Let's assume for the sake of argument that Israel has decided to starve out Gazans in order to end the war. You have the choice to save them by offering a better solution. What is it?
"Not X!" is a copout.
Unfortunately for that perspective, finding a good solution means diving in and understanding the conflict from the Israeli perspective.
It's not. I can be against the wrong thing because it's wrong. Following your line of argument, I could propose using eugenics to end inherited diseases and sterilise all affected. You disagree? Well, offer a better solution then! What is it??
X is "What do Israelis do about the fact of an extremely hostile population of Arabs on their border who is dedicated to their destruction? Some are nice, sure, but most overwhelmingly want them and their children dead."
Ok, go. Two states? Palestinians overwhelmingly want one state. Build a wall? UN hates it. Leave them alone to do as they will? Israel ethnically cleansed Gaza... of Jews* and that didn't work.
> What do Israelis do about the fact of an extremely hostile population of [Palestinians] on their border who is dedicated to their destruction? Some are nice, sure, but most overwhelmingly want them and their children dead...
Before we answer that: what do Palestinians do about the fact of an extremely hostile population of israelis on their border who is dedicated to their destruction? Some are nice, sure, but most overwhelmingly want Palestinians and their children dead.
Both of those concerns are covered at the link above, starting with the words, "Everything else...", because both of those concerns are less important than stopping war crimes and ethnic cleansing.
> What should Israel do?
Please take the time to read the post I linked above, and answer there, as it answers this question.
While you do that, consider expanding the question: "What should israel and Palestine do", since the 2 warring countries and their peoples are equal, have equal rights, and deserve equal protection.
Before we answer that: what do Palestinians do about the fact of an extremely hostile population of israelis on their border who is dedicated to their destruction? Some are nice, sure, but most overwhelmingly
Why before we answer that? Why not just answer the question directly? Again, Before we answer that is a diversion.
But ok, for the sake of argument, let's grant that Israel despises Palestinians and if Israel stopped the aggression then there would be peace and harmony and 2 states and the border could be as friendly and porous as between the US and Canada.
Nevertheless, Israel believes that if it stopped fighting, the Israeli people would be overrun and slaughtered. Since you earnestly want to save Palestinian lives, and that is more important to you than hating on Israel, you have to say something to stop the fighting. Right here and now you have the ear of the nation of Israel, so you say what?
So, again, if you have no more answer to the conundrum than repeating over and over Israel bad then you are unserious.
> Israel believes that if it stopped fighting, the Israeli people would be overrun and slaughtered.
So does every genocidal perpetrator. It is not a surprise that someone committing ethnic cleansing or genocide will attempt to justify it as self-defense.
Fortunately, as explained at the linked post above, a unilateral claim of self-defense is not a serious justification for ethnic cleansing and genocide.
> Right here and now you have the ear of the nation of Israel, so you say what?
'The ear of' the perpetrator of ethnic cleansing and genocide is an unserious concept. Did the allies convince hitler to stop his holocaust by 'having his ear'? If you think so, then now is a good opportunity for you yourself to suggest how you would convince israel to stop their ethnic cleansing and genocide. You have the ear of the nation of Israel! What do you suggest? Remember:
- All people are equal, so your proposal cannot prioritize israeli interests, needs, or safety over those of Palestinians, or vice versa.
- Ethnic cleansing and genocide are bad no matter what, and worse than anything else anybody can do, and thus stopping it is more important than israel's military or political goals.
- "We will stop perpetrating crimes against humanity if..." cannot legally be used as a bargaining chip.
- As a good heuristic: if your proposal is serious, it would likely be able to gain majority support in the UNGA.
Your serious proposal is eagerly awaited. If you have no more answer to the conundrum than repeating over and over violate international law, commit crimes against humanity then you are unserious.
> it would likely be able to gain majority support in the UNGA
LOL. The UNGA that in 2022 issued 15 resolutions against Israel versus 6 against Russia, 1 against North Korea and 0 against China who is actually committing genocide, and is comprised of 22 Arab Muslim nations among others who, like you, think this is eminently reasonable and not at all obsessive? They wouldn't know a solution if it bit them.
Well, if you had a solution, you would have stated it by now. War it is, then, even though people like you will completely unseriously call it genocide. You have a lot of company, unfortunately.
Your opinion of the UN, as one person of billions, is noted, and your sharing it is appreciated. That said, their credibility exceeds yours, so your judgement of them is a bit moot.
Now, if you have no more answer to the conundrum than repeating over and over, violate international law, commit crimes against humanity, then you are unserious.
Perhaps the UN has more credibility than I. And yet, the UN has not formally accused Israel of genocide. I could write a similar patronizing "Your opinion is noted, but people with more credibility disagree with you" but I shall not. You should then however, by your own logic, concede that your accusations are without merit. While Francesca Albanese, special raconteur on Palestine has accused Israel of genocide, the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Netherlands, Israel, Hungary, Albania and Argentina have officially lodged complaints over her overt anti-Semitic comments. She is not impartial, as is her mandate. Recently, the United States even sanctioned her, personally. She has credibility only with similar persons such as yourself.
Go ahead and have the last word. I will read it carefully.
We likely saw the same language being used in support of the holocaust, both from the perpetrators and sympathizers. I like to think we're all for not repeating that. So, no serious proposals from you, it seems.
I'll refer you back here for guidance on the matter:
In support of the Holocaust, we saw people attacking Jews as we do today. We saw the Arabs of Palestine allying with Nazis to smear and attack Jews, as we do today. As today, we had their Western enablers, such as yourself, accusing Jews - oops, I mean Zionists - of all kinds of horrible things. As today, we saw genuinely intelligent people agreeing with each other that Jews are just the worst.
The only difference between then and today is that Jews have an army. People like you hate that.
Occupying powers have a legal responsibility to provide aid to civilians in territories they occupy. They also have a legal responsibility to figure out the logistics. They also cannot commit war crimes. So the solution is for israel to do what they are legally required to do, and stop doing what they are legally proscribed from doing.
Everything else (hostage return, feelings of safety, etc) is:
1. Less important, and
2. Equally applicable to both israel and palestine
Finding a good solution means diving in and understanding the conflict beyond israel's perspective: There is simply no legal or moral justification for the atrocities we see here. None whatsoever.
This is a gross oversimplification. Hamas has used aid drops as attack points and military refueling opportunities. The idea that this conflict has a good guy bad guy and is simple has done more disservice to an outcome than almost anything else.
That is a valid opinion, and I also have an equally valid opinion, that it is a gross undersimplification. Our two valid opinions cancel each other out! :)
> Hamas has used aid drops as attack points and military refueling opportunities.
This may be true, or it may be false (israel forbids journalists from reporting from Gaza and often attacks them) but it is included in the "everything else" referred to in the above post. Nothing Hamas does detracts from israel's obligations I mentioned. That's why it's not a "gross oversimplification".
Besides, israel has been systematically using aid points as attack points.
So because it's a copout, let's go and do X which will make it impossible to then do Y and Z that may have been far preferable than X.
That's not a copout, sure, but what is it? I suppose the polite, technical term is "opportunity cost"? Kill tens of thousands of people: ensure you can never make peace with their relatives.
That would probably require some serious infrastructure to set up secure food distribution points, which I'm assuming isn't easy because the locations have to change as the evacuation areas also constantly changimg. From the video it looks like they only have some berms and small fences so I'd imagine it's a dangerous security situation.
Although having way more food/distribution points might help reduce the violent mobs.
Do you realise how incredibly cynical you sound? We're not discussing the finer details of a logistical challenge here, but the fate of people starving to death. People that by and large are innocent.
Also: It'd require infrastructure that did exist before the IDF destroyed it. To feed people that weren't hungry before Israel blocked humanitarian aid. Don't reverse the guilt.
