1, this is a human issue above all. One does not have to be Jewish or non-Jewish to recognize the extreme human toll being exacted on Gaza. When I see bombs collapse buildings of innocent residents, hospitals invaded with entire ICU units dying, mass starvation due to a blockade, and a death toll with over 40% being children; I think all of this warrants comparisons with industrial mass murder. Just because it is being termed “self-defense” or a “war” does not make it any less blameworthy. Let’s look at the real human loss here: it’s mostly innocent people in an urban area being killed, where a large percentage of the population is children.
2, the terming of hamas as a “fanatic death cult” appears quite an extreme label. Hamas is more comparable to a political party with political, social, and military wings. In fact, it’s quite clear that Hamas’s brands itself as part of the resistance against occupation; and the motives for recent attacks lie in the Israeli aggression committed against Palestinians in the West Bank this summer and seeking to release Palestinian prisoners, many who were children, women, and held without formal charges. Even comparing how many hostages who have been released talked about how they were treated by Hamas, with the way Palestinian prisoners were treated by Israeli captors, shows that Hamas is not merely a “fanatic death cult”, given they treated prisoners with a degree of humanity they didn’t need to.
It’s also unclear that removing Hamas will fix the situation; after all, before Hamas, the PLO was labeled terrorists and dealt with brutally. In a resistance situation, the occupying force will typically seek to discredit and derail any process that threatens its control.
3, a desire to end occupation must be one that can be accepted by the occupied people. None of the peace process deals appeared to be honest efforts from the Israeli camp because the ultimate end goal of the occupying force has been to take control of “greater Israel” without the people who are living there.
I would propose a way to move forward for Israel would be a one-state solution: to recognize Palestinians as equal people with human rights, give them citizenship in a democratic rule, and allow them to return to their land. All of this without any military occupations. Because it is clear that a two-state solution has been dead for quite a while, given the occupying force has no intentions to end its theft of land in the West Bank.
> would propose a way to move forward for Israel would be a one-state solution: to recognize Palestinians as equal people with human rights, give them citizenship in a democratic rule, and allow them to return to their land. All of this without any military occupations.
I second this. South Africa managed to end apartheid without the need to split in a white-people country and a black-people country. The same can be done in Israel too.
>South Africa managed to end apartheid without the need to split in a white-people country and a black-people country. The same can be done in Israel too.
And decades later, South Africa is probably one of the most dangerous countries to live in, where people install flamethrowers on their cars because violent carjackings are so common and people who have any kind of money live in gated compounds with heavy security. South Africa doesn't look too much like a success story to me, and certainly doesn't look like it's completely eliminated a form of apartheid, it's just replaced apartheid enforced by the national government with an apartheid at the local levels.
South Africa's inequality and resultant crime can't be blamed on a one-state solution. The peaceful transition from Apartheid to an inclusive democracy absolutely was a success story in terms of overall wellbeing.
The remaining inequality (especially along racial lines), government corruption, and violent crime are terrible problems, yes, but pale in comparison to the dehumanising codified violence of Apartheid.
Are you seriously proposing that a two-state solution would have served the people of South Africa as a whole better in the long run? I think the resultant inequality would have been far worse. Do you have another proposal?
(Edit to point out that I'm not implying that what worked for South Africa can or can't work for Israel. This comment is about South Africa.)
(As an aside) I know this community prefers not to focus on weak arguments and avoid flame wars (no pun intended), but I have to point out blatant fear mongering:
> where people install flamethrowers on their cars because violent carjackings are so common
I wouldn't repeat this as fact. The device referenced was a short-lived gimmick from 1998, four years after South Africa's first democratic election. It is in no way a reflection of reality.
Yes, carjackings are a problem in South Africa, but repeating the flamethrower story reads like FUD.
>Are you seriously proposing that a two-state solution would have served the people of South Africa as a whole better in the long run?
I'm not proposing anything; I'm just pointing out that South Africa doesn't look like some kind of success story to me, but maybe to locals it is if it's genuinely better than what came before.
Fair enough. I can imagine how South Africa looks from the outside, but our experience does not match all the doom and gloom. I'd encourage anyone to visit - there is absolutely no risk of getting fried by someone's car flamethrower, at least.
1. You've made the comparison between a (if we're being honest here), in the grand scale of things, rather insignificant military conflict between two parties, and industrial scale genocide. So I find the framing problematic. I would like this war to end just as much as you (probably more since I actually have something to lose here). But I don't see an alternative as long as Hamas is in power.
2. OK, let's agree to disagree.
3. I think a more accurate description would be that hardliners on both sides torpedoed it at various points in time. But sure, occupation.
So your solution for two groups of people who can't seem to stop killing each other is to put them together under one state? Sorry, but I think I'll politely pass :)
(And continue to hope for a peaceful, two state solution)
I wouldn't call forcibly displacing 2.3M citizens an insignificant conflict, in the face of 55 Hamas commanders that been claimed to have been killed vs 23K+ citizens, it is more similar than not, especially when one side has little military capability vs one of the strongest militaries in the world.
As to a one-state solution, given that this is what worked in Northern Ireland and in Spain, as well as South Africa, it does seem reasonable.
As with Germany, perhaps allocating some spending to aiding a populace rather than fostering a new generation of vendetta by bombing them, would bring the two sides together? People who have a better QOL are less likely to be violent.
Civillians and those who do not want to take part in the fighting have been allowed to move south for their own safety while the IDF deals with the numerous underground tunnels from which Hamas operates. This is not an ethnic cleansing (though easy to portray it as one), and if they're not allowed to go back when this is over then I'm willing to put down my Israeli passport and call it quits (I will cerainly vote against any politician who makes such a suggestion).
The conflict is insignificant in the sense that hundreds of thousands have been killed and displaced in other conflicts raging in the middle east, which has been largely ignored by the international community and the "ceasefire" crowd. Not to mention the fact that Hamas's ministry of health counts all deaths as civillians, while in truth a lot were probably combatants, and this is then treated as gospel by the international community. This is a major source of frustration among Israelis, and in my opinion an obstacle to having an honest discussion around this.
Regarding a one state solution - up to those living here. Currently, it doesn't seem to be a realistic solution, will probably be rejected by the majority, and will not end the fighting anyway.
Finally, regarding aid, Hamas received tons of money. It just chose to use it for military purposes instead of bettering the lives of their people. The tunnels alone cost an estimated 150$ million (or 200-300$ per meter). We can only imagine how much better life in Gaza would have been if this was spent otherwise.
>>>The conflict is insignificant in the sense that hundreds of thousands have been killed and displaced in other conflicts raging in the middle east, which has been largely ignored by the international community and the "ceasefire" crowd.
We are talking about the displacement of 2.3m people, so rather more. As to being allowed to go back- to what? Schools and hospitals have been demolished, there's no justification for that. Clear the building and move on, I'm struggling to understand why you would destroy a school etc.
The conclusion you might come to is that with nothing left there, Palestinians 'should move into the Sinai' aka displacement.
To add to this, denying access to medical supplies is not humane (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/5/israel-and-who-in-o... This is the WHO complaining here) and appears to be encouraging diseases to spread, killing more of the population.
As you have implied, this conflict extends well back before Oct, we could look at several incidents which have been ignored such as the 2018 Gaza border peaceful protests where Palestinians were massacred (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%932019_Gaza_border_...) With incidents like that, denying access to basic human rights like water and electricity (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_...), this exacerbates the problems there massively. These are things which can be fixed from the Israeli side why aren't they?
You may well doubt the veracity of statements from Israel on an endgame plan. I would suggest, if you live there, talk to Palestinians in the West Bank, to appreciate the full extent of the impact Israeli policy (https://www.vox.com/world-politics/2023/11/22/23972908/pales... and illegal settlement in the West Bank) is having.
I appreciate your principled stance on the conflict, but if the time comes for you to hand in your passport, it will be too late by then.
You are not arguing honestly by claiming it's 55 "commanders" vs [inflated number] civilians.
It's very likely the 2:1 ratio of civilian:Hamas is correct given the intense ground battle and that the 17-19K death toll clearly is includes thousands of Hamas fighters. The ratio of civilian deaths for similar urban wars is much worse.
Ok, that's fair to argue over the figures. The point I was making was that displacing the entire Gazan population is not insignificant, and more indicative of ethnic cleansing than a small conflict. As to the other points about fostering integration rather than segregation, those go here unanswered as they are valid.
2, the terming of hamas as a “fanatic death cult” appears quite an extreme label. Hamas is more comparable to a political party with political, social, and military wings. In fact, it’s quite clear that Hamas’s brands itself as part of the resistance against occupation; and the motives for recent attacks lie in the Israeli aggression committed against Palestinians in the West Bank this summer and seeking to release Palestinian prisoners, many who were children, women, and held without formal charges. Even comparing how many hostages who have been released talked about how they were treated by Hamas, with the way Palestinian prisoners were treated by Israeli captors, shows that Hamas is not merely a “fanatic death cult”, given they treated prisoners with a degree of humanity they didn’t need to.
It’s also unclear that removing Hamas will fix the situation; after all, before Hamas, the PLO was labeled terrorists and dealt with brutally. In a resistance situation, the occupying force will typically seek to discredit and derail any process that threatens its control.
3, a desire to end occupation must be one that can be accepted by the occupied people. None of the peace process deals appeared to be honest efforts from the Israeli camp because the ultimate end goal of the occupying force has been to take control of “greater Israel” without the people who are living there.
I would propose a way to move forward for Israel would be a one-state solution: to recognize Palestinians as equal people with human rights, give them citizenship in a democratic rule, and allow them to return to their land. All of this without any military occupations. Because it is clear that a two-state solution has been dead for quite a while, given the occupying force has no intentions to end its theft of land in the West Bank.