Technically they killed more than 28 total people, although I agree with the notion that whether it's 28 or 40 doesn't really move the needle very much.
I don't really feel like clearing up all the half-truths or outright lies here, but I wanted to just call out one:
> with the ultimate goal of reclaiming land from the river to the sea, per their own charter.
The "from the river to the sea" is the language in the Likud charter, the party ruling Israel and dropping thousands of 2-ton bombs on Gaza right now. The popular chant "from the river to the sea palestine will be free" is a direct response to that. I'm unaware of Hamas' charter using the "from the river to the sea" language, although I'm open for correction here because I have not read the entire charter.
Are you claiming ignorance of the fact that the Hamas charter originally called for the liquidation of Israel? This is common knowledge. Granted, they have revised it recently to tone down the genocidal language, but I don't think anybody should be deceived about what their intentions are.
"The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."
> There is no land dispute between Isreal and Gaza
Of course there's a land dispute! Something like 70% of Gazans are direct descendants of refugees, or refugees themselves, of the original 1948 Nakba, which was literally when the Palestinians were violently forced out of their homes and driven into perpetual refugee status. Now those that live in Gaza, even before October 7, live under a perpetual blockade which quite literally restricts the calories entering the region, along with every other necessary resource (gas, steel, etc).
How could one, knowing that context, characterize it as "not a land dispute"? Really what you mean is that there are no Israeli settlements in Gaza right now. Which is true but besides the point, and also ignores that there quite literally were settlements, but Israel forced the zionist* settlers out when they withdrew their physical occupation of Gaza all those years ago (replacing the physical occupation with the blockades, border restrictions, policies of shooting anyone approaching the border wall with sniper rifles, etc)
* I know this term is loaded with a lot of baggage, in part because many seem to think it's a dogwhistle for "the jews", but it's the most accurate descriptor for the philosophy motivating these settlers. Settling the west bank is wrong, but settling gaza is next-level crazy. You have to be extremely ideologically possessed to want to establish an Israeli settlement there because it sure as hell isn't a nice place to live.
I have no love for Islam (nor hatred) but Jews have always been considered a protected class under Islamic law. Which I mention to bring up the point that if we had an organic Jewish state that arose naturally (i.e. via voluntary accumulation of land via purchases, etc, as opposed to theft which is how the state of Israel was formed), I see no reason why they couldn't maintain healthy relations with the surrounding states.
I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention that the modern phenomenon of violent Islamic terrorism did not exist a century ago. In my view it's basically a direct result of Israeli & Western foreign policy. It's really hard to take land from people and in some cases commit literal massacres (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre) and not end up with a significant portion of the affected population turning to terrorism.
> I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention that the modern phenomenon of violent Islamic terrorism did not exist a century ago.
That is incredibly untrue. The roots of this conflict don't go back to 1948 or 1967. They go back to 1918 when the Ottoman empire fell. Prior to that jews and arabs lived in relative peace in the same area-- until the allies overthrew the Ottomans leaving a power vaccuum and uncertainty about the future, which lead to frequent civil violence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Nebi_Musa_riots
What happened in 1948 to trigger all its famous events? The British finally withdrew from the area they called Mandatory Palestine and left the inhabitants to figure it out for themselves. But by then both sides had a lot of distrust for each other from decades of tension. And the British knew they were living a shitshow behind since dealing with said shitshow as precisely what they had bored of.
> On 7 and 8 March [1920], demonstrations took place in all cities of Palestine, shops were closed and many Jews were attacked. Attackers carried slogans such as "Death to Jews" or "Palestine is our land and the Jews are our dogs!"
It is really important to note that the roots of this conflict are over 100 years old, and the reason it didn't exist before is there was a authoritarian empire operating the area keeping the peace and keeping self determination totally off the table for everyone but the Ottoman's Turks.
Islamic terrorism has roots in Arab nationalism that has risen after collapse of Ottoman Empire. Sure, you can see the fall of Ottoman Empire as a result of Western foreign policy, but even late Ottoman Empire was not such a peaceful place, and committed several well-described genocides.
Since then every country in Middle East existed in one of two modes:
> but there is no right whatsoever to blockade Gaza's access by sea
This by the way is an important fact to bring up when the claim that "Israel left Gaza many years ago and the problem didn't improve". In actuality, they withdrew their occupying army but still kept up a blockade, including a literal cap to the number of calories allowed to enter the country, which I can only interpret as a population control measure. That's of course in addition to all the other stuff they kept doing, but that's probably a discussion for another day.
I'd note that the GP was careful to specifically mention Israel having withdrawn its military from Gaza which is true, so I'm not disputing the veracity of their claim on that specifically.
That is a weird tangent to take. The population size in Gaza nearly doubled in the last 20 years, reaching approximately 2 million (). If the sea blockade is a population control measure, it's a highly ineffective one. Did ever you stop to consider that it's, maybe, I don't know, to stop them from bringing in stuff to shoot at us?
Did the UK blockade Ireland when the IRA was routinely conducting terror attacks in Northern Ireland? Did Spain institute controls on the amount of calories that could be imported into its Basque region when the separatists there were routinely committing acts of terror?
Some behaviors are simply unacceptable - and the current blockade has been found to be illegal by the UN time and time again, or at least would have been without US vetos.
declassified documents revealed how in a 1987 meeting British officials raised the prospect of erecting a physical border along the entire frontier between Northern Ireland and the Republic
The IRA is a good example of how to deal with terrorism. You don't compromise. You don't have Northern Ireland back to the Irish and bow to terrorism. Instead you strike hard and eventually they'll make peace.
The Gaza blockade is not about the border wall. It's about preventing any access into or out of Gaza over sea or over the Egyptian border.
The equivalent would have been to erect a border wall, then send the British navy to intercept any ship going into or out of Ireland, and signing agreements with other EU countries to ensure they enforce the same terms for air travel. This is what Israel is doing to Gaza.
> The IRA is a good example of how to deal with terrorism. You don't compromise
I'm Irish. That's not an accurate description. There very much was a compromise, on all sides. One that both sides in the current conflict could learn from.
Well they starved them during the potatoe famine. All this who started the tit for tat is futile.
Stable government in power is needed. Which then can reduce violence by agreements stepping back in lockstep from violence.
Pre requisite for that are stable societies not ramping up for loopdeformation showdowns.
The IRA was a terrorist group, not the official government of Ireland. During WW2 the Allies did in fact blockade Germany.
The blockade is legitimate and justified. The Palestinians do things like take water pipes sent as aid - which were allowed to be imported - dig them up and turn them into rockets. What do you think they'd do if they were able to import more freely?
> take water pipes sent as aid - which were allowed to be imported - dig them up and turn them into rockets
This is not true. They did dig up pipes to make rockets, but they were the pipes from Israeli settlements. Settlements that Israel destroyed so Palestinians couldn’t inhabit them
> What do you think they'd do if they were able to import more freely?
Be more at peace, feel like they matter, like the world cares about them and that they can be a part of it without having to ask for permission from Israel
If anything, the end of the blockade would probably bring more peace and stability to everyone in the region
The IRA was also not being fought by the Irish government.
Blockades are an act of war, so yes, it's not unexpected or illegal that the Allies were blockading Germany while at war. But Israel is claiming not to be at war with Palestine (or at least was before the current invasion). They in fact keep claiming that military occupation of Palestine ended 20 years ago.
The fact that Hamas can turn water pipes into rockets is somewhat irrelevant. The obvious fact is that, as long as it is impossible for Palestinians to live a prosperous life because of this occupation, some part of their population will want to retaliate. Peace in the region can't start without ending this blockade. Israel's Iron Dome can already protect from huge numbers of Palestinian rockets. It is generally the Palestinians who are defenseless in the face of Israeli attacks (as can be seen in the current invasion, as well as past protests and retaliation).
So instead of Hamas digging tunnels to protect themselves they could be digging bomb shelters? Or should they not have a duty to protect their own people. They don’t even provide education or healthcare to their own population instead they use that money to line their pockets and build pipe bombs. How many Hamas billionaires are there?
In this context the UN is simply the governing body of international law. It holds no mechanism of enforcement and is wowed to non-interference and impartiality. When the UN finds a blockade illegal it simply means that it violates the international laws it self has set. You can think of this like a supreme court ruling inside your own jurisdiction, just between states as opposed to people.
There is no bias here, just law and interpretations on these laws.
If this were the security council that would be another issue however.
The "blockade" was Israel protecting its borders once Hamas seized control. And it's not a blockade as one side borders Egypt.
For much of the time, Israel allowed goods through the tough restrictions on what types of materials were allowed in started once Hamas started tunneling into Israel to commit attacks.
Very recently, Israel increased significantly the number of work permits for Gazans to work in Israel in the mistaken belief that Hamas and Gazans were getting comfortable with improved economy and this would gradually lead to deradicalisation and eventual peace. The other estimated the humanity of Hamas who it turns out were actually planning barbarism.
> And it's not a blockade as one side borders Egypt.
The fact that Israel has an agreement with Egypt governing that border crossing and preventing imports other than as approved by Israel undermines the "its not a blockade because one border touches Egypt" argument.
> Leaders have also said they will kill Jews anywhere in the world, btw
I'm curious, is your claim that one of the current leaders of Hamas said this? If so I'd love to read the quote.
> If Israel doesn't take out Hamas, it is entirely unclear if it will be able to
prevent them from carrying out more attacks in the future.
One counterargument is that taking out Hamas, if they succeed (I'm not bullish), is likely to just result in another possibly more radical group rising to power. Doubly so when we've seen something like 20,000 casualties in the last two months, overwhelmingly civilian, which is very obviously going to breed another generation that is full of hatred and vengeance.
Anyway, moving on I frankly think it should be possible for Israel to prevent another October 7 even in a universe where Hamas is still in power. They have enormous technological and economic superiority as well as the full backing of the US government. It seems like dysfunctional organizational dynamics are a problem here, because Israel had all the intel it could possibly have needed to see this attack coming and stop it, but it didn't. So personally I think looking internally rather than externally is the most likely way to secure the safety of the Israeli populace into the future.
If you want to see what Hamas says, or the tone of a segment of regional discussions, I encourage you to use your favorite translator on https://www.aljazeera.net/. The arabic-language views are not always shared on the english-language version. The blog section is particularly aggressive at times.
For the most inflammatory statements by leaders you can look at https://www.memri.org/, whose translation choices are sometimes disputed, and who is accused of being some sort of CIA-backed saboteur for choosing the worst statements without enough context, but I think can give you an idea.
I'm familiar with Memri, although it seems like less of a CIA op and more of an Israeli / American Zionist op. Then again, there might be a lot of overlap between the two :P (Wiki claims that it's founded by "Israeli ex-intelligence officer Yigal Carmon and Israeli-American political scientist Meyrav Wurmser")
I'm no fan of Hamas. Although speaking personally, I will never condemn any attacks of theirs on Israeli military installations or IDF tanks/soldiers. But any civilian killed intentionally is a war crime. I was really saddened to hear about the attack in Jerusalem where two Hamas gunmen killed a couple of civilians. To me that stuff is totally unjustifiable.
I wish Hamas would give up dreams of reclaiming the originally stolen Palestinian land; it's not right that the land was taken but for better or for worse Israel is here to stay. I would like to see them fight a defensive war, with any offensive operations (i.e. crossing into Israel) focused only on military targets. In reality that's unlikely to ever happen, but if Hamas just did that then they would have the indisputable moral highground, instead of the current reality where in absolute numbers they commit way less evil than Israel but are clearly full of darkness themselves.
If Hamas would take up a defensive stance, there would never be any conflict. The only reason Israel attacks has been in response to terrorism.
You seem to view Hamas as just an extreme pro-Palestinian faction that's gone too far, but actually they're a terrorism group in every sense of the word, not tomorrow's leaders. (See video of Hamas throwing Fatah members off a rooftop one by one to their deaths, as one of numerous examples, besides that USA, EU, UK, Canada ... all class it was a terrorist organisation)
> If Hamas would take up a defensive stance, there would never be any conflict. The only reason Israel attacks has been in response to terrorism.
Proof that this claim is not true is the occupation of West Bank which has submitted itself to Israeli rule without violent opposition. I am sure that you have heard the long list of grievances of its population against the Israeli occupation a million times by now, so I will spare you from going much into it here (military law for Palestinians, imprisonment of children, night raids just to show force and keep IDF soldiers trained etc).
Additionally, using the "terrorism" label is fairly meaningless when the label is assigned by one's enemy that keeps the land under occupation. An enemy that has an overwhelming technological, economical and military advantage that makes a direct confrontation impossible. While Israeli airplanes and drones are leveling residential buildings from distance, they are calling shooting of primitive rockets and guerrilla-style warfare terrorism. Every occupying power in the history of humanity, ever since the word "terrorism" has been introduced into our vocabulary, has called every resistance group terrorists. Also, the countries that you named that have publicly proclaimed Hamas a terrorist groups are all close NATO allies that mostly follow the lead of USA, which in turn strongly supports Israel's position.
We can all agree that Oct 7 attack of Hamas was horrible and that attrocities were committed during which a little under 400 soldiers and a little over 800 civillians were murdered. But if you will call that terrorism, then you have to be logically consistent and call the subsequent revenge-bombing of Gaza (in order to punish Gazans and Hamas alike for striking) what it is, given the death toll, siege conditions, genocidal rhetoric of Israel's leadership, and the devastation inflicted even just in the first few weeks, before the ground offensive even began. About 4000 children were dead before the ground invasion. Children. Children are not Hamas fighters who invaded Israel. Call Hamas whatever you want, but be consistent and just when applying labels.
Can't give anything but acceptance of civilian casualties when the Hamas gameplan is literally to attack from civilian areas.
At the end of the day, Hamas is deliberately putting civilian lives in the line of fire, and are wholly to blame for this. Chastising Israel for deaths caused by this strategy is as good as legitimizing attacks from civilian territories, and will only increase this in the future.
This is considering that Israel had done a degree due diligence in harm mitigation (roof knocking, evacuations). Contrast this with Hamas, which deliberately attacks civilian areas.
See my reply here for why the claim that Israel is actually trying to prevent civilian deaths (except to the point at which USA stops using its veto power to protect it, at least) is not taken seriously by almost anyone other than Israel's staunchest supporters: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38589626 . The level of devastation and the amount of killing that has been inflicted on Gaza by Israel so far deserves chastising regardless of one's opinion on viable military strategy — and this is not just a personal opinion of a random guy on the internet; refer to UN General Assembly resolutions (such as the one passed yesterday, Tuesday Dec 12) for what the vast majority of the world thinks about it.
West Bank is the best example of how Israel treats Palestinian civilians when there is no armed conflict. Hamas cannot be used as an excuse in that territory. To remove the reason for violent resistance to exist, there needs to be a viable alternative provided that would take away the reason to keep fighting. When Gazans look at the West Bank, they do not see a viable alternative but a life of enslavement, and that gives Hamas an easy way to recruit from a brutally oppressed population that feels that they have nothing to lose anyway.
Has Israel, being the overwhelmingly dominant force in the territory that holds all the cards, made an effort to provide that alternative? The evidence presented in [1] seems to suggest the contrary — that Netanyahu explicitly supported Hamas in order to keep violent resistance active and prevent Palestine uniting behind the peaceful faction of PA that he would then be forced to negotiate a two-state solution with. He, and those like him who do not wish to see the conflict end (for reasons that I imagine are related to the end-goal of establishing Greater Israel?), have actively decided to keep the violent resistance ongoing.
> According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Hamas is a resistance movement and they have every right to resist by any means necessary.
the same way the French resisted against the Nazis or the algerians against the French occupation.
I don't hear french resistance being called terrorists despite sabotage operations, assassinations of nazi personnel and executing collaborators.
they carried a successful military raid, captured hostages and exchanged them for Palestinian hostages.
I completely reject the classification of Hamas as a terrorist group by countries that won't even join the international criminal court to protect their war criminals.
Yes, I agree those are war crimes and October 7th is called a Tuesday in the West Bank. You're welcome to read about the torture programs by the IDF from reputable organizations like humans right watch, amnesty international or even former IDF soldiers (your own people) explaining their tactics to terrorize the Palestinian population.
I have more trust in those organizations as well as former IDF soldiers (who overcame the brainwashing, grew a conscience and spoke up) than the repeated lies in the zionist controlled media (40 babies? who lies about stuff like that?).
You can read more about resistance under international law and how it's defined by the U.N charter.
No side in this conflict has that. When they reach peace is when both sides would have found that elusive highground.
> clearly full of darkness
Yes, they are. They've been abandoned [1]. Note though, Hamas is not designated as a terror organization by most of the global south; and al-Qassam, its militant wing, doesn't take orders from Hamas.
[1] In fact, other studies show that Palestinians feel profoundly, existentially, alone: https://archive.is/rLq02
To your last paragraph, as I understand it, 9/11 was also moreso caused by lack of intelligence being acted on properly, rather than being completely blindsided. Of course, it may be that all the surveillance measures could mitigate future terrorist attacks, but in reality the cost is high and the benefits are empirically not great. I think that if Israel withdraws now and focuses on defense, it may not prevent (civilian, primarily) deaths entirely, but it will be more workable for a lasting truce in the future. I don't want to say that those deaths would be a "sacrifice" or "necessary evil", but it is a realistic cost, as unfair as it is.
Not saying I disagree, but where does the 20,000 overwhelmingly civilian number come from? One of the things that seems really difficult about Hamas is from my understanding, they do not wear a uniform and shelter amongst non-combatantants.
A fair question, but it is really not difficult to see why the claim must be true. Here [1] is one source for the death toll in Gaza by direct military action (not including people burried under the rubble of destroyed buildings, dying of starvation, all the lives that disease will claim over the following weeks and months and so on).
About 70% of killed people are estimated to be women and children. Those are not Hamas fighters. Even if you assume that every adult male that has been killed was a Hamas fighter (which is obviously not going to be the case), and even if we pretend that men being killed is okay, that is still 70% of civilians dying compared to enemy combatants. That is the basis for "overwhelmingly civilian" deaths claim.
Israel also constantly claimed that Hamas is hiding in tunnels underground, yet they were killing people by bombing residential buildings in a display of logical contradiction. That alone will lead one to conclude that they are mostly killing civilians.
> I'm curious, is your claim that one of the current leaders of Hamas said this? If so I'd love to read the quote.
I saw a video of this today, the quote was from 2019 though (and he was condemned for it and walked it back), so maybe this shouldn't be taken "too seriously" (it was on my mind cause I saw it today, mostly):
> In July 2019, Hamad urged members of the Palestinian diaspora to kill "Jews everywhere". His comments were characterized as incitement to genocide by Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America[18] and the Simon Wiesenthal Center.[19] His rhetoric was widely condemned by other Palestinians and he later stated that he supports the Hamas policy of "limiting its resistance to the Zionist occupation that usurps Palestine’s land and defiles its holy sites".
> One counterargument is that taking out Hamas, if they succeed (I'm not bullish), is likely to just result in another possibly more radical group rising to power. Doubly so when we've seen something like 20,000 casualties in the last two months, overwhelmingly civilian, which is very obviously going to breed another generation that is full of hatred and vengeance.
Firstly, I'm not sure what you mean by "overwhelmingly civilian". Hamas doesn't publish numbers of militants vs. civilians, as far as I know the only good source for that figure is the IDF, which says more or less a 2:1 ratio (civilian:militant). Is that "overwhelmingly" civilian?
Secondly, what's the alternative? Leave Hamas in power, trying to do this again and again? It's true that Israel doesn't have many good options here, it's all variations of bad, but taking out Hamas is a decent way to gain a lot of security. (And is better for the long-term peace process, IMO, and better for Gazans.)
> [...] I frankly think it should be possible for Israel to prevent another October 7 even in a universe where Hamas is still in power.
I thought so too, but after talking a lot about this I think you're wrong. Hamas aren't idiots - they're a smart, increasingly well-funded enemy. Israel has a lot of capabilities, but Hamas is right on the border. They are fully capable of waiting a few years and then launching another attack using other means. They are fully capable of eroding Israel's ability to defend the border by sending "peaceful civilians" to the border, putting Israel in a position of either shooting at civilians or accepting many thousands of people on the border (similar happened in 2018).
Their rockets are getting better, their intel gathering is getting better, etc. It is incredibly naive (and arrogant!) to think you can forever outwit an enemy. Guerilla armies have beaten larger forces many times.
Not to mention, the more defense you throw at them, the more economically costly this is for you,
Israel's IDF claims 55 commanders and perhaps 5000 Hamas fighters killed, while 17,700 civilians have been killed (over 3:1 ratio). Apparent targeted killings of journalists and aid workers don't help.
> I saw a video of this today, the quote was from 2019 though (and he was condemned for it and walked it back), so maybe this shouldn't be taken "too seriously" (it was on my mind cause I saw it today, mostly):
Thanks so much for the quote. Very interesting context. Also as an aside the fact that the name is "Hamad" makes my brain keep reading it as Hamas because my subconscious is trained to consider the nearest keyboard key when evaluating typos :P
I haven't heard of this Hamad guy, in the past couple months I've been reading about current and future Hamas leadership but I still have plenty of gaps.
I find the life stories of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Yassin and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Deif really fascinating. The former because it's so obvious why he became radicalized (his whole village was ethnically cleansed by the IDF), and the latter because the idea of someone who's limbless and wheelchair-bound and spends his remaining days sitting in dark tunnels plotting vengeance upon Israel is a really haunting image.
> Firstly, I'm not sure what you mean by "overwhelmingly civilian". Hamas doesn't publish numbers of militants vs. civilians, as far as I know the only good source for that figure is the IDF, which says more or less a 2:1 ratio (civilian:militant). Is that "overwhelmingly" civilian?
Simply put, yes, killing two civilians for every one combatant is overwhelmingly civilian, although I don't believe that 2:1 ratio for a moment. And I'm struggling to see how anyone who's not ideologically possessed could believe such numbers. Even if we do the classic imperialist playbook tactic of considering every male >= age 16 as a combatant, the number of children and women killed alone probably approaches half of all casualties if not already north of that.
I don't consider the IDF a "good source" at all, like all government organizations they lie constantly although I suspect they lie more than most :P But in context I take your usage of "good source" to mean "those actually providing hard data".
> Hamas aren't idiots - they're a smart, increasingly well-funded enemy. Israel has a lot of capabilities, but Hamas is right on the border. They are fully capable of waiting a few years and then launching another attack using other means
Their means are limited. They could maybe get creative and fly some drones over the border and drop some grenades or something, but I don't see the potential for a mass casualty event like happened in October 7, if Israel is actually watching its border properly and not ignoring obvious warnings of impending attack as has been frequently reported regarding Oct 7.
To be clear though, I agree that Hamas are smart and are evolving their tactics. Apparently Deif is to blame/praise for the latter. Ignoring the morality, the attack of Oct 7 was quite brilliant and integrated a number of different attack vectors, so I'm with you there.
Where Hamas really shines, like many insurgent groups, is fighting on their home turf. If you're curious you can go watch the Hamas propaganda combat videos (Asa Winstanley on Twitter has them all if you click on the Media tab), and it's a really interesting look at what insurgent warfare looks like on the ground. It's really hard to fight an enemy that can pop out of tunnel exits disguised to look like a vehicle or a house or a bunch of bushes, quickly fire a locally-manufactured Yassin RPG, or place a point-blank IED on a tank, and then disappear back into the tunnels.
This is why I don't see how Israel will actually succeed in destroying Hamas. They will certainly kill many Hamas militants, and probably score some kills on some upper leadership, but I don't see them taking down the entire leadership network nor eroding popular support for Hamas (I've seen no data but I expect that support for Hamas is as high as it's ever been since that's always what happens in war, doubly so when your land is the one being counter-invaded)
> Not to mention, the more defense you throw at them, the more economically costly this is for you,
This is just not a concern. The money US gives Israel every year vastly eclipses the amount they would need to spend on actually defending themselves properly.
> Simply put, yes, killing two civilians for every one combatant is overwhelmingly civilian, although I don't believe that 2:1 ratio for a moment. And I'm struggling to see how anyone who's not ideologically possessed could believe such numbers.
Well, Gaza's MOH put out the 17k number, without breaking it down into militants vs civilians. How many militants do you think have actually been killed? If you are assuming that the IDF is targeting civilians, I guess it makes sense, but if you start from the assumption that they are trying to kill militants, then several thousand militants killed is reasonable.
> I don't consider the IDF a "good source" at all, like all government organizations they lie constantly although I suspect they lie more than most :P
So this is an ideological point, but worth going into. I don't think anyone should implicitly trust any source. But the IDF is part of a democracy - they have checks and balances in the form of government oversight, more importantly Israel has a free press that can check up on claims. Not to mention, hundreds of thousands of Israelis serve in the army and, Israel being a democracy, can speak up and report any abuses that happen or lies that get told.
Given that context, the IDF for sure can still lie, but most likely they will eventually be found out.
I want to contrast this with other sources of numbers - e.g. Hamas can lie with impunity, because no one is checking up on them and they can (and do) execute people for saying the wrong thing. We know they've lied about numbers, e.g. the hospital bombing that they claimed was an Israeli attack that killed 500 people, only everyone now agrees that it wasn't Israel, and didn't kill so many people.
(Though also worth stressing that the total figures given by Gaza MOH are more or less in line with what the IDF is saying, except for not breaking it down by civilian vs. militant.)
> This is why I don't see how Israel will actually succeed in destroying Hamas
Maybe. You could definitely be right. Though there are outcomes here that don't depend on total destruction of Hamas. E.g. Hamas surrendering.
I feel like people forget what winning a war actually looks like. Most wars in history were actually won, when one side did so much damage to the other side that they realized it wasn't worth continuing to fight, and surrendered.
Most of the wars that e.g. the US has engaged in were just not that important to US's security, in the long run - so they had no real need to win. So most wars didn't really end, they "fizzled out".
This war is different. Israel looks at it as a matter of survival. That's a very different dynamic.
> Their means are limited. They could maybe get creative and fly some drones over the border and drop some grenades or something, but I don't see the potential for a mass casualty event like happened in October 7, if Israel is actually watching its border properly and not ignoring obvious warnings of impending attack as has been frequently reported regarding Oct 7.
Do you think the army can be on high alert for five years? Ten? Defend against possible other creative paths that we have no idea about? If I were Hamas I could think of dozens of other things to try at this point.
Also, it's not like Israel was purposefully ignoring obvious threats, this is an "in hindsight" perspective. There's a cost to addressing each potential threat, both monetarily, but also in lives lost. And Israel (rightly) doesn't have any confidence that 4 years from now, whatever actions it takes will be considered legitimate, even if there is evidence it's a new Hamas plot.
> This is just not a concern. The money US gives Israel every year vastly eclipses the amount they would need to spend on actually defending themselves properly.
I don't think that's true. The US's aid is about 10% of the IDF's budget, a figure I'm not sure takes into account the current war btw. But the economic cost of e.g. having 50k more people serving in the army is also the opportunity cost of them not working in industry in this time, etc.
Sibling post goes sufficiently into why the IDF cannot be taken at their words as well as how the Gaza Ministry of Health can by (btw. the Gazan MoH is as much a part of Hamas as the UK department of health is a part of the Conservative party).
However I’d like to talk a little about the murder of Shireen Abu Akleh. At first the IDF claimed she was shot by Palestinian resistance, then they claimed she was shot on accident, and finally—in light of overwhelming evidence—they admitted to have targeted her. The soldier that shot her has not been named, let alone punished. There has been no legal action taken against anybody within the Israel army, no checks, not balanced introduced to prevent a murder like this in the future, no nothing. A murder without consequences of a journalist does not exactly inspire free press.
Now regarding the al-Ahli hospital bombing on October 17th. There is nothing conclusive about who is at fault. Not everybody agrees that it wasn’t Israel. What we do know is that, (a) yes the number of casualties was probably inflated, (b) it was likely not an Israeli airstrike, (c) the evidence originally cited by Israel showed an Iron Dome rocket intercepting a Hamas rocket in Israel too far from the hospital to have been the cause. This leaves number of possibilities, including: another misfired Hamas rocket, an artillery shell fired from Israel. News sources seem to lean on the former, but there is no consensus.
What we do know is that Israel shouted a bunch of unrelated stuff which they claimed were evidence of it being a Hamas rocket, evidence which was later proven insufficient, unrelated, or just wrong. Officials within the IDF also claimed to have lied in the past, but this time they were being honest.
I'd say Hamas numbers have been reliable based on past conflicts. So, I don't know why you're dismissing them.
>> Given that context, the IDF for sure can still lie, but most likely they will eventually be found out.
Tell me more about the accountability and the cost of those lies and crimes by the IDF. How many IDF soldiers rot in prison for the crimes they committed and the crimes that have been documented by HRW? It's zero.
Even when the crimes are fully recorded, they get a handful of months and a commuted sentence.
As a random bystander I find your comments extremely hard to comprehend. It's not really the vocabulary, although it could do to be less lofty. I think part of it is sentences like this:
> Can you be curious about whether this approach as a moderator on a website frequented by some of the most powerful minds on the planet may be preventing lives from being saved?
This sounds to me, and maybe I'm wrong, like you have some sort of pre-formed opinion about what Dang et al are doing, but are choosing to cast it in the lens of "can you be curious" as a way of avoiding just directly saying what you think.
> This sounds to me, and maybe I'm wrong, like you have some sort of pre-formed opinion about what Dang et al are doing
I certainly do. And, it is worth noting that while all beliefs are opinions, not all are merely opinion.
Is your read on me better than mine on you? How much experience do you have in the domain?
> but are choosing to cast it in the lens of "can you be curious" as a way of avoiding just directly saying what you think.
My strategy is to use deliberately unusual language in order to break people out of System 1 / LLM / Colloquial mode.
Clearly it is not working, have you any advice for me now that we've at least somewhat, perhaps, broken the 4th wall?
Reminder: thousands have died already, more will (presumably) in the short run, and MANY more in the long run. I appreciate this may not be a pleasant experience, but the stakes are not exactly low.
I'm curious if pressure from the US ever mounts enough to end this war. Currently we're supporting Israel just like we always have and are just making some empty statements to signal to the more left-leaning segment of the Democrat voter base. I think it's most likely this reality continues, but it does seem possible, albeit unlikely, that Democrat voter discontent gets high enough that we force an end to the war in the next two months.
Of course, even if that somewhat far-fetched scenario comes true we'll probably be up to at least 40,000 Gazans killed :/
> These are completely rejected in the Palestinian street, but unfortunately they are officially and internationally recognized by the United Nations and supported by the United States of America.
To me a smoking gun here is that Biden's administration wants the Palestinian Authority to rule Gaza "after Hamas" (as an aside, I sincerely doubt Israel will be successful in destroying Hamas, but ofc even if they do there will just be a more radical group taking its place anyway); history shows pretty well that the US only installs a power when they know they will be a vassal/puppet of US interests. There's many examples but the most recent one is when we (I'm American) propped up the bogus Afghanistan "Government" only for it to instantly collapse and be replaced again by the Taliban the moment we withdrew.
Really hope there's a path forward that gives the Palestinians real autonomy and an end to the bloodshed. In reality, I expect this conflict to continue indefinitely and us to just continue supporting the occupation, which I find heartbreaking but my rational mind is convinced is the most likely outcome.
> history shows pretty well that the US only installs a power when they
Instead of coming up with conspiracy theories we could consider what other options there are. There are effectively only three powers which could control Gaza if/when Hamas is defeat: Egypt, Israel and the PA.
Egypt certainly doesen't want anything to do with the region or Palestinians anymore. So US can only chose between supporting a direct Israeli occupation or a semi-indirect one (through the Palestinian Authority). I don't think the US government wants to install a puppet regime in Gaza, they'd rather have absolutely nothing to do with at all.
Tangential but when it comes to Afghanistan I'm almost certain that stupidity and incompetence (and one might guess a good dose of corruption) rather than outright malice or imperialism were to blame for that entire disaster.
> Palestinians real autonomy
Well to some extent Hamas was the closest they got to that for decades.
> Instead of coming up with conspiracy theories we could consider what other options there are. There are effectively only three powers which could control Gaza if/when Hamas is defeat: Egypt, Israel and the PA.
I'm sorry, but the US installing powers that are favorable to it is not a conspiracy theory. It's a conspiracy fact. How do you think Pinochet and others happened? It certainly wasn't organic (at least not entirely so).
Anyway, regarding the options, there's technically a few more like Jordan or other arab states, or a new organization arising (albeit in reality the US and others would intervene to stop them taking power). But beyond those quibbles I don't disagree with you that there's no good options, I'm just stating my belief that if we support organization X, it's because organization X is directly controlled by us or indirectly its incentives align well with our own.
> Well to some extent Hamas was the closest they got to that for decades.
Agreed fully, and that's one of the problems.
> I'm almost certain that stupidity and incompetence (and one might guess a good dose of corruption) rather than outright malice or imperialism were to blame for that entire disaster.
Why not both? Imperialism is a pretty stupid ideology, at least if one's goal is to keep one's country safe and powerful. If one's goal is to extract resources from one's own country at the cost of lots of bloodshed of your citizens and others', then it achieves the goal fine.
> I'm sorry, but the US installing powers that are favorable to it is not a conspiracy theory. It's a conspiracy fact. How do you think Pinochet and others happened?
Yes, it was certainly a fact during the cold war however foreign policy is not static and changes pretty often. Even Iraq and to some extent Iraq (and certainly Afghanistan) didn't really fit the pattern that well. Considering that no other country benefited more from the US toppling Saddam than Iran did (considering it was a Shia majority state ruled by a Sunni minority, the inverse of Syria for instance).
The invasion of Afghanistan on the other hand was justifiable both on defensive and humanitarian grounds. While the aftermath was mostly botched, US had no interest in somehow subjugating it it long-term (IMHO imposing a "colonial" administration directly controlled by NATO/Western powers would've been the least bad option).
> more like Jordan or other arab states
None of them would ever accept that (after all Jordan willingly gave up the West Bank back in the 80s and I don't see why would they ever want to take it back even if Israel had no objections).
> (albeit in reality the US and others would intervene to stop them taking power).
Again before the US and other count stop it you need some regional powers who are willing to support this.
> X, it's because organization X is directly controlled by us or indirectly its incentives align well with our own.
At this point it seems to me that from the perspective of the US the middle east is more of a distraction. They don't have that many vital strategic interest in the region since US+Canada alone produce produce significantly more oil than all the Arab states combined.
You mean legally part of Israel from Israel’s perspective, right? AFAIK neither the west bank nor the gaza strip are recognized as legitimate territories of Israel under international law but I admittedly know very little about international law :)
Israel explicitly rejects Gaza is part of Israel. Some Israeli politicians might claim otherwise, but the government policy has been to refuse claims it is since '67, and to now insist it's not even under occupation.
