved as soon as possible. The killing will quickly stop once that truly happens. The only reason to not believe that is if you follow the far-right Israeli position that sees Palestinians as sub-human beasts.
> Israel really, really wants a two-state solution.
Please find one quote on the matter from one Israeli politician currently in power that doesn't directly oppose this. I'll wait.
Also, stop insisting people are racist. Neither Syria nor Jordan have killed >35,000 Palestinians in the last 5 months, so we are not currently discussing them, we're discussing the country that is doing it, today.
Edit: let me start at the very top with Netanyahu's position [0]:
> The prime minister added that “everyone knows that I am the one who for decades blocked the establishment of a Palestinian state that would endanger our existence.”
Also see this article [3] about how Netanyahu and the head of the Mossad, Barnea, have been encouraging the continued funding of Hamas specifically to achieve this goal.
And from the more moderate president [1]:
> What I want to urge is against just saying two-state solution. Why? Because there is an emotional chapter here that must be dealt with.
National security minister Ben Gvir [2]:
> The war presents an “opportunity to concentrate on encouraging the migration of the residents of Gaza,” Ben Gvir told reporters and members of his far-right Otzma Yehudit party, calling such a policy “a correct, just, moral and humane solution.”
> “We cannot withdraw from any territory we are in in the Gaza Strip. Not only do I not rule out Jewish settlement there, I believe it is also an important thing,” he said.
Finance minister Smotrich [also 2]:
> The “correct solution” to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict is “to encourage the voluntary migration of Gaza’s residents to countries that will agree to take in the refugees,” Smotrich told members of his Religious Zionism party, predicting that “Israel will permanently control the territory of the Gaza Strip,” including through the establishment of settlements.
> What do you call telling civilians you are coming to allow them to safely leave before a bombing starts? That's taking extreme measures to prevent loss of civilian lives, even at the expense of military goals.
First of all Israel hasn't called civilians in most cases, hence why 10s of thousands of them have been killed in bombings.
Secondly, Israel is not just killing civilians via bombings. It has cut off water and electricity and is causing a famine by preventing aid entering the area. It has destroyed Gaza's health infrastructure completely: countless people with treatable diseases are dying needlessly.
> Any random person on the street is more likely than not a sympathizer that Oct 7 was justified. On Sept 12, 2001 in the US that would be enough to call you an enemy, for sure.
This is a disgusting attempt to try and justify the murder of civilians, and you should feel ashamed.
The problem people have with Israel is not that they're killing Hamas fighters or that IDF soldiers are being killed. It's that they're killing civilians (amongst other war crimes and crimes against humanity).
It's a completely different situation.
Edit: just to flesh out my position here a bit. Civilian deaths are unavoidable in war. But the attacker _must_ take measures to prevent that as much as possible. Israel have not. In fact they've done the opposite.