Who's doing what in Gaza? It's something of a fog to me because I literally don't believe a word coming from either side. They both simply have too much incentive to lie since this is a war for public opinion as much as it's a war for control of territory.
What little do we know for sure? A few things:
- Hamas continues to hold hundreds of civilian hostages.
- Israel has killed thousands of civilians. There's no reason to think this is deliberate, but neither is there any reason to think Israel is trying very hard to avoid civilian casualties.
- Hamas hides pretty well. So far Israel seems to have captured or killed only a small number of Hamas fighters in Gaza.
- Food, water, power, and medicine are in very short supply because of Israel's reluctance to allow in very much humanitarian aid.
- Both Hamas and Israel continue to stake out maximalist positions. Israel's goal is to destroy Hamas. Hamas's goal is to destroy Israel. Neither side has any interest in a ceasefire.
- Tens of thousand of Gazans have been forcibly relocated from the north to the south. Exact numbers are a matter of dispute.
What else do we know for sure? Nothing about Shifa Hospital, which Palestinians claim is just a hospital and Israel claims is Hamas headquarters. Am I missing anything important?
It’s a hell hole?
IDF claims Hamas refused an offer of fuel for that hospital.
annielli over at the Daily Kos mentioned that. The IDF provided 300 liters of fuel to Al Shifa hospital. She considered it a joke and compared it to providing a quart of gas to a Hummer.
The IDF also put up a post declaring hospitals and ambulances legitimate military targets. They then quickly deleted it and put up another one repeating the claim but saying that it was because they "are used" to transport Hamas fighters and weapons. No proof offered so far and it would be a war crime either way.
It is not a war crime to target a hospital or ambulance if there are combatants inside them. And Israel does not need to provide proof. I think it would be smart to do so, if they have proof. But it's not their burden.
Hi, The Geneva Conventions called to say this:
Article 19
"Fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be attacked, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict. Should they fall into the hands of the adverse Party, their personnel shall be free to pursue their duties, as long as the capturing Power has not itself ensured the necessary care of the wounded and sick found in such establishments and units."
And this, also from Article 19 of the 1949 Geneva Convention:
"The fact that sick or wounded members of the armed forces are nursed in these hospitals, or the presence of small arms and ammunition taken from such combatants and not yet been handed to the proper service, shall not be considered to be acts harmful to the enemy."
Note: Doctors Without Borders, an organization that would appear to be a non-partisan and credible source, has said that Hamas is not operating in the hospitals. Also: Even Israel doesn't claim that the hospitals have -fallen into the hands- of Hamas, merely that Hamas is "operating inside them."
I would like to pose this question. It's not meant as snark, but as an honest question which no one so far has ventured to ask.
If you believe Israel's response has been excessive, what would an appropriate, non-excessive response have looked like?
Response focusing on what NOT to do don't count.
- Delineate and observe safe evacuation routes and safe zones.
- Provide assurance that people will be allowed to return to their homes after hostilities. This requires third-party guarantees, because the Palestinians have good reason not to trust the Israelis in this matter.
- Define an acceptable long-term goal, and establish the objectives to be met to get there. ‘Destroy Hamas’ as a near-term objective leads to ‘create backlash, and a successor extremist movement’ as the next state, and ‘interminable conflict’ as the ultimate state. I should hope that all sides see that as unacceptable.
I should have included
- Allow adequate supplies of food, water, medical supplies, temporary shelters as needed, to be brought in, along with aid workers.
I don't know anything with reasonable confidence about probably 98% of the things going on in the world at any given moment, including right now the fighting in Gaza. I don't see any reason why that should concern me.
"First they came for the gays, but I wasn't gay, so..."
Do we know that Iran is a major sponsor of Hamas?
Well, nobody has copies of cancelled checks or such like but, yeah, there's little doubt on Iranian sponsorship.
Actually, the government of Israel under Netanyahu ALSO provided funds to Hamas. This was reported by John Oliver. And Netanyahu claimed it was "humanitarian aid". Which, as everybody knows, is normally delivered in suitcases tucked in the back of cars. He also had interesting clips where Netanyahu a few years ago declared Hamas "useful".
Also an important observation - back in 2006 Hamas was pretending to be reasonable and committed to representative government AND Al Fatah was hated in Gaza for their incompetence. That 2006 election was the last held and Hamas did not even get a majority of the vote. The claim that the Palestinians knowingly chose them is highly misleading.
The impression I have is that they're trying to isolate and strangle Gaza City so they can move civilians back from the south into the crater and then craterize the south in turn.
People who think Israelis and Palestinians should live together are preposterous. What do you think of someone who thinks you should live in the same house with a guy who raped and murdered your family? Are you going to do that?
That's almost as absurd as those who think a new nation of people with no history or demonstrated capacity of civil governance could sustain itself in discontiguous parts. It's magical thinking.
Palestinians have to be dispersed and taken in as citizens of other places or they have to be provided an area of the Sinai adjacent to Gaza large enough to accommodate the population of the West Bank.
The alternative is more of the same for all eternity and if that's really your answer please spare everyone the trouble of having to listen to you complain about it.
First of all, a large number of Palestinians currently live in Israel. What you say is "preposterous" is already simple fact.
Second of all, your remedy falls under one of the official definitions of "genocide."
The 2-state solution is essentially dead, given the encroachment of Israeli settlers throughout the West Bank. The choices are therefore (1) full citizenship for Palestinians; (2) genocide.
1 seems like the elimination of Israel by osmosis, so it would seem that 2 comes down to "of whom?"
"Elimination of Israel by osmosis" sounds an awful lot like replacement theory. In fact, it is.
As far as "of whom," well, that's easy: of the group with no money and no power.
It falls under no definition of genocide.
There are a lot of Palestinian Israelis but they're not trying to kill anyone, they've never started a war with anyone. Imagining a single state can exist composed of people dedicated to destroying one another is actually laughable.
wow that's amazing cld, how is it that you know more about genocide than 800 genocide scholars? Impressive!
https://twailr.com/public-statement-scholars-warn-of-potential-genocide-in-gaza/
You're an idiot.
You’re a bigot.
There is nothing you can point to that would support such an idea.
A better question is why do you want to view the only possible solutions to this violence to be described that way?
There are two possible end states here and without pursuing one of them this situation will just keep going as it has been.
A lot of people seem really invested in keeping it going exactly as it has been and refuse to accept they are going around in circles and nothing else.
How do you read this that it doesn’t imply that every Palestinian is an actual or likely rapist and/or murderer?
In a comment to a previous KD post, you said a Palestinian state “would be a massive criminal enterprise”.
Ascribing negative characteristics simply on the basis of ethnicity, religion, nationality, etc. is the very definition of bigotry.
A Palestinian state will be like every other Arab state, ruled by the most successful gangster only worse because starting from a normative state of nothing but antagonism.
If you threw all that into the middle of a different country with which they have nothing but a long history of existential conflict, what do you think is going to happen?
Exactly this all over again until one or another party is expelled.
What planet do you live on where this wouldn't be obvious?
+1
If peaceful Palestinians are not trying to kill anyone, how come West Bank settlers are terrorizing (and occasionally killing) them? Hamas and the West Bank settlers are flip sides of the coin, which makes it doubtful we will ever have a peaceful solution. A two state solution may have been possible in this he past, but I fear things have gone too far.
You've been answered on the definition of genocide. You should consider deferring to the internationally recognized definition of the term, which encompasses practices such as mass displacement.
The question is not whether a state can exist while being composed of people who want to destroy one another. All states have such people, so the question is, "how many." As with most people, you equate Hamas with Palestinians, and the Israeli right wing with Israelis. This is simpleminded.
Keep your Mentos in the same container with your Diet Coke, they get along great!
Mass displacement is not genocide in any definition though it may be an action toward it. In this case it would be for exactly the opposite purpose and not obviously involuntary as it ends with providing a people with their own country, which otherwise they will not have and they will continue to suffer and die for the gratification of their exploiters.
"Mass displacement is not genocide in any definition though it may be an action toward it."
Again, I would refer you to the internationally accepted definition of "genocide," although you are clearly determined to show to everyone here that you don't know what you're talking about, in every response thus far.
Yeah, do that.
Genocide definitions,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions
And why would it be involuntary? Some might not like it, but those are the people whose lives depend on conflict.
What definition of genocide is this?
Exactly. I am kind of tired of folks tossing around the word "GENOCIDE" for what the Israelis are doing in Gaza. It does not fit any of the commonly used definitions of the term.
Rather, it seems to be being used for shock value, because in people's minds, when they hear Genocide they hear the Holocaust, Rwanda, maybe the Armenians. Calling Israel killing civilians that Hamas has placed in the way of combat is so far away from that, it is an INSULT to the memory of those who died in actual genocides.
Moving people of a certain nationality or race out of an area is ethnic cleansing. Genocide is deliberately trying to wipe them off the face of the earth.
And why not the West Bank rather than some desolate part of Sinai? Ah yes, those pesky settlements.
The outline of the West Bank, obtruding into Israel, makes it impossible from the Israeli point of view from a security standpoint.
From the Palestinian point of view, they never wanted to be there at all, and it's cutoff. It's entirely dependent on Israel on the one side and Jordan on the other, and neither wants anything to do with them. Israel is going to learn to live without Palestinian labor, and probably sooner rather than later. Jordan is out of water now and what they have is radioactive and it's easy to imagine that whole region depopulating. What can the West Bank offer Palestinians but more of the same?
Sinai has a seacoast, less exposure to people who hate them.
You talk about geopolitics like a middle school kid enamored with a 20 year old atlas, but who knows nothing more than that.
Your solution that isn't stupid is what?
You have nothing that will help.
Saying we should all live together in peace and harmony is great, but it's never going to happen where huge numbers of people are dedicated to not doing that.
Settlers have killed Palestinians on the West Bank, also. By your theory of collective guilt, all Israelis ought to be treated as murderers.
I have no theory of collective guilt.
My theory is you have to keep reactive elements away from one another or they blow up. Walls work, unattractive as they may be.
Most of the settlers in the West Bank are lunatics, the ideal foils for the people exploiting the Palestinians. Social conservatives need existential conflict and are happy to provide it for one another. If either settlers or Palestinians all dropped dead they'd find someone else.
Yet Likud implicitly supports the settlers. I agree with the idea Netanyahu is a lunatic supporting lunatics.
Wait, you think the settlers are lunatics, but the Palestinians are the ones who should be forcibly removed???
From an Israeli security standpoint the West Bank is a much worse issue than Gaza.
The West Bank is unsustainable without deep interaction with Israel and such interaction is increasingly untenable.
The Palestinians didn't want to be there in the first place.
A new nation can't exist in discontiguous parts.
There is no two-state solution that preserves the West Bank as it is.
There are several problems with your idea. One of them is that it depends upon some other country being willing to take in all of the Palestinians. Such a country does not exist. Your plan is a complete non-starter.
Needn't be just one country if you're going to disperse them, but bringing them all together in one area involves only an arrangement being made with one other country and after that they're a nation, the two-state solution.
It's one of those things that will end the problem, nothing else will work, and nothing else is serious because anything else will only continue what is going on now forever with no end at all.
cld, you're advocating ethnic cleansing. It's not okay.
Israel does not have the right to move or eject these people - the only people they have the right to move are their own settlers.
You misspelled "obligation."
There is no sense in which I am proposing that or anything trivially like that.
Do you have another solution that ends the Palestinian issue, or that ends with them in their own country?
I have advocated two different paths to ending the conflict, there are no others.
Anything else is more of the same.
“People who think Israelis and Palestinians should live together are preposterous. What do you think of someone who thinks you should live in the same house with a guy who raped and murdered your family?
…
Palestinians have to be dispersed and taken in as citizens of other places or they have to be provided an area of the Sinai adjacent to Gaza large enough to accommodate the population of the West Bank.”
Glad you posted this. Now, I no longer have to read anything you write and take it seriously.
Tell me your solution that isn't stupid.
Jews and Palestinians lived side-by-side in the area formerly known as Palestine for centuries. As for atrocities, I'd like to point out that both sides in this conflict have been guilty of horrendous acts. So, while your suggestion that people should be forcibly relocated to make room for fairly recent immigrants is... um... interesting, I'd like to point out that we have a sizable community here in the United States who underwent just such a relocation and who are, to this day, not exactly thrilled about the experience.
If your point is to end the conflict, you can't end the conflict in any other way.
Palestinians can be dispersed, or they can be brought together.
Pick one.
Until the end of WWI the population of Palestine, including the part now called Israel, was between 80% and 90% Palestinian. The region was under the control of the Ottoman Empire, which was a Muslim caliphate. Then the British took over and issued the Balfour Declaration which was a promise to Lord Rothschild, the leader of the British Jewish community that they would establish a homeland for Jews in Palestine. After WW II the influx of Jews increased dramatically as refugees from the Holocaust moved to Israel.
It’s not wonder that this conflict seems impossible to solve, but then so did the conflict in Northern Ireland which began when the British displaced Irish landowners with Protestant immigrants from Scotland — back in the 1600s. That conflict was also a dispute based in both religion and claims on land.
Gee, as long as we’re going to displace populations all over the map, à la Stalin, why not ship all the Israelis to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast he created nearly a century ago? They’d be perfectly safe from attack, as no one knows where the hell the JAO is.
Your solution that can possibly work is what?
Nothing at all? Nothing at all gets exactly what we have now for the rest of time except now that's the way you want it to be. Own the vulgarity.
Any other solution has never happened, and it never will.
We can follow the Israeli military advance via satellite. This can sometimes help. For example there were a number bullet riddled Palestians on a street, but they were geolocated 2-3 kilometers away from visible Israeli lines of advance so they were more likely killed by Hamas for trying to escape.
How would you know where special ops were or weren't?
Many things can be true at the same time. Hospitals can also be headquarters, or have it nearby. And IDF can be fed mis-information.
The IDF HQ is across the street from a very large medical campus...
IDF soldiers aren't camped out in the medical campus building or launching rockets from its rooftop.
I'd be inteested in evidence for this claim (the insunuated one, that Hamas is camped out in Gazan medical campus buildings)
Google it. Or go to CNN. There's an article right now about a basement room in a hospital Hamas was using.
We know, or at least can be reasonably sure, that if Israel doesn't free the hostages no one else will. The hostages will become bargaining chips doled out 2 or 3 at a tine for every increasing exorbitant costs. Some might spend years before release.
Given that Hamas is not being offered a ceasefire, it is hard to see any basis for saying they are not interested in it. It is highly unlikely that Hamas thinks they are going to overthrow Israel by force during this exchange of fire. And Hamas has honored many ceasefires in the past. In fact part of the reason that Israel is not offering a cease fire is that they expect Hamas would accept it, and come away thinking their attack was a success (which frankly is likely to happen if there is a ceasefire now or if the ceasefire doesn't come until Israel has killed thousands more Palestinians. .
Drum's comments on the conflict are always presented as if he is just giving facts, but they always manage to slip in some slant towards the Israelis that seems to come out of nowhere.
I suppose that depends on how long a period of time is required to consider a ceasefire as having been honored...
It is true that they have sometimes decided they were not bound by ceasefires after Israel revealed that they don't feel bound by them. During the second intifada Israel decided that a ceasefire was a good time to assassinate Palestinian leaders, after which Hamas "violated" the ceasefire by retaliating. In the 2014 conflict Israel announced that Hamas had violated a ceasefire the day after it was signed ambushing some Israeli soldiers. It later came out that the "ambush" was in Gaza City and Israel announced that the ceasefire didn't mean that Israel wouldn't carry out military operations.
Hamas has generally been better at honoring ceasefires than Israel has, possibly because Israel doesn't seem to think that ceasefires apply to them. of course even if a ceasefire is signed that doesn't mean Israel won't continue to keep Gaza on a malnutrition diet through its blockade. So a ceasefire won't mean peace.
It's also worth noting that the economic blockade of Gaza is itself an act of war, and makes a mockery of cease fire declarations.
Regarding this:
“And Hamas has honored many ceasefires in the past.”
If you’re attempting to portray Hamas in a positive light, you’re a dangerous lunatic. And you should be called out as such, unequivocally.
To be clear, however, I don’t believe in rescinding your right to speak and thereby reveal your own ideological extremism;
But that, of course, is what separates me from death cults like Hamas, and the useful idiots supporting it.
I see. So from your point of view, the Israeli Death Cult should be called out for repeatedly violating cease fires, and the useful idiots who support it also called out?
Far be it for me, who think that killing civilians is wrong no matter which death cult or non-death cult is doing it.
I was actually just noting something true. What a weird world this would be if that made one a dangerous lunatic.
Where does this idea come from that the best way to deal with a situation is to not understand it? Hamas is an organization that carries out terrorist attacks. It also plans for the future and acts in what it considers a rational way from its perspective.
If you think that Hamas has to be described in dishonest ways to make them bad enough that is something about you. In this context it makes a lot of difference because the attempts to describe Hamas as especially in human are designed to justify the killing of thousands of Palestinian civilians.
Even if you only care about Israeli civilians it would still be better to have an accurate picture of Hamas.
From Hilary Clinton today in the Atlantic mag:
"The reasons not to go were more nuanced but also compelling. President Obama and I were both wary of suggesting that Israel did not have a right and a responsibility to defend itself against terrorists. If Hamas did not face consequences for its attacks, it would be emboldened to carry out more. We also knew Hamas had a history of breaking agreements and could not be trusted."
My picture of Hamas is accurate. And, sorry, if you're trying to assert otherwise then you're projecting.
You, after all, are the one who asserted that Hamas can be relied upon to honor its agreements. So, please, reality is calling and I urge you to check in with it, thanks.
They were on a ceasefire on October 7th. At this point, I don't think anyone really cares what Hamas thinks. They just need to be exterminated.
I suppose Israel could impose a blockade limiting the import of goods while limiting the territory Gazans could farm on and the regions in which their fisherman could fish and thereby eventually exterminate them through malnutrition. Oh wait those were the peaceful measures in place on October 7th and they didn't work fast enough.
Ah, war. It's great.
Do we need to know more than the butchery?
It's not inside the hospital, but it sure seems like there's a tunnel entrance into or near it. There's definitely something near the hospital. There's fierce fighting right around the hospital. Israel is working to surround it.
Ah, yes. Claims of a tunnel entrance. The IDF -also- claimed that there was a tunnel entrance near the Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Hospital. However, further investigation by al Jazeera determined that said entrance was, in fact, a hatch cover for a water reservoir, used to fill the therapeutic pools and as a backup water supply. Source: https://bit.ly/3FVUGYL.
And yet, some of the heaviest fighting is occurring in the block surrounding this hospital. I'm not saying they're right, but that seems indicative of something Hamas is trying to hold onto.
If I understand correctly, Kevin, you trust the following equally:
-A terrorist organization that murdered, raped, burned alive, and kidnapped innocent civilians with no military objective. An organization on record as advocating lying as a means of attaining their goals.
https://archive.li/vW8bU#selection-4551.0-4551.137
Those goals are officially wiping Israel off the map and killing as many Jews as possible.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/12/hamas-planning-terror-gaza-israel/
-A modern government that warned civilians to leave, waited several days, then moved in for door-to-door fighting when they could have just bombed the entire country to rubble. That evacuated hospitals so they could get to the Hamas tunnels underneath. The entire world is watching, trying to catch them in a lie. Nobody has yet.
Got it.
I have lost all respect for your opinion.
A modern government that has funded the terrorist organization while collectively punishing the people of Palestine, and has killed ten times as many civillians as that terrorist organization?
You're happy to point out that people were warned to leave, and skip the part where the refugee camps were subsequently targeted with airstrikes.
Far be it for me to comment, but it seems like they're both terrorists. Just the 'modern government' is far more effective at it.
𝘈 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯?
Any time you see this formulation, you can know you are dealing with an anti-Semite.
Normal people distinguish between civilians killed as unfortunate collateral damage during military operations againsts military objectives and terrorists deliberates murdering, torturing, raping, and kidnapping civilians.
Anti-Semites just look for an excuse to bash the Jews.
Terrorists deliberately murdering, torturing, raping, and kidnapping civilians is heinous and a war crime. Any normal person has to admit that and that Hamas militants (and others on the day) did that. But normal people can also distinguish between military operations againsts military objectives and cutting off food, water, fuel, and electricity to an entire population of 2 million people.
Normal people should also be able to apply the barest breath of scepticism to official statements of a military organization when those statements fly in the face of primary source testimony, reputable journalism and international organization reports.
How can any sentient being believe military claims of "precision targeting of military targets" and "guarding against civilian casualties" when faced with statements from the same that they are dealing with "human animals" and that "there is no such thing as an innocent Gazan civilian." That is a preposterous thing to accept, not even considering the evidence of the numbers.
Here’s what I believe:
1: All paths to a just, stable one state or two state solutions to Israel’s existence are closed for at least a generation
2: Israel continuing on its current path is suicidal. Whether they double down on apartheid or just drive them out does not change this. They have earned the incandescent hatred of 1.8 billion people, and there will come a day when the US is too distracted with a major war or internal divisions to save them. Muslims only need to win once, and are willing to pay the price of Israel incinerating a few cities in its death throes. Obviously all these deaths are terrible.
3: The best solution to this mess is 7 million green cards, but Zionists will never give up that little patch of land even if it is all but certain to lead to disaster for everyone.
I fail to understand why they have earned that hate? Can you explain what they have done? What I see is a very successful propaganda campaign on social media and TikTok, waged by Hamas and others, who have turned those who do not know history against Israel.
Multiple GOP politicians and Presidential candidates have so no Palestinians should be allowed into the USA. Period. And the ones here should be deported.
Absolutely we should not let in any Palestinians. Looks at the marches in New York and other cities with them supporting the terrorists.
In general, people whose beliefs are incompatible with American ideals should not be admitted to the United States.
We used to understand this. https://www.yewlegal.com/can-members-of-the-communist-party-come-to-the-u-s/
𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧, 𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩, 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴.
Let's update this to add anti-Semitic and racists groups.
Israeli policy for more than a decade has been that since the Palestinians are suffering and the Israelis are thriving there is no reason not to lock in the current situation, because nobody that matters is suffering. That was a calculated choice on Israel's part, one that does not look very good after the Hamas terrorist attack. But it also fully explains why Israel has earned the hatred of people who do not think that Israelis are of more value than Palestinians. That is to say, it has not made much difference in the US, except on college campuses, but it has made a difference in the Arab world.
I should note that by locking in the status quo I don't just mean they are not working towards peace, but they have spent more than a decade actively working to make peace less possible. There is a reason that there was some optimism about peace in the 90s and there is none now, and it is entirely Israel's settlement policies.
wow that's amazing cld, how is it that you know more about genocide than 800 genocide scholars? Impressive!
https://twailr.com/public-statement-scholars-warn-of-potential-genocide-in-gaza/
The part where they've brutally killed 10x as many civilians as the so-called terrorists?
"So-called terrorists"? Are you implying Hamas is not a terrorist organization?
If someone tried to do to America what the British and Zionists did to Palestine between the two world wars, we would nuke them if that’s what it took, and be wholly justified in doing so.
Of course you would hate someone that split off a chunk of America, mass migrated into it, drove out most of the Americans and stuffed them into small stateless enclaves that were controlled by the invaders, and routinely killed and stolen from.
>> Muslims only need to win once, and are willing to pay the price of Israel incinerating a few cities in its death throes. <<
Israel is estimated to have between 80 and 400 nuclear weapons. Which countries do you think are willing to pay that price? And if the price includes the incineration of Mecca, do you still think the Muslims are willing to pay that price?
So you're saying that Israel is a nuclear terrorist nation?
I was responding to the notion that Arab countries are willing to have some of their cities incinerated in order to destroy Israel. I don’t know how you got to me saying “Israel is a nuclear terrorist nation” out of that.
Note that, just before the Israeiis started their ground invasion of Gaza, they took down the internet and phone access from that region. Note further that just before the most recent IDF incursions, Israelis have once again cut off communications going out of and into Gaza.
Israel has also killed some 40 journalists during its disproportionate response to the Hamas attack. Several were even American.
Looking back on history, before Israelis initiated hostilities in the 1967 war, they sunk an intelligence gathering ship which was monitoring the situations in the middle east, the USS Liberty. This action was downplayed, if not covered up, by the US government at the time.
What does all this mean? It strongly suggests that Israel does not want honest observers reporting on what they do. Why not, if it they are clearly doing "the right things"?
Based on the history of counterinsurgencies, and on Israel's announced intent to 'destroy Hamas', one would expect Israel to be publishing claims of Hamas fighters killed or captured. I haven't seen any, and I find it odd. On the other hand, Barbara Leaf, a US Assistant Secretary of State, stated that casualties in Gaza might actually be greater than reported. I suppose one must assume that Hamas sheltered its fighters during the bombings, as there is nothing they could do to counter Israeli aircraft. And that would lead one to conclude that the ratio of civilian to Hamas deaths is quite high, at this point in the conflict.
Link: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/us-official-says-gaza-death-toll-is-believed-to-possibly-be-higher-than-claimed/
It should be clear to an honest observer that Israel is in this to slaughter Palestinians, civilians or otherwise, and if they get a few Hamas fighters, it justifies everything. Meanwhile, Israel is blaming everyone that the IDF and the squatters in the West Bank kill as "the fault of Hamas."
Sounds sadly familiar: "Why do you make me do this to you, baby?
"So far Israel seems to have captured or killed only a small number of Hamas fighters in Gaza."
Perhaps. The only reporting we have is from Hamas and Israel: both of these parties have strong reasons to manipulate numbers.
The Israeli military says they killed 1,500 Hamas fighters while Hamas claim 24 fighters killed.
If we accept Israel’s number and round Hamas’s estimation of total deaths down to 10k, Israel is 15% accurate. That’s acteorse than Hamas on 10/7, which was 25% accurate in hitting security forces.
The killings of Israeli civilians by Hamas were clearly deliberate and intended. How high the responsibility extends in whatever command structure Hamas has, we don’t know, but the leadership has made no effort to distance itself. Israel has made what I would consider half-hearted attempts to reduce civilian casualties; they could have done considerably better. As I believe international law requires.
“Thou shalt not kill; but need'st not strive
Officiously to keep alive.” — Arthur Hugh Clough
What we know:
IDF is doing a piss-poor job of avoiding civilian structures, but OTOH, they delayed their campaign for a week after telling everyone to go south.
Once they've cleared areas, it appears they're restoring aid and evacuating people. But also, now that they've closed off the northern third of Gaza Strip, they have full control of movement in/out of the area, and have opened daily 4-hour access. Don't know what good that will do, but IDF is in full control of the fate of Gaza City, now.
It's not a great plan. It's not a good one. It's a let's-deliver-results-quickly-with-minimal-casualties-on-our-side plan. If you're Palestinian, that angers you. If you're Israeli, it is what you want.
What are they trying to do?
Because so far they've done far worse than anything Hamas could do, ten times over.
Because of the brutality and scale of deaths inside of Israel, many Israelis just don't care all that much about protecting Palestinians who refuse to evacuate.
They see their warning to evacuate northern Gaza and the week-long delay as sufficient action to protect the innocent -- that anyone remaining is either (a) a sympathizer, (b) a member of Hamas, or (c) have accepted personal responsibility if they die in the middle of what Israel considers an existential war in a war zone they identified for everyone to heed.
Or at least that's my observation and interpretation.
Palestinians had an understandable fear that if they left their homes, they would never be allowed to return. Israel never delineated, and did not observe, safe routes and safe zones.
100% right. But that's not what Israelis think. I'm just delineating why Israel is doing what they're doing.
I think the plan is to make Gaza uninhabitable so the world has no choice but to accept the former residents as refugees. If I were the Israelis that’s what I would do.
“Nearly half of the homes in Gaza have been destroyed or damaged by the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, the United Nations reported.”
If that’s accurate they seem to be well on their way to the goal.
The best source of information in a conflict situation is the same here as in any conflict. That is definately not official sources on one side or the other. Everyone here would likely agree that Hamas officials are not reliable, though the non-militant parts of that organization do not have a track record of outright lying. The Isreali gov't and IDF do have a well documented track record of lying about what they have done/are doing. This is no different from any military during conflict, but let's be honest about it.
So how about reputable journalist from non-involved nations? American media is sadly for the most part heavily invested in one side. I find the Guardian and the BBC to be good mainstream sources. I like very much DemocracyNow and The Intercept on international issues.
I admit it is not the easiest thing to get reliable information about, but "gee-whiz, Hamas and the IDF say different things, so who knows?" is a bit lazy!
Yeah, that "We report, YOU decide" schtick is getting really old.
We know they various factions hate each other and will never stop fighting. There will never be a two state solution or any long term peaceful coexistence. Gaza is being bombed to rubble and will never be rebuilt. And we know that there isn’t a damn thing anyone can do about it.
We don’t know if this will cost Biden reelection, but I want to encourage all the wild American fanatics taking sides to shut the fuck up. They should stay home on election day or vote for trump. I don’t want anything to do with them.
Good source as always.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-november-12-2023
This feels like an inflection point in Israeli-Palestinian relations that has just 3 potential outcomes:
1. There is war until there is no Israel.
2. There is war until there is no Palestine.
3. There are two states.
The two state solution has been offered by Israel and rejected by the Arabs many times in times in the past because it means Israel will exist.
I would suggest that *this time is different*.
Why? Because the only two other outcomes are:
1. There is war until there is no Israel.
2. There is war until there is no Palestine.
There is no mood to return to the status quo.
Peoples can change. Germany fought three wars against France within less than a century. Now the two countries have been the solid core of the EU for decades.
Religious hatred between Jews and Muslims is forever.
Some religious hatred between some Jews and some Muslims might well be "forever." But that doesn't mean the percentages can't be reduced in the long term enough for relations between the two communities to be peaceful. But for that to happen they each need their own space, which requires statehood for Palestinians.
The two state solution doesn't guarantee peace (especially in the short term). Its absence guarantees war.
Excellent 2nd paragraph; succinct and correct.
There is zero chance Israel could be destroyed. Palestine, sure. The Palestinians are basically invisible, have no rights, and the United States fervently agrees.
So you have 2 and 3. 3 is no longer possible.
I would not say there is zero chance.
The only reason why it currently is zero is because the US has parked two carrier strike groups in the area.
Truth is the first casualty...not only for war, but in blood-lust politics.
We do know that in 2005, when Israel left Gaza, Hamas, instead of using foreign aid money to create desalination plants, power generators, and water and electrical infrastructure and investing in the tourist industry along the Mediterranean coastline, built tunnels and weapons. Oh yeah, and the leaders of Hamas left the area and spent millions on lavish lifestyles in places like Qatar.
Hamas did not take over Gaza until 2007. It is true that the Gazan economy tanked in 2005, but that was because Israel chose to punish Gaza for pushing out the settlements by living its exports (agricultural products) to rot on the border with Israel. It is hard to get investment in an area which is controlled by a hostile and petty power. The idea that Gazans were handed a great economic opportunity that they squandered is revisionist history.
"Both Hamas and Israel continue to stake out maximalist positions. Israel's goal is to destroy Hamas. Hamas's goal is to destroy Israel. Neither side has any interest in a ceasefire."
This is a completely false equivalency. Hamas is a terrorist group. Most non-terrorists agree they should be destroyed. Hamas wants to wipe out an entire nation because they don't believe it has a right to exist. Their goal is genocide as they want to exterminate all Jews. If they could torture or slit the throat of every Jew in the United States, they would happily do so, film it, then call their parents to brag about it.
We know for certain Israel is still holding over 10,000 hostages. Many are children.
I'm glad you brought this up. The improper arrest and incarceration of non-terrorist Palestinian civilians, including children, is an international disgrace, and the way they're treated by Israel is even worse. The Israeli justice system lets them languish behind bars indefinitely without trial.
Meanwhile, hostages released by Hamas reported good, respectful treatment by their so-called "animal" captors.
We know Hamas has been designated a terrorist group by the US and EU. Ergo, to create equivalences with Israel will lead to nothing good. States are held to higher standards than criminal organizations, or should be.
I’m paid $185 per hour to complete the task using an Apple laptop. I absolutely didn’t think it was conceivable,(Qb) but my dependable buddy convinced me to give this straight forward chance a go after she made $26,547 in just 4 weeks working on it. Visit the following page to find out additional
instructions———>>> cyberfortifypro555.pages.
Mr Drum, can you somehow ban this spammer? It's getting really tedious.
I had to go find this, but there's a relevant article from 2014, on a site called Tablet Magazine (which I honestly have no history for). It goes into detail about the command center under the hospital, why everyone is sure it's there, and why reporters refuse to talk about the subject.
I'll put a link in a reply, but I seem to recall that those get moderated. To find the article, search for "Top Secret Hamas Command Bunker In Gaza Revealed", and the site mentioned should show up as the top result.
And the link to the article: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/top-secret-hamas-command-bunker-in-gaza-revealed
Hopefully it shows up eventually.