Major attack on Israel by Hamas

[Robert]

I do think Israel needs to defend itself. But retaliation is revenge, not defense. And revenge begets revenge.

Hamas secretly broke in and intentionally targeted civilians. They raped and beheaded women and children. The "Commanders" sent them to do that. Multiple Hamas were captured and stated that.

Israel has dropped leaflets telling civilians to evacuate. They are targeting known Hamas targets, that Hamas has placed under hospitals and schools. Hamas blocked the roads to keep the Palestinians from leaving Gaza. Egypt has a closed border and not letting Palestinians to enter.

There is a clear (western) moral difference in the actions of the two parties. While I do not like either side's actions, I can clearly see one side is much more humane in their actions.

[Bootstrap]

This is the only person I will now listen to. He is son of Hamas leader . He served in Hamas. He lived in Gaza. He knows what he's talking about. Once you see his name, start watching his recent videos & articles. The rest of us are guessing

Valerie, nobody here is defending Hamas or wants to see them "win". There is, however, a third position that means we don't think Hamas being evil somehow gives the current Israeli government a blank check to also be evil.

That's exactly what I am trying to say.

And who started it depends an awful lot on which date you choose to look at. Most Palestinian Arabs are refugees, no longer allowed to live on their ancestral land.

I think this description from the United Nations is accurate:

The Nakba, which means “catastrophe” in Arabic, refers to the mass displacement and dispossession of Palestinians during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Before the Nakba, Palestine was a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society. However, the conflict between Arabs and Jews intensified in the 1930s with the increase of Jewish immigration, driven by persecution in Europe, and with the Zionist movement aiming to establish a Jewish state in Palestine.

In November 1947, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution partitioning Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab, with Jerusalem under a UN administration. The Arab world rejected the plan, arguing that it was unfair and violated the UN Charter. Jewish militias launched attacks against Palestinian villages, forcing thousands to flee. The situation escalated into a full-blown war in 1948, with the end of the British Mandate and the departure of British forces, the declaration of independence of the State of Israel and the entry of neighbouring Arab armies. The newly established Israeli forces launched a major offensive. The result of the war was the permanent displacement of more than half of the Palestinian population.

As early as December 1948, the UN General Assembly called for refugee return, property restitution and compensation (resolution 194 (II)). However, 75 years later, despite countless UN resolutions, the rights of the Palestinians continue to be denied. According to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) more than 5 million Palestine refugees are scattered throughout the Middle East. Today, Palestinians continue to be dispossessed and displaced by Israeli settlements, evictions, land confiscation and home demolitions.

[HondurasKeiser]

Desperation.

Desperate to kill Jews it seems. So much so that they turned billions in aid (including from Israel) into implements of war and massacre.

[HondurasKeiser]

I think both sides can play that kind of game, though. Which side took the other's country and made the other permanent refugees? There's always an excuse for killing civilians on the other side. And each side is eager to justify what they do.

Boot, what country did the Jews allegedly "take"?

Yes, when Israel enters Gaza to eliminate Hamas, it's like entering New York City to eliminate accountants. There's no obvious place to find them. They are mixed up with all kinds of other people. It's hard to create clear military objectives. But that's not an excuse for indiscriminately killing lots of civilians.

I do think Israel needs to defend itself. But retaliation is revenge, not defense. And revenge begets revenge.

So how then should Israel respond? You started a thread on that and spent a lot of time decrying the atrocities of Israel but never really got around to answering your own question.

[Bootstrap]

I think both sides can play that kind of game, though. Which side took the other's country and made the other permanent refugees? There's always an excuse for killing civilians on the other side. And each side is eager to justify what they do.

Boot, what country did the Jews allegedly "take"?

I answered that two posts back:

viewtopic.php?p=209071#p209071

In November 1947, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution partitioning Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab, with Jerusalem under a UN administration.

Israel and Palestine were chartered in the same way. Israel won the wars, taking over a lot of Palestine. And this is what Palestinians face:

As early as December 1948, the UN General Assembly called for refugee return, property restitution and compensation (resolution 194 (II)). However, 75 years later, despite countless UN resolutions, the rights of the Palestinians continue to be denied. According to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) more than 5 million Palestine refugees are scattered throughout the Middle East. Today, Palestinians continue to be dispossessed and displaced by Israeli settlements, evictions, land confiscation and home demolitions.

Not a justification for Hamas terrorism. But there are two peoples who need to live safely and in peace, not just one. And killing babies is just as bad for Palestinian babies as for Israeli babies.

Yes, when Israel enters Gaza to eliminate Hamas, it's like entering New York City to eliminate accountants. There's no obvious place to find them. They are mixed up with all kinds of other people. It's hard to create clear military objectives. But that's not an excuse for indiscriminately killing lots of civilians.

I do think Israel needs to defend itself. But retaliation is revenge, not defense. And revenge begets revenge.

So how then should Israel respond? You started a thread on that and spent a lot of time decrying the atrocities of Israel but never really got around to answering your own question.

I think it's a very difficult question to answer.

But I think it starts here: What are the military and diplomatic goals? What does getting to peace look like? In the long run, I think there are only a few possibilities for a long-term peace:

1. Israel wipes Palestinians off the face of the earth or deports them to other places, terrorism ceases, and the Arab world does not respond violently. This seems entirely unrealistic to me.
2. Israel tries to maintain the status quo - gradually wiping out Palestinian rights, controlling their borders, telling them what they can import and export, preventing them from having economic viability, building new settlements on what is currently Palestinian land, protecting Jews who commit atrocities against Palestinians, trying to undermine the Israeli Supreme Court to erode their basic human rights, and hoping that Palestinians will be willing to go along. This seems entirely unrealistic to me.
3. Israel demands that Palestinians appoint a negotiating partner that is committed to peaceful negotiations, not Hamas, and is willing to offer Palestinians either a viable state of their own or full citizenship in Israel. This would be very hard, but seems much more possible.

I think the military strategy should be built largely on the peace they want to build in the end.

Without a clear military objective, aligned with a diplomatic objective, it's just a lot of killing.

[Szdfan]

I do think Israel needs to defend itself. But retaliation is revenge, not defense. And revenge begets revenge.

Hamas secretly broke in and intentionally targeted civilians. They raped and beheaded women and children. The "Commanders" sent them to do that. Multiple Hamas were captured and stated that.

Israel has dropped leaflets telling civilians to evacuate. They are targeting known Hamas targets, that Hamas has placed under hospitals and schools. Hamas blocked the roads to keep the Palestinians from leaving Gaza. Egypt has a closed border and not letting Palestinians to enter.

There is a clear (western) moral difference in the actions of the two parties. While I do not like either side's actions, I can clearly see one side is much more humane in their actions.

Gaza is the third most population-dense region in the world. There are over two million people living in a strip of land that is twenty-five miles long. With that kind of density, it's impossible to avoid civilian casualties during a major assault. Moving the population to the southern half of the territory expounds the problem. The humanitarian aid that has gotten through is nowhere near enough what's needed. There's nothing humane about any of this. This is a major humanitarian disaster happening in real time.

[Ken]

I think both sides can play that kind of game, though. Which side took the other's country and made the other permanent refugees? There's always an excuse for killing civilians on the other side. And each side is eager to justify what they do.

Boot, what country did the Jews allegedly "take"?

I answered that two posts back:

viewtopic.php?p=209071#p209071

In November 1947, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution partitioning Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab, with Jerusalem under a UN administration.

Israel and Palestine were chartered in the same way. Israel won the wars, taking over a lot of Palestine. And this is what Palestinians face:

As early as December 1948, the UN General Assembly called for refugee return, property restitution and compensation (resolution 194 (II)). However, 75 years later, despite countless UN resolutions, the rights of the Palestinians continue to be denied. According to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) more than 5 million Palestine refugees are scattered throughout the Middle East. Today, Palestinians continue to be dispossessed and displaced by Israeli settlements, evictions, land confiscation and home demolitions.

Not a justification for Hamas terrorism. But there are two peoples who need to live safely and in peace, not just one. And killing babies is just as bad for Palestinian babies as for Israeli babies.

Yes, when Israel enters Gaza to eliminate Hamas, it's like entering New York City to eliminate accountants. There's no obvious place to find them. They are mixed up with all kinds of other people. It's hard to create clear military objectives. But that's not an excuse for indiscriminately killing lots of civilians.

I do think Israel needs to defend itself. But retaliation is revenge, not defense. And revenge begets revenge.

So how then should Israel respond? You started a thread on that and spent a lot of time decrying the atrocities of Israel but never really got around to answering your own question.

I think it's a very difficult question to answer.

But I think it starts here: What are the military and diplomatic goals? What does getting to peace look like? In the long run, I think there are only a few possibilities for a long-term peace:

1. Israel wipes Palestinians off the face of the earth or deports them to other places, terrorism ceases, and the Arab world does not respond violently. This seems entirely unrealistic to me.
2. Israel tries to maintain the status quo - gradually wiping out Palestinian rights, controlling their borders, telling them what they can import and export, preventing them from having economic viability, building new settlements on what is currently Palestinian land, protecting Jews who commit atrocities against Palestinians, trying to undermine the Israeli Supreme Court to erode their basic human rights, and hoping that Palestinians will be willing to go along. This seems entirely unrealistic to me.
3. Israel demands that Palestinians appoint a negotiating partner that is committed to peaceful negotiations, not Hamas, and is willing to offer Palestinians either a viable state of their own or full citizenship in Israel. This would be very hard, but seems much more possible.

I think the military strategy should be built largely on the peace they want to build in the end.

Without a clear military objective, aligned with a diplomatic objective, it's just a lot of killing.

Without a legitimate 2-state solution in the region I personally don't think there will ever be a permanent peace of any kind. Just endless kicking the can down the road interrupted by periodic endless war that ebbs and flows as predictably as the tides.

Israel seems to think they can keep winning such wars and so far that has been true. But the future is a long time and it doesn't seem sustainable to me to think they can keep doing so forever.

[barnhart]

Desperation.

Desperate to kill Jews it seems. So much so that they turned billions in aid (including from Israel) into implements of war and massacre.

That plays a part but it's not the only factor. If the Israelis were Chinese I suspect they would still feel desperate.

[HondurasKeiser]

In November 1947, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution partitioning Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab, with Jerusalem under a UN administration.

Israel and Palestine were chartered in the same way. Israel won the wars, taking over a lot of Palestine. And this is what Palestinians face:

Who started the war?

[HondurasKeiser]

Desperation.

Desperate to kill Jews it seems. So much so that they turned billions in aid (including from Israel) into implements of war and massacre.

That plays a part but it's not the only factor. If the Israelis were Chinese I suspect they would still feel desperate.

What do you think the other factor(s) of their desperation is(are)?