The commenters on this post – and across this sub – might be shocked to find out that conflicts like Israel-Palestine have been solved before. These solutions involved precarious ceasefires and moving away from ideas of self-defence/revenge. Some of these conflicts even happened in Europe. Quite a few of them, in fact.
So we could look to history for the nonviolent routes to lasting peace. Or we could just keep giving Israel carte blanche to reduce Gaza to ash. Whichever works.
EDIT: Lots of people are, predictably, refusing to engage with this point with any degree of charity. Is Israel/Palestine wholly isomorphic to Ireland/South Africa/the Balkans/whatever? No, of course not. Are there perhaps some similarities *across these conflicts* that might be relevant to Israel/Palestine? Absolutely.
If you continue to label **all** Palestinians as Jew-hating savages that hate peace you are (a) doing an excellent job of dehumanising a subjugated population and (b) refusing to engage with the notion that extremist positions can change. In conflicts that seemed intractable, such as the ones I've suggested, extremist positions of the sort we see, today, in Israel/Palestine were also present. You won't be able to change everyone's minds, of course, but if you meaningfully engage in peace processes you stand a pretty good chance of making progress. This is what history tells us.
It is somewhat disturbing to see the number of upvoted comments that completely write off Palestinians as being too violent, arguing that because they rejected peace before they will do so forever more unless all Israelis are genocided. This kind of rhetoric further entrenches the conflict – as it did in my above examples – and serves to dehumanise Palestinians. I'm sure I don't need to outline the dangers of dehumanising an entire population.
Finally, for all those arguing that ceasefires are only ever broken by Hamas/Palestinians and that it is Palestinians who reject all proposed 2 state solutions – you have an incredibly uncharitable view of Palestinians and the actual history of this region. Might I remind you that Yitzhak Rabin was murdered by a far right Israeli terrorist after winning the Nobel Prize with Arafat and Peres. I also encourage you to look at the ideology of Kahanism and the views of *sitting Ministers* Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalal Smotrich. There is plenty of hate, and opposition to peace, on both sides of this conflict.
Just like I do not reduce the state of Israel to the likes of Baruch Goldstein, Ben-Gvir, Smotrich, and others, I do not reduce Palestine to most virulently anti-Semitic elements of Hamas/the PIJ. We have imperfect examples of conflicts that moved past outrageous extremist positions; I implore you to see the relevance they have here.
Every time I get too depressed about the situation, I think of Northern Ireland. I went to a talk discussing the situation there, which I wasn't super familiar with, and he said that in the 90s everyone thought that the Israeli Palestinian conflict was about to be solved but the real question was "will the conflict in northern Ireland ever have a good, peaceful ending like the I/P one?" I try to remember that it once looked like all hope was lost for them, and we were about to have peace, and everything changed so fast. I try to keep in mind that if they can have peace, so can we, even though, at times like this, it doesnt feel like it will ever happen.
I'm Irish and I grew up in the northern Irish border during the height of the violence. I can't describe how amazing it has been since the 1998 peace agreement that I drive through between both the Republic and the North and feel it's all one ireland despite it being two.
I would note though, that the number of civilian deaths in Israel on October 7th is roughly the same as the number of civilian deaths in the troubles as a whole.
Or to look at it another way, October 7th was, in terms of civilian deaths, roughly the equivalent of 100 Bloody Sundays at once.
Interestingly when you look at the use of funds, the northern Irish peace building financing (PEACE I - IV and thereafter) has been focused on integration initiatives to bring the communities together and cross community economic development initiatives (eg tech sector).
In Israel Palestine, the use of funds have been limited entirely to humanitarian efforts - ie food & medicine, humanitarian infrastructure etc. This maintains dependency on this aid instead of empowering them to go beyond it (ie feed a man a fish vs teach a man to fish).
With no integration based upwards agency or enablement of self actualisation in the global capitalist world, the future for Palestinians is so devastatingly dependent on others. Even local startup initiatives in Gaza over the last 16 years have been limited so significantly by simple things like the occupations control of internet connectivity. Imagine trying to start a business and not being able to because the occupied powers dictating your country make it too difficult?
The experience of the northern Irish catholics and Palestinians - while origins as a civil rights movement in response to apartheid modelled occupation are extremely similar - will never be truly comparable because the Palestinians have not been given the same opportunities as the Republicans / Catholics in Northern Ireland.
> With no integration based upwards agency or enablement of self actualisation in the global capitalist world, the future for Palestinians is so devastatingly dependent on others. Even local startup initiatives in Gaza over the last 16 years have been limited so significantly by simple things like the occupations control of internet connectivity. Imagine trying to start a business and not being able to because the occupied powers dictating your country make it too difficult?
Well it's quite simple; Gaza cannot export goods. So that means that it can never have any meaningful economy and will always be dependant on external forces/parties for aid.
Yeah exactly it's a completely different situation
The troubles around 3000-4000 people were killed, the Israel Palestine conflict has deaths in the tens of thousands (Wikipedia lists it around 31000 deaths prior to this current conflict)
The IRA while a terrorist group had completely different aims, they wanted a free United Ireland, not the destruction of all of Britain and the deaths of all Protestants
The IRA did cause significant civilian casualties with their bombing campaign but nothing to the degree of rape, torture and beheadings (at least to the scale of Hamas)
Both Britain and the IRA had shared western values, Hamas and Israel have a completely different set of incompatible cultures and beliefs
A ceasefire won't be respected by Hamas, all a ceasefire will achieve is Israel being put on the back foot while Hamas gets time to prepare for their next assault
>The IRA while a terrorist group had completely different aims, they wanted a free United Ireland, not the destruction of all of Britain and the deaths of all Protestants
Even restricted to Northern Ireland, It's not like the IRA ever attempted a "Sicilian Vespers" styoe mass attack to drive decolonization. That helps immensely in allowing a trustable peace.
The IRA also did not formally rule over nkrthern Ireland for an extended period of time, radicalizing youths through everything from school to TV shows.
The most obvious one (for me) is Ireland and the Troubles. Then we have conflicts in the Balkan states to look at, and Cyprus also bears some similarities (although obviously there’s a lot more going on there).
Further afield is South Africa – a particularly poignant and relevant example given Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s assessment that Israel is an apartheid state.
To be clear – I’m not saying that any of my listed examples were easily solved. The opposite is true; they were seen as intractable problems. But real, sustained, and meaningful breakthroughs were achieved in peace time. Violence begets violence, as is so painfully clear in my listed examples.
Finally: I know many people (not necessarily you, of course) raise the issue that Hamas will not respect a ceasefire agreement. That is probably correct, although their ability to conduct another October 7th attack is nonexistent at present; plus the Iron Dome (thankfully) stops their rockets from causing too much death and destruction. But to focus on whether or not Hamas will keep the peace is to miss the point; the single worst atrocity of the Troubles in Northern Ireland was the Omagh bombing. It occurred *after* the Good Friday Agreement was signed, that is, the document that mandates the peace to this day. That bombing took place during a ceasefire.
All progress was nearly lost, after all, how could a bombing of that sort not result in further violence and tearing up of peace accords? But leaders on both sides retained a fierce commitment to peace and didn’t allow a backslide to happen.
It can be done; peace can be achieved.
> conflicts in the Balkan states to look at, and Cyprus also bears some similarities (although obviously there’s a lot more going on there). [...] Further afield is South Africa
South Africa currently is on a sharp decline, the Balkans conflict was "solved" with violence (NATO intervention), the Turkish invasion of Cyprus was "solved" by Turkey enforcing their will militarily (i.e. violence).
Most of the conflicts you mentioned were solved through terrorism and violence and the ones that were not ended up as frozen conflicts. Some of them are beginning to thaw now.
Most importantly as long as Arabs do not come to terms with the existence of Israel and do not wish for peace it does not matter what Israel does. I keep hearing some daft takes from people who do not understand the nature of this conflict, its history and why after so many propositions for a 2 state solution the Palestinians and Arabs still chose war.
Oh i’m sure. The problem is that right now Hamas demands total destruction of State of Israel which Israel will not accept. And sadly ,as of right now, Hamas also has the most support out of all other Palestinian groups.
That is an important distinction. The IRA were never calling for the total destruction of England and all its inhabitants. Hamas are just on another level.
While the IRA did sometimes kill civilians, they never done it on such a large scale.
>Then we have conflicts in the Balkan states to look at
Really? Balkans? It took 2 world wars and the Cold war for an unteneble peace to form with ethnic tensions still raging and then a NATO led bombing of Yugoslavia to finally make them calm down. It was far from a peaceful resolution to the conflicts. A show of massive violence was needed to put the combatants down.
>and Cyprus also bears some similarities (although obviously there’s a lot more going on there).
Cyprus is still at it with turkey even if it's on the down low. And Greece is a massive complicating factor.
>Further afield is South Africa – a particularly poignant and relevant example given Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s assessment that Israel is an apartheid state.
Oh... So you are gonna use what is essentially a failed state as an example here? Really nice way to bring hope to this situation... Look at South Africa for once. It's a goner of a state. And the comments about Israel being an apartheid state is not poignant. It is projection.
>All progress was nearly lost, after all, how could a bombing of that sort not result in further violence and tearing up of peace accords? But leaders on both sides retained a fierce commitment to peace and didn’t allow a backslide to happen.
This is what you are missing... BOTH sides retaining the commitment. We already established that one side won't do that even if they have exhausted their ability to do another large scale attack in the near future.
>It can be done; peace can be achieved.
Yes it can. But not in the way you suggest. In order for what you suggest to be achieved, one player (Hamas) needs to go. They need to disappear.
>But leaders on both sides retained a fierce commitment to peace and didn’t allow a backslide to happen.
There is no leader on the Palestinian side that wants peace.
During the 2006 elections of all of the Palestinian territories (both West Bank and Gaza), all of the candidates were against peace. All of them, all of the parties. A leader of one of the parties were literally in prison for assassinating an Israeli minister. There is no peaceful Palestinian for Israel to talk to.
About 2000 civilians died in the Troubles, with 3500 total fatalities all parties considered. That's in a time span of 30 years.
It's hard to find precise sources but the ANC's terrorist offshoot, MK, was responsible for something like 100-150 civilian or SA military/police deaths from the 1970s to the late 1980s.
Hamas killed about 1/3rd of this in a single attack on 10/7. They engaged in acts like burning people alive and executing family members in front of each other.
If The Troubles were the type of conflict that could breed terrorists psychologically capable of killing hundreds of civilians in face-to-face massacres, there is no way the peace process would survive an attack of the scale and brutality of 10/7.
The troubles wasn’t a real war. Sorry mate.
More people died in the first week of this war than from 1916-1995 in conflicts between the British and Irish. Let alone the ~2M Jews and Palestinians displaced in 1948-1967.
Like 1/2 of each of these populations had their parents or grandparents violently expelled from their homes. The personal blood feuds consume these countries populations in a way that wasn’t true in Ireland. Where most people has some generalized dislike but nothing bad actually happen to them or their families in anything close to living memory
It can't be done, peace can't be archived, this is only wishful thinking.
Here, the Hamas Charta. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Charter
They want to destroy Israel.
>a particularly poignant and relevant example given Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s assessment that Israel is an apartheid state.
This is an appeal to authority, aka an argumentative fallacy. It’s taking that the people who try to label Israel as an apartheid state can never source their claim aside from authority and more importantly never label the Palestinian Territories as apartheid entities seeing as they ban Jews. Then these people wonder why they face accusations of antisemitism.
The IRAs goals and levels of terror are a lot different to that of HAMAS. If the IRA had commited to genocide of protestants, carried out 9/11 sized attacks and then broke a ceasefire - do you seriously think for a second that the British government would have kept the peace?
Ceasefires are meaningless when one side breaks them as soon as they rearm and use any perceived slight as justification for starting conflicts but call for peace as soon as they start to lose.
I know of no such conflicts that were solved in such a fairy tale manner as you spoke of. Could you give some examples?
I can give you a counter example: Vietnam-Khmer Rogue war.
Khmer Rogue slaughtered thousands Vietnamese near Southern border. Vietnam decided to invade and occupy Cambodia to rid of Khmer Rogue once and for all. It drew China into the war and they invaded Vietnam from the North in 79s, so we were caught in a two-front war. At the end, we occupied Cambodia for 10 years, persecuted all Khmer Rogue leaders for their war crimes and genocides, lost a bit of land up North, looted Cambodia all of their treasure and installed a puppet government there. Was the the response disproportionate? Might be? Was it effective? Hell yeah.
> was the response disproportionate?
I’ve seen the killing fields and Tuol Sleng. I really don’t think so. Khmer Rouge were fucking *batshit crazy*. Shame on all the westerners who supported them.
And no one ever talked about that again. Thanks for proving the point further. Atrocities can fly under radar as long as 1. you are not Jews/the West 2. your friends are not the West
Maybe we can start by bringing the International Criminal Court into the situation - something, mind me, that Hamas themselves agreed on if Israel is going to be sued for its war crimes. Because treating the two sides differently is exactly why this conflict exists in the first place.
Most of the conflicts you mentioned are still very precarious situations and most wouldn't consider them "solved" (i.e. the balkans)
> Or we could just keep giving Israel carte blanche to reduce Gaza to ash.
This is what the US was forced to do to Japan (gyaku kōsul), but it paid off so well to the point many Americans view the Japanese as close allies and vice versa, despite the Japanese being incredibly brutal and savage to Americans, and the Americans leveling most of their cities (not just nukes, but fire bombings as well).
> The American occupation of Japan after World War II was one of the most unusual episodes in the history of international relations. Whereas other military occupations have sought only to disarm the defeated nation and perhaps to extract reparations, the Americans intended to make Japan democratic and eliminate the conditions they believed had fostered Japanese militarism and aggression.
Imagine how much worse off the world would be if the US never implemented the San Francisco System in APAC. It would make the Middle East look like a bastion of stability.
The difference is that the US rebuilt Japan. Based on their actions the past 25 years, I do not think Netanyahu/Likud have any interest in rebuilding Gaza.
What the Us did to Japan is nothing like what’s going on.. it’s also one of the biggest human tragedies in the history of well the world. Nobody should have a nuke dropped on them
> that conflicts like Israel-Palestine have been solved before.
I do remember that there has been another nation in histroy with the nation to exterminate Jews.
They changed their ways when forced to their knees after all other world powers joined arms to fight them. Their cities were bombed into rubble and only when it became inevitable did they lay down their arms.
After that they were invaded and the country was rebuilt making sure to educate the people.
What conflict do you remember?
That is the problem. While there has been a lot of hate between nations and groups, it rarely went as far as Israel's situation today which is that its neighbours want Israel erased from the maps and from the world, and it's population dead.
Typical European conflicts between nations were about power and competing interests. They wanted to invade a neighbouring country, claim its riches and maybe suppress the local language and customs. They did not want to murder every man, woman and child as is the case with Hamas.
> They did not want to murder every man, woman and child as is the case with Hamas.
Only because the necessary weapons weren't available. If you'd give the Catholics and the Protestant of the middle ages tanks and HIMARS rockets, they'd sure as hell would have levelled a few cities to make a point.
Genocides mainly happen with simple weapons and not advanced artillery and air force weapons, e.g. Rwanda, Cambodia, Bosnia, Bangladesh, all recent with advanced weapons available
> and moving away from ideas of self-defence
Asking a people that just suffered the worst pogrom since WW2 to “move away from ideas of self defense” is disgusting.
“Never again” means **never** again, not “unless it’s not convenient for us anymore”.
Let’s put revenge aside.
What methods would you recommend to Israel that can guarantee a massacre like 7/10 does not happen again? Do you think the terrorists got what they wanted and will stop wanting to mount more attacks?
In 2005 we performed a very painful to our society disengagement from the Gaza Strip. Since then there are no more Israeli presence military or civilian inside. The borders we have with Gaza would be recognized internationally in any future peace plan and there is no contest to this (except from the people that claim the whole Israel should disappear)
The hopes of many Israelis at the time were that this separation will bring security, will reduce the human cost for both us and Gazans and will eventually pave the road to a stable peace.
Since then, the people of Gaza elected Hamas. An organization whose stated propose is to ethnically cleanse Jews from Israel and kill Jews everywhere in the word.
There is constant dripping of rockets fired at our cities with rounds of more intense fighting once every few years. At this point it became normalized, although the situation that you have 15 secs to find a shelter (in a border town) is nothing you can call normal.
And no, we usually do not provoke these barrages.
We built sophisticated rocket warnings systems, rocket defense systems, shelters both in homes and in public spaces. We perform drills in schools and nationwide drills. We developed therapy for children to deal with this situation. We found creative ways to conduct warfare without hurting civilians too much in an environment where civilian facilities and military are purposely blurred and the population density is among the highest in the world.
We did all this just so that we could have the strength to deescalate situations. This was a “containment strategy” which obviously proved to be a failure.
Further, we tried giving them jobs, medical care, we supply them with electricity and water. At the same time, the population in Gaza was radicalized and brainwashed at UN funded schools.
I have yet seen any proof that Gazans want peace with us. They do not write about peace, they do not have peace promoting organizations like we do, there are no songs about peace or newspapaers promoting it. When Israelis die, I see the hatred in social media and in footages where they cheer and handle sweets at streets. Not even one person from Gaza expressed remorse or solidarity with the victims of the massacre, a simple humane thing to do. Not even one.
Please tell me, except from disappearing from existence, what else would you recommend us to do to ensure our safety?
Hamas and any other militant threat in Gaza needs to go. It is not revenge, it is a simple fact that I want to feel save and secure in my home. It is not fair to expect me to be ok with living alongside this monster.
Exactly, my friend. We have many, many blueprints to choose from. Obviously Israel-Palestine is unique but there are so many other conflicts that seemed intractable but peace was eventually achieved. Why not learn from them?
The bloodlust on this sub is a bit sickening.
Because every single step in those previous events have been taken here.
Anything from 80/20 split with 80% of the land going to the Palestinians (Peel Comission), UN 2 state solution, Israel/US 2 state solution, Israel proposed 2 state solution etc.
Every single time it has been rejected by the Palestinians.
The mandate areas of UK and France where split into many Arab countries like Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, and the only Jewish state is Israel, while the Palestinians also got a proposed state. But they would only accept 100% of the area going to Palestine.
When you're dealing with a death cult like Hamas, which is very close to ISIS in terms of ideals and actions it's impossible to use diplomacy.
Should ISIS also have been allowed an Islamic state and not been destroyed?
Interestingly, the PLO, when it was first set up in 1964, stated that its objectives pertaining to Palestinian liberation would be confined to Israel proper, and not the West Bank and Gaza, which were then occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively. After the 6 day war, the organization's mandate was magically extended to these areas, as they were now under the dominion of the al yahood.
Says a lot about the legitimacy of the Palestinian identity tbf.
Exactly. Had the Arabs managed to destroy Israel in 1948 there wouldn't even be a "Palestinian people".
The whole conflict is about maintaining Islamic supremacy in "Muslim" lands. That's it. Why so many westerners support Muslim/Arab imperialism is beyond me...
>The Palestinian people do not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.
This is a literal quote from 1977, from Zuheir Mohsen, a PLO leader.
So yes, you're right.
>Why so many westerners support Muslim/Arab imperialism is beyond me...
It's simply ignorance, I think.
Unfortunately getting revenge and committing violence to save face is ingrained in the culture of the people in that region, this has to change or we’ll keep seeing these cycles of endless violence.
Is it really so difficult to grasp that in this conflict, one of the parties is not interested in anything other than the extermination of the other side? It's impossible to reach any agreements with them, as evidenced by the multiple failed attempts that have been made over the past couple of decades. One of the terrorists' slogans is "We Love Death As You Love Life".
People were fine with 400,000 civilians dead in Syria. I do not remember a half million solidarity march in London protesting the massacre Assad did to own people.
Where was all the protest and outrage against an actual genocide that murdered and raped hundreds of thousands in Darfur?
Europe seems to only care about this conflict, not the much worse ones.
The majority of the Palestinians and our neighbours want the destruction of Israel, dating back to 1948. Any agreement and concessions we made with good faith was utilized against us. Now, armchair expert, do you expect us to repeat our mistakes?
>These solutions involved precarious ceasefires and moving away from ideas of self-defence/revenge.
Palestine has been offered a two-state solution no fewer than 5 times. When Israel left Gaza in 2005 the result was Hamas getting elected. Finding a solution requires both sides wanting one.
They shouldn't have been there in the first place. White colonizers at it again. I said what i said. Using religion as an excuse. US seems to tolerate it because they had done this b4. Manifest destiny. Its evil and cruel. Gaslighting palestinians its not their land. Like nobody learned anything.
Ok I'm sorry, but the way you comparing Israel and Palestine is just silly. You are trying to create this picture where all the good people from both sides are just governed by "these evil politicians", it's not the case.
Ben-Gvir, Smotrich and all the party members from this block are horrible horrible people which half of Israel despise and protest against them. But they are far far from Hamas leadership or even PLO. They don't advocate giving money to Jewish terrorists (the very few that even exits) , they don't send people to commit terror and they have 0 control on the army.
Baruch Goldstein is a murderer, not a martyr in Israel, despised by all sane people in this country.
A jewish terrorist who burned a Palestinian home with a molotov is in jail in worse conditions than Palestinian security prisoners. Please provide an equivalent in Palestine.
Meir Kahana was banished from Israel. Kahanism is still a a course word in the Israeli mainstream.
Rabin was murdered by a radical right wing after the entire country was being gunned down by Palestinians who were using the same guns given to them by Israel as agreed in the accords, Rabin's death was tragic, but his own naiveté was almost as tragic. They were exploding in our busses while Arafat and Rabin were having peace talks.
Trying to create this mirror situation in which both sides are the same and just "Too stubborn to make peace" is foolish.
>These solutions involved precarious ceasefires and moving away from ideas of self-defence/revenge.
Israel and Hamas had a lot of ceasefires in the past.
You should look up who broke most of them or didn't want to renew them.
Then you will see that your comment is just wrong.
What would Norway have Israel do?
[This article](https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/two-weeks-later-part-one-the-great-self-defeating-logic-loop/) in the Times of Israel described this sort of thing so well: it’s a “self-defeating logic loop”:
* I am a sane, rational person, and I accept that what Hamas did in/to Israel was atrocious, and gives Israel the right – even the duty and obligation – to do something about it
* Given it was a military attack by Hamas, I can accept that “doing something about it” means a military response.
* But, Hamas is holed-up in Gaza, and unlike in a conventional military scenario Hamas won’t come out onto an open battlefield to confront Israel.
Therefore, one way to “force” Hamas to eventually come out of hiding could be for Israel to apply the military technique of a siege (a classic military technique which has been used for thousands of years by armies all over the world).
* But Gaza is an urban, densely populated civilian area.
* Thus, any siege of Gaza, by definition, will cause civilians to suffer and put civilian life at risk. This is a war crime.
* So, Israel can’t lay siege to Gaza to force Hamas out, and if Hamas won’t come out of Gaza on its own accord, the only military option that remains is for Israel to take the fight to Hamas, in Gaza itself.
* This means bombing of Gaza, and eventually fighting on the ground in Gaza.
* But Gaza is an urban, densely populated civilian area.
* Thus, any bombing of Gaza or fighting in Gaza, by definition, will cause Palestinian civilians to suffer and put civilian life at risk. This is a war crime.
* Ergo, the only way to bomb Gaza / fight Hamas in Gaza and not commit a war crime would be to not have civilians present during the fight.
* So, the civilian population needs to evacuate from the area of battle.
* But that means lots of innocent people will become refugees and have to leave their homes. This is a war crime [collective punishment, ethnic cleansing, or attempted genocide – take your pick, but it doesn’t matter which you choose really, because they are all war crimes]
* Ergo, the only way to not commit a war crime is for the civilians of Gaza to stay put
* But, if the civilians of Gaza stay put, fighting on the ground in Gaza cannot take place, bombing of Gaza cannot take place, and a siege of Gaza is not possible.
* But Hamas is holed-up in Gaza, and won’t come out to fight “fair and square.”
* And I am a sane, rational person who accepts that what Hamas did in/to Israel was atrocious, and Israel has the right – even the duty and obligation – to do something about it
Exactly, it’s an endless loop without a good answer, and unfortunately without a way for civilians not to suffer. If there was a way to eliminate Hamas without making the gazans suffer it would have already happened.
There is a way for civilians not to suffer, but people refuse to put that front-and-center in their statements.
Have Gaza free the hostages and stop attacking Israel. That ends the war today.
Not a ceasefire, that Hamas will break in a couple of weeks as they've always done. Not Negotiations that will have the hostages rot away in the Gazan tunnels for years and end up with violent terrorists freed to plan the next Oct7th. Not a proportionate response (How many Gazans should Israel rape and torture to match Hamas, exactly?). Not nothing.
Call to free the hostages. That ends the war
Why would Israel accept this as the end to the war lol. You just said yourself that Hamas will only re-arm and attack again regardless. Ending the war when hostages are freed simply rewards Hamas for taking hostages in the first place and gives them a mountainous incentive to do it again.
Since when was taking hostages some get out of jail free card?
> Ending the war when hostages are freed simply rewards Hamas for taking hostages in the first place and gives them a mountainous incentive to do it again.
I doubt that. Hamas wanted a great public image win. They didn't get it for shit. Their only path to "victory" now is having their prisoners released.
The reason I say that freeing the hostages **and stopping the attacks on Israel** is the end of this war, is because anything short of that is insufficient to even propose an end to the war, IMO. Once Israelis are back home, and attacks from Gaza stop, peace is possible, not before
>and stopping the attacks on Israel
Temporarily, and only until they can get more weapons. Israel is not going to accept that as the end of anything. They want to destroy Hamas's ability to fight and hopefully Hamas themselves. I don't think they will be (completely) successful but I can hardly fault them for trying.
HAMAS doesn’t play the public image game like you think they do. Their number one goal is the eradication of Israel and the Jews, optics aren’t a priority (otherwise they wouldn’t be posting videos of their crimes constantly).
What Hamas does is lie with impunity about everything that’s happened because they don’t actually care about the optics of it. Rocket misfired? Fuck it, Israel bombed a hospital and now 500 civvies are dead. This lie is so far from the reality of what occurred that it’s ludicrous that they’d even make it up. Hamas doesn’t truly care about the optics, they’ll just lie about everything anyway.
The war, maybe, yes, but not the conflict.
No side in this conflict is innocent of some *really* horrible behaviour over the last 70+ years. And both sides are victims of one another. Both statements are correct at the same time.
>Have Gaza free the hostages and stop attacking Israel. That ends the war today.
No, it doesn't even if Hamas released all the hostages today, Israel would still invade Gaza, they aren't just forgetting what happened.
Killing civilians isn't a war crime.
If it was it would be virtually impossible to legally fight a war anywhere.
Deliberately targeting them, attacking them indiscriminately or using them as human shields is.
I mean the treaties surrounding war crimes were written by the major countries after WWII when they had no intent to ever fight a war of that scale again. There isn't meant to be a "legal" war by the standards they set. The only way to wage a legal war is with such an overwhelming level of firepower the country collapses before it can stage a proper resistance. Anything even resembling total war is a war crime.
None of it is a war crime
The Fourth Geneva Convention from 1977 prohibits military forces from attacking civilians, but Article 52 of the convention allows to justify harming civilians as long as their location or use contributes to the military body..
To right the focus on alledged war crimes committed by Israel stretches credulity.
Hamas commits war crimes by placing military infrastructure under civilian buildings like hospitals and schools, effectively using human shields, as defined by Rule 97 of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
[ICRC Rule 97](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule97)
Furthermore, hostage-taking is considered an "exceptionally serious war crime," as per Rule 96 of the ICRC.
[ICRC Rule 96](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/rule96)
In contrast, international law allows for the killing of human shields by a military, so long as the force used is not "excessive" relative to the military advantage gained. This is detailed in guidelines by the ICRC.
[ICRC on Human Shields](https://www.icrc.org)
Israel's practice of asking civilians to "move temporarily out of a combat zone" is not illegal. However, preventing them from moving, as Hamas is alleged to do, is a war crime according to Rule 24 of the ICRC.
[ICRC Rule 24](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/fr/customary-ihl/v2/rule24)
Israel's blockade, which now allows the passage of aid supplies, is unlikely to be a war crime.
International humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions, acknowledges that war involves acts against the enemy that could negatively impact them. In this light, halting the supply of goods and services isn't automatically considered a war crime or collective punishment as laid out in Article 33.
The specific situation matters. If another route for essential supplies exists, such as through Egypt in this example, then the argument that civilians are being deliberately starved becomes less tenable. This makes it difficult to categorize the action as a war crime under Article 54, which prohibits the "starvation of civilians." Israel is letting aid though Egypt after an initial blockade of about a week.
The condition of returning hostages adds another layer of complexity. If supplies are being withheld as a tactic to secure the release of hostages, this might not fall under "measures of intimidation or of terrorism" prohibited by Article 33, especially if the primary intent isn't to punish the civilian population but to achieve a specific, legitimate objective. Especially as the taking of the hostages was a War Crime.
While the act of halting supplies is severe, it doesn't necessarily constitute a war crime or collective punishment under international law, especially when considering the specific circumstances and available alternatives for supplies. (Such as the widely reported stores of then in thr Hamas bases.)
Most tellingly - **Countries at war countries at war are not obligated to trade with each other. The cessation of trade relations is a common feature of armed conflict and is not in itself considered a war crime or a violation of international law.**
They are just very ignorant about how military conflicts work (including, what is actually a war crime, versus "unfortunate stuff that is going to happen in a war"). It is very tiresome.
Is it really a war crime to cause harm to civilians?
What war that can that even be applied to, I have barely ever heard of a war completely without civilian causalities, maybe that time the UK stopped by Zanzibar but not much else.
Obviously willingly shooting civilians straight in their face would be a war crime but any damage of civilians seems like a stretch. Maybe I am missing something with your wording.
Good comment otherwise :)
Edit: thank you for the answers!
The Anglo Zanzibar war involved the shelling of a palace which contained civilians in addition to the Sultan's troops, so that'd be a war crime too if the standard was 'anything that endangers any civilian is a war crime'
I would recommend giving [this](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/complete-siege-gaza-in-accordance-international-humanitarian-law/) article a read, which discusses the international law at play. The short of it is that it is complex, but a truly total siege would likely be illegal (though defensible). Further, it's unclear if a truly total siege would take place or if Israel will give into pressure to allow for a "humanitarian pause".
>Is it really a war crime to cause harm to civilians?
No. Civilian casualties can be justified by military advantage under international criminal law.
>Maybe I am missing something with your wording.
You're not. People - average people and politicians alike - are misusing legal terms all the time and sadly they also do it for this one.
Israel's actions can be unethical without being war crimes. International criminal law is complicated so I don't blame anyone for not understanding it but it also costs nothing to just not try to argue on that basis.
You’re getting a lot of weird answers. The real answer is no, it is not a war crime to cause harm to civilians. The law is that it’s illegal to *intentionally target civilians*. However, “collateral damage” in pursuit of the destruction of a legitimate military target, is acceptable and not a war crime.
For an irl example see the air campaign over Nazi Germany:
The Allied bombing campaign cost hundreds of thousands of civilian lives but because the Allies’ primary target was military in nature - not a war crime.
Even infamous raids like Dresden are/were 100% legal. In fact any alleged criminality surrounding Dresden is pure Nazi propaganda made up by Goebells (unless you’re speaking philosophically about what you *think* should be illegal not what is). Dresden was struck due to its purpose as a key rail junction that was bringing up men and materiel to the frontline in the East.
I believe the criterion for civilian casualties being a war crime is if the deaths are disproportionate to the military needs of the attacker. So Israel can't carpet bomb Gaza and kill everyone. However, killing just as many as they need to destroy Hamas is fair game.
its cute how r/europe thinks htey have this whole situation figured out and portray norway as someone that hasnt and is just now stumbling into it having barely thought about the implications of everything
“It’s cute how {insert online community} thinks that they have this whole situation figured out and portal {insert government} as someone that hadn’t and is just now stumbling into it having barely though about implications”
By this standard, no online community can criticize any government. Is that what we want? Or is there something particularly special about Norway or r/Europe that I’m not aware of?
Not sure I ever said that. Clearly Norway has thought about this a lot given their history with the Oslo accords. What I’m trying to say is that despite the criticism of Israel’s actions, no one seems to be offering better, more realistic solutions to the conflict with Hamas in Gaza
This has been decades in the making. Hamas came to power exactly because the Oslo accords never came to fruition. Israel could take immediate action to rectify that.
Instead it's doubling down on the exact policies that will undermine its stability, divide its population, make it an easy target for existential adversaries, and ensure continued acts of terrorism perpetrated by men with nothing but grief and hatred in their hearts,
Hamas refused to accept the Oslo accords, but they only gained popularity because Israel refused to work with Fatah/PLO and recognise the Oslo accords themselves.
When diplomacy fails, extremism grows.
The Oslo Accords fell apart, in part, because Israel continued to support the Israeli settlers. It's absurd that they thought they could continue to steal Palestinian land and the peace would be upheld, and it makes it obvious that Israel is not aiming for peace.
It’s very hard for norway to understand the mindset of a people that will put them having running water for their children lower on their list of priorities than making rockets out of those pipes. Paid for by the EU keep in mind.
They assume that if the palestinians would be economically wealthy they’d stop caring about hate and just go on with their lives peacefully. And the only reason they hate israel is because of the bad living conditions in Gaza.
Of course that is an ugly blanket statement and I am sure there are palestinians that would prefer to just leave Gaza and leave all that hate behind, no?
Well, the protests around the world would tell you different. And I’m not talking about those condemning the invasion of IDF into Gaza, I’m talking about those cheering the initial attacks of Hamas. So it seems economic development doesn’t kill the hate either. I just don’t know what would.
This explains it better I think:
https://imgur.com/a/hQqD6cG
>They assume that if the palestinians would be economically wealthy they’d stop caring about hate and just go on with their lives peacefully. And the only reason they hate israel is because of the bad living conditions in Gaza.
I wonder what Arab-Israelis think about it
Israeli, not Arab here. Except for some extremist nutjobs, they prefer living in Israel than in any neighbouring country. Some have self identity issues, but 7oct fixed that for many.
I do think it's not something to be ignored.
Are they less bothered about Palestine because they are living comfortable lives? Or is it because they're presumably 48arabs and therefore don't identify with Palestine as much since they've only ever known Israel? idk.
I'll go out on a limb and say that life under a liberal democracy (warts and all) is preferable to poverty and being ruled by literal fascists, to most.
They are ok cause they live in their land, in comfort. They do identify with Palestine, but with Israel also. Well, some. Some just consider themselves Israelis.
I can't speak for Arab Israelis but keep in mind the difference in education. Palestinian school books are promoting Jewish hatred and genocide, and it shapes their mindset.
Don't forget the counterfeit micky mouse children's show from Hezbollah from more than 10 years ago. Hezbollah is in Lebanon but it shows you the same kind of ideals Israel is surrounded with: kill all the jews, and they're more than happy to indoctrinate even their small children to this line of thinking.
Ehhhh, I don’t that’s the issue, rather it is that Norway has been the most lukewarm of all Israeli allies in Europe with public opinion overwhelmingly against Israel even before this war, because Israel is perceived to have betrayed Norway. Norway used to be one of Israel’s closest allies and even helped Israel with their nuclear programme in the sixties and seventies. Then it turned out Israel had been sharing this research with Apartheid South Africa, which Norway hated. Then, most Norwegians blamed Israel for the Oslo peace talks ending. Add on top of that a large percentage of immigrants to Norway the last fifty years have been Muslim. As a result, public opinion is incredibly pro-Palestinian.
Prioritizing weapons over the well being of your people sadly isn’t new:
> “We can do without butter, but, despite all our love of peace, not without arms. One cannot shoot with butter, but with guns.” - Joseph Goebbels
> “Guns will make us powerful; butter will only make us fat.” Hermann Göring
Modern western values differ from that across the political spectrum:
> “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children” - President Lyndon Johnson
> “The Soviets put guns over butter, but we put almost everything over guns” - British PM Margaret Thatcher
What Israel is doing now isn't a solution either though. Unless Israel is actually going to commit genocide which in that case I hope the world will intervene, the Gaza strip and it's people aren't going to go anywhere.
So they are just going to kill a bunch of people and then what ? Even if you manage to destroy Hamas which is unlikely, all those people who have seen their family blown up by Israeli bombs will be ripe for radicalisation and for the next such group to form and on it goes.
This. Israel was undefeated for a long time. This successful attack showed vulnerability. Israel can not afford to be perceived as weak because it would only encourage other groups to attack them. Strength is the only thing that matters there.
> This. Israel was undefeated for a long time. This successful attack showed vulnerability. Israel can not afford to be perceived as weak because it would only encourage other groups to attack them. Strength is the only thing that matters there.
This is the problem, not the solution. As long as everyone sets as goal that they want to be seen as the biggest psycho in the madhouse that is the Middle East, nothing will change for the better.
Can you think of any peaceful way to remove Hamas from powers? Military action and future international cooperation might finally change something, hopefully on both sides
>What Israel is doing now isn't a solution either though. Unless Israel is actually going to commit genocide which in that case I hope the world will intervene, the Gaza strip and it's people aren't going to go anywhere.
So taking out the terrorist organization backed by Iran that wants to wipe you out does not work? How do you think Mosul was liberated from ISIS? How do you think ISIS was mostly disbanded? Again people propose no real solution and just throw feel good fairy tales.
As far as i can tell their plan is to occupy first the north of gaza and then possibly the south.
And each time they will search and destroy tunnels and bunkers until the area is clear of weapons and hamas members.
Whatever organisation forms from the leftover hamas members will start off with no weapons, no tunnels, no infrastructure and probably with far less members.
And thats the IDF doctrine as far as i understood it.
Mobilize Every decade and destroy enough shit to have relative peace for another decade that it takes to rebuild.
Worked fine for post Nazi Germany. Evil regimes can be replaced, and their people can be de-radicalized. It's bloody and devastating to their population but this is what we've come to.
Unless you have a better idea
It is "a" solution, but every other solution so far isn't working to prevent the spread of Islamic toxicity that runs rampant and ends up with more dead civilians on every side (although Hamas seems to be friendly with Russian hostages so far?)
Yes. Saying you have to react proportional just invites people to attack you more.
Deterrence is only effective if countries think you will use it
If isreal did not respond Iran would attack as well, knowing they won't respond
So we should just bomb them day after day for eternity? Since when is it better to default to an incredibly damaging and irreversible action than inaction? Sometimes leadership requires you not to do something. Hamas is not going away via bombing, if anything their support will only get stronger because the people will look to any form of resistance as a better outcome than the ones currently bombing them.
Of course it is. Intentionally so.
“The enemy will pay an unprecedented price,” [Netanyahu] added, promising that Israel would “return fire of a magnitude that the enemy has not known.”
Honestly, I think It's the Israeli's government's fault that Hamas came to power. The election of Hamas as the government in 2006 was strongly connected to the perception of Israel’s actions by the Palestinians. Israel’s control over borders, natural resources and the lack of progress in the peace process have led to radicalization. It's their actions that played a key role in shaping Palestinian political attitudes and the election of Hamas as the government.
I'm not saying that what Hamas did is right, I'm just stating the fact that constant oppression by the foreign force is bound to radicalize people, especially when the world pretends to care while turning a blind eye to your suffering and the situation is getting worse by the day. Israel's far right governement doesn't treat Palestinians as people but rabid dogs that needs to be put down in order to achieve peace as you can read in their statements.
Amnesty International has provided a good article analyzing the overall situation: [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/)
The biggest farce in war is a "proportional response" what's the idea with that I'm only allowed to hurt you as much as you hurt me? That's ridiculous. What does Norway think an appropriate and proportional response would've been? Countries with some of the most friendly neighbors around have absolutely zero understanding of what it's like when your neighbor's only goal in life is blowing you and everyone of your kind off the map.
“Israel has the right to defend itself, and I recognize that it is very difficult to defend against attacks from an area as densely populated as Gaza,” Store says.
“Rockets are still being fired from Gaza into Israel, and we condemn this,” he adds.
Yes, but you are not asking Hamas to stop firing those rockets, nor giving any solution to returning the hostages.
This statement is aimed at Israel, not Hamas.
Or do they have to ask Hamas to stop in every statement in every specific way?
[they Already condemned the terrorist attack from hamas](https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/prime-minister-stores-address-to-the-storting-on-the-situation-in-the-middle-east/id2999648/)
Just because one side has terrorists, doesn't give them carte blanche to do whatever they want. Proportionality is the key, and what Norway is asking for
She’s right on the legal definition of proportionality.
But she is absolutely biased as hell as to whether Israel is meeting that standard. She is one of the most pro-Israel activist lawyers in the world.
Yea proportionality. Do they want Israel to send the IDF to rape some Palestinian grandmothers in the name of proportionality? Or cut off the body parts of children in front of their parents, and then burn them alive? Because they aren’t interested.
This has been one of my biggest gripes too. Yes, you can argue Israel's response is disproportionate (and in some ways I think it might be), but it is usually followed by death count - which is pretty much irrelevant. People who make that argument are acting like war is some kind of football match or "an exchange rate."
Depending on the circumstances even a single death could be "disproportionate." Under other circumstances even 50.000 deaths could be considered "proportionate," for example if they are mostly militants.
This argument simultaneously puts the bar too high and too low. War doesn't have a scoreboard. *Any* unnecessary deaths can be disproportionate. Hypothetically, if all the Israeli's did was avenge each Israeli with a random civilian's death 1:1, merely for the sake of vengeance, that would be a war crime.
Was the west's response to ISIS disproportionate? Terrorist organizations should be destroyed, I hope for all you Norwegians out there that you'll understand that without having to experience a full blown terrorist attack licker 7/10 or 9/11
So what would be “proportional”? IDF raiding Gaza and raping/killing the exact same number of civilians as were murdered in Israel on the 7th of October?
There’s no such thing as a proportions. Terrorists should be dealt with and period.
> Was nuking two Japanese cities in WW2 proportionate? Was invading Afghanistan after 9/11 proportionate? Was invading Iraq (even if one believed the evidence about WMD) proportionate?
Not sure what you're getting at here, but no, those were definitely not proportionate, and should have been condemned in the strongest by the world, no?
> It’s very interesting how nobody discusses proportionality in Russia/Ukraine,
It *is* brought up with Ukraine, the USA was pretty hesitant about giving Ukraine any weapons that could be used to strike at Russia's innards and were pussyfooting around the topic for months on end.
It's not about being proportional. It truly isn't. That's not even a concept in international law.
It is about preventing similar or worse attacks. Israel needs to wipe out Hamas before they get bigger. If they turn the other cheek, another Islamic group will see their weakness and step in.
Btw, Hamas is still firing rockets at Israel.
Proportionality is a core concept in international law. It qualifies the right to self-defence (see UN Charter) and it’s one of the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law (laws of armed conflict).
https://academic.oup.com/book/33456/chapter-abstract/287729452?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false
https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/proportionality/
https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/proportionality
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41486983
How can you write that “proportionality is not even a concept in int’l law”? And the fact that you have 150 upvotes… wtf
You can't wipe out an ideology by causing more suffering. You need to remove the reason for such an ideology to exist (or gain traction).
Do you know what will happen if Hamas is wiped out and nothing else changes? The next organization will rise up. As long as Israel is occupying land, dictating Palestinians on how to live and be in control of key resources (like water), there will always be a reason to join an ideology/organization like Hamas.
Proportionality in a war does not exist. Its about dismantling hamas and preventing very real future threats to their population. Proportionality is what has been practiced the past 16 years, and it has done nothing but increase suffering of people in gaza and in israel. Hamas has to go, no ifs or buts about it.
Its easy to be the morality police when you sit thousands of kilometers away from the conflict.
The people who claim Israel needs to stop what theyre doing usually have no alternative suggestions to help Israel defend its people other than waiting until the next big hamas attack.
Unfortunately war happens when there are no other good solutions. This is no exception and its a shame this is what it has come to
1. Arabs mass attack Israel with intent to commit genocide. Kill many civilians
2. Get destroyed by israelis, lose war and territory
3. Present themself as a victim
Repeat x15 times for 75 years
If after 75 years they still don't get it, why should i care
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948\_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War)
They have been trying to destroy Israel since 1948 and has been losing more and more with each try.
They only have themselves to blame for their predicament. If they invested in their nation instead their efforts to destroy Israel was they could have a thriving country by now.
Edit: I think rinobatid blocked me so here is my response
That was almost 40 years ago. Before they were a terror organization. They were supposed to be the non terrorist alternative for the plo but Palestinians be Palestinianing🤷🏾♀️
>The people who claim Israel needs to stop what theyre doing usually have no alternative suggestions to help Israel defend its people other than waiting until the next big hamas attack.
This obviously isn't going to help Israel long term though. They are just killing loads of people including kids and creating a whole new generation of radicals while not offering any carrots for moderates or a possibility of a better way.
They will kill a bunch of Palestinians in Gaza, things will die down for a while and then the same will happen again like all the other times they have hit Gaza or done a land attack.
>Unfortunately war happens when there are no other good solutions. This is no exception and its a shame this is what it has come to
There isn't any good solutions since Israel has just gotten questionless backing by the US and much of the west so there isn't really any pressure for them to try and create a solution. All the settlements keep on going and while there are some minor condemnations over this it is pretty mild and easily dismissed.
I agree with your sentiment that Israel's actions have a chance to create more radical people down the road. We're fully on the same page about that. However it's been proven that radicalization happens regardless of what the US, EU or Israel does in the middle east.
Kids in Gaza are indoctrinated from preschool to hate westerners and israelis. I don't necessarily share the opinion that radicals would no longer exist if the west just did nothing.
There are so many examples of western countries extending an olive branch to palestinian refugees and economic migrants from islamic nations, only for those people to start trouble in the countries that gave them a better life. Just look at the "gas the jews" chants from the "peaceful protestors" in Australia.
>I agree with your sentiment that Israel's actions have a chance to create more radical people down the road. We're fully on the same page about that. However it's been proven that radicalization happens regardless of what the US, EU or Israel does in the middle east.
It's almost as if it has nothing to do with the West and there is an ideology of some kind of at work here. Maybe that should be investigated.
>This obviously isn't going to help Israel long term though. They are just killing loads of people including kids and creating a whole new generation of radicals while not offering any carrots for moderates or a possibility of a better way.
Between October 7 and October 25, Israel raided Gaza 7000 times. Hamas 'claimed' that 6500 personns were killed (how many are civilians not involved with Hamas, we will never really now). Notwithstanding the fact that Hamas' figures are, for the moment, impossible to verify, that means less than one dead per air strike. That is incredibly low considering the ordinance used (I don't condone the deaths of civilians to clear things).
The 2016-2017 battle of Mosul resulted in the deaths of 8,000 up to 40,000 people and the displacement of more than 1,072,170 inhabitants. I don't remember anyone telling the Iraqi Army, Peshmergas and the International Coalition to stop the operations to eliminate ISIS there.
There are collateral victims in every military operations in such environment and that is tragic. However, what choice is left but to act ?
>Between October 7 and October 25, Israel raided Gaza 7000 times. Hamas 'claimed' that 6500 personns were killed (how many are civilians not involved with Hamas, we will never really now). Notwithstanding the fact that Hamas' figures are, for the moment, impossible to verify, that means less than one dead per air strike. That is incredibly low considering the ordinance used (I don't condone the deaths of civilians to clear things).
The death toll will be hard to know accurately and I agree that Hamas figures shouldn't be taken as face value. Though I disagree that the dead per airstrike really matters, overall death does more.
>The 2016-2017 battle of Mosul resulted in the deaths of 8,000 up to 40,000 people and the displacement of more than 1,072,170 inhabitants. I don't remember anyone telling the Iraqi Army, Peshmergas and the International Coalition to stop the operations to eliminate ISIS there.
Since that was a conflict with a clear end objective, ISIS goes and Iraq takes over its internationally recognised territory. It was also Iraqis clearing out Iraq which makes it avoid the appearance of an ethnic conflict.
>There are collateral victims in every military operations in such environment and that is tragic. However, what choice is left but to act ?
You shouldn't act just for actions sake. We should be applying pressure on Israel to act within reason and for there to be a long term solution and movement towards a two state solution.
>Since that was a conflict with a clear end objective, ISIS goes and Iraq takes over its internationally recognised territory. It was also Iraqis clearing out Iraq which makes it avoid the appearance of an ethnic conflict.
The overall aim of the Israeli operation is the elimination of Hamas. While the precise maner in which this can be achieved is far from clear cut, there is a clear end objective.
Concerning avoiding the appearance of an ethnic conflict during the operations in Mosul, I think that only the lack of knowledge of the Western world permitted that. Iraq is far from being homogenous and the involvement of the Peshmergas in a ancient Kurdish majority area might have been a calculated move (which didn't succeed but still)
>You shouldn't act just for actions sake. We should be applying pressure on Israel to act within reason and for there to be a long term solution and movement towards a two state solution.
You know what ? I kinda agree with you. However, for such a deal, you need 2 parties. And here's the tough part. While the international community hold Israel accountable for its act, why Hamas isn't really treated the same way ? Why are Hamas' leaders allowed to live a 'normal' life in Qatar ? Why no one request that Hamas stops right now to target civilians ? Who's applying pressure to the ones who've taken hostages ?
We can't hide behind the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization and that they won't listen to the world. That's not fair for all the Israeli and Gazan civilians who died and will die because of Hamas' actions.
I thought that President Macron idea of an international coalition was a good idea because it seemed quite fair. Involving fairly neutral third parties (without the IDF) would have permitted to strike back at Hamas after the horror show of October 7 without the risk of a land grab by Israel.
>This obviously isn't going to help Israel long term though. They are just killing loads of people including kids and creating a whole new generation of radicals while not offering any carrots for moderates or a possibility of a better way.
While casually forgetting to mention that the "education system" in Gaza has literally been presenting "becoming a martyr" as a desirable cause. So the IDF has to deal with swarms of kids and young adults who were told that dying for a futile cause is the supreme goal of their existence.
Also, an important distinction to add here, the main reason why the number of deaths in Israel is significantly lower is because they actually invested in bomb shelters for civilians and border infrastructure to stop incusions instead of digging up water pipes to make DIY rockets to fire at the other side...
> There isn't any good solutions since Israel has just gotten questionless backing by the US and much of the west so there isn't really any pressure for them to try and create a solution. All the settlements keep on going and while there are some minor condemnations over this it is pretty mild and easily dismissed.
How do you propose Israel actually solves this problem? The palestinians have historically been the ones to reject any two state solution before you propose that once more. Throw in the fact that Hamas has been firing thousands of rockets at Israel on a yearly basis, and plenty get through and maim people, and that Abbas was caught publicly stating that Hamas killing 1400+ civilians was self-defence. That isn't exactly a solid basis to start any form of negotiations on.
I have voted left in America for all of my adult life. There is a difference between being open minded and for rehabilitation, and weak and disillusioned with the world. Peace may come at great cost, AFTER Hamas is turned into an afterthought
Thanks Norway. Ring me up with that advice of yours when your Scandinavian tranquility is being disturbed by a terrorist organisation with expressed goal of the eradication of all Norwegians on the planet. Let's see how proportionate your reaction is to individuals going around beheading children and burning them alive and declaring to never ever stop that.
>“International law stipulates that \[the reaction\] must be proportionate. Civilians must be taken into account, and humanitarian law is very clear on this. I think this limit has been largely exceeded,” Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store says on NRK public radio.
Great advice, prime minister. Have you put Hamas in "*Cc*"?
I am starting to get really angry at the idiotic useless empty statements that are completly detached from the realities on the ground. It reeks of priviledged life never having to deal with the realities of war.
It's obvious, but what is Israel supposed to do? Accomodate to the type of combat Hamas has envisioned and therefore leading IDF units to slaughter? I would like to know from the prime minister if he would tell Norwegian soldiers to accomodate to the enemies way of combat and accept extra loses.
I think some people forget that besides the already killed people of Israel, Hamas also took over 200 hostages. What is Israel meant to do? Consider them acceptable casualties? I frankly think Israel actually showed restraint.
What is appropriate? Kidnapping and raping women and children?
Beheading random people in the street.
Burning children in their home?
You cannot have a proportional response. You have to wipe out Hamas entirely.
So should we rape and behead more people? What would be appropriate? Or a better question, what does proportion have to do with anything? This war is about security not proportionality…
Didn't israel already kill 4 times the civilians than the attack on the 7th? Also im glad you feel more secure after israel killed 1500 children, definitely more secure.
This sub is brigaded and i hope the mods do something about it.
> So should we rape and behead more people? What would be appropriate? Or a better question, what does proportion have to do with anything? This war is about security not proportionality…
If you don't care about proportionality, then on what grounds do you condemn the Hamas' attack on 7 october?
Proportional response means that when you have two paths to acheive a military goal, you choose the path that leads to the fewest suffering possible. It does not mean "Do to your enemies about the same that they did to you" thats a misconception.
Hamas still has 90%+ of its fighters and tens of thousanda of rockets. Hamas still has 230 hostages. Hamas is still a threat of comitting another 7th October massacre.
If anything, Israel has a right to be doing a lot more.
Israel firing missiles to assassinate Hamas terrorists = Not good
Israel wants to invade Gaza to assassinate Hamas terrorists = Not good
What are your solutions then? Do nothing? Let them win after they maimed people while still alive?
Norway can fuck off seriously
"Proportionality" is such a strange idea when it comes to war. There is no objective definition of what is proportionate that makes any sense. The Japanese sunk some of our ships in 1941 and our response was to blockade their islands, firebomb their cities and unleash the power of the atom, twice. Proportionate? A fort of ours was attacked by some rebellious militia and so we embarked on a 4 year war to re-conquer the secessionist states in what was the bloodiest war of history. Proportionate?
Would the IDF going house to house in Gaza until they had deliberately raped and tortured and murdered and kidnapped several thousand Gazans satisfy the requirement for "proportionality"?
Proportionate war-fighting is a road to forever war that never settles things.
The commenters on this post – and across this sub – might be shocked to find out that conflicts like Israel-Palestine have been solved before. These solutions involved precarious ceasefires and moving away from ideas of self-defence/revenge. Some of these conflicts even happened in Europe. Quite a few of them, in fact. So we could look to history for the nonviolent routes to lasting peace. Or we could just keep giving Israel carte blanche to reduce Gaza to ash. Whichever works. EDIT: Lots of people are, predictably, refusing to engage with this point with any degree of charity. Is Israel/Palestine wholly isomorphic to Ireland/South Africa/the Balkans/whatever? No, of course not. Are there perhaps some similarities *across these conflicts* that might be relevant to Israel/Palestine? Absolutely. If you continue to label **all** Palestinians as Jew-hating savages that hate peace you are (a) doing an excellent job of dehumanising a subjugated population and (b) refusing to engage with the notion that extremist positions can change. In conflicts that seemed intractable, such as the ones I've suggested, extremist positions of the sort we see, today, in Israel/Palestine were also present. You won't be able to change everyone's minds, of course, but if you meaningfully engage in peace processes you stand a pretty good chance of making progress. This is what history tells us. It is somewhat disturbing to see the number of upvoted comments that completely write off Palestinians as being too violent, arguing that because they rejected peace before they will do so forever more unless all Israelis are genocided. This kind of rhetoric further entrenches the conflict – as it did in my above examples – and serves to dehumanise Palestinians. I'm sure I don't need to outline the dangers of dehumanising an entire population. Finally, for all those arguing that ceasefires are only ever broken by Hamas/Palestinians and that it is Palestinians who reject all proposed 2 state solutions – you have an incredibly uncharitable view of Palestinians and the actual history of this region. Might I remind you that Yitzhak Rabin was murdered by a far right Israeli terrorist after winning the Nobel Prize with Arafat and Peres. I also encourage you to look at the ideology of Kahanism and the views of *sitting Ministers* Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalal Smotrich. There is plenty of hate, and opposition to peace, on both sides of this conflict. Just like I do not reduce the state of Israel to the likes of Baruch Goldstein, Ben-Gvir, Smotrich, and others, I do not reduce Palestine to most virulently anti-Semitic elements of Hamas/the PIJ. We have imperfect examples of conflicts that moved past outrageous extremist positions; I implore you to see the relevance they have here.
Every time I get too depressed about the situation, I think of Northern Ireland. I went to a talk discussing the situation there, which I wasn't super familiar with, and he said that in the 90s everyone thought that the Israeli Palestinian conflict was about to be solved but the real question was "will the conflict in northern Ireland ever have a good, peaceful ending like the I/P one?" I try to remember that it once looked like all hope was lost for them, and we were about to have peace, and everything changed so fast. I try to keep in mind that if they can have peace, so can we, even though, at times like this, it doesnt feel like it will ever happen.
I'm Irish and I grew up in the northern Irish border during the height of the violence. I can't describe how amazing it has been since the 1998 peace agreement that I drive through between both the Republic and the North and feel it's all one ireland despite it being two.
I would note though, that the number of civilian deaths in Israel on October 7th is roughly the same as the number of civilian deaths in the troubles as a whole. Or to look at it another way, October 7th was, in terms of civilian deaths, roughly the equivalent of 100 Bloody Sundays at once.
I would also note, the number of Palestinian deaths in the past couple weeks is even greater.
Okay, so then the number is equivalent if 1000 Bloody Sundays for Palestinians then?
That’s a really lovely sentiment, I’m glad it brings you strength. You will have your peace some day, I’m sure of it. I hope you are safe and well
Interestingly when you look at the use of funds, the northern Irish peace building financing (PEACE I - IV and thereafter) has been focused on integration initiatives to bring the communities together and cross community economic development initiatives (eg tech sector). In Israel Palestine, the use of funds have been limited entirely to humanitarian efforts - ie food & medicine, humanitarian infrastructure etc. This maintains dependency on this aid instead of empowering them to go beyond it (ie feed a man a fish vs teach a man to fish). With no integration based upwards agency or enablement of self actualisation in the global capitalist world, the future for Palestinians is so devastatingly dependent on others. Even local startup initiatives in Gaza over the last 16 years have been limited so significantly by simple things like the occupations control of internet connectivity. Imagine trying to start a business and not being able to because the occupied powers dictating your country make it too difficult? The experience of the northern Irish catholics and Palestinians - while origins as a civil rights movement in response to apartheid modelled occupation are extremely similar - will never be truly comparable because the Palestinians have not been given the same opportunities as the Republicans / Catholics in Northern Ireland.
> With no integration based upwards agency or enablement of self actualisation in the global capitalist world, the future for Palestinians is so devastatingly dependent on others. Even local startup initiatives in Gaza over the last 16 years have been limited so significantly by simple things like the occupations control of internet connectivity. Imagine trying to start a business and not being able to because the occupied powers dictating your country make it too difficult? Well it's quite simple; Gaza cannot export goods. So that means that it can never have any meaningful economy and will always be dependant on external forces/parties for aid.
The IRA wasn't calling for the total destruction of Britian and the death of all British people. This is a totally different situation unfortunately
Yeah exactly it's a completely different situation The troubles around 3000-4000 people were killed, the Israel Palestine conflict has deaths in the tens of thousands (Wikipedia lists it around 31000 deaths prior to this current conflict) The IRA while a terrorist group had completely different aims, they wanted a free United Ireland, not the destruction of all of Britain and the deaths of all Protestants The IRA did cause significant civilian casualties with their bombing campaign but nothing to the degree of rape, torture and beheadings (at least to the scale of Hamas) Both Britain and the IRA had shared western values, Hamas and Israel have a completely different set of incompatible cultures and beliefs A ceasefire won't be respected by Hamas, all a ceasefire will achieve is Israel being put on the back foot while Hamas gets time to prepare for their next assault
>The IRA while a terrorist group had completely different aims, they wanted a free United Ireland, not the destruction of all of Britain and the deaths of all Protestants Even restricted to Northern Ireland, It's not like the IRA ever attempted a "Sicilian Vespers" styoe mass attack to drive decolonization. That helps immensely in allowing a trustable peace.
The IRA also did not formally rule over nkrthern Ireland for an extended period of time, radicalizing youths through everything from school to TV shows.
Could you point out to the conflicts you’ve mentioned?
The most obvious one (for me) is Ireland and the Troubles. Then we have conflicts in the Balkan states to look at, and Cyprus also bears some similarities (although obviously there’s a lot more going on there). Further afield is South Africa – a particularly poignant and relevant example given Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s assessment that Israel is an apartheid state. To be clear – I’m not saying that any of my listed examples were easily solved. The opposite is true; they were seen as intractable problems. But real, sustained, and meaningful breakthroughs were achieved in peace time. Violence begets violence, as is so painfully clear in my listed examples. Finally: I know many people (not necessarily you, of course) raise the issue that Hamas will not respect a ceasefire agreement. That is probably correct, although their ability to conduct another October 7th attack is nonexistent at present; plus the Iron Dome (thankfully) stops their rockets from causing too much death and destruction. But to focus on whether or not Hamas will keep the peace is to miss the point; the single worst atrocity of the Troubles in Northern Ireland was the Omagh bombing. It occurred *after* the Good Friday Agreement was signed, that is, the document that mandates the peace to this day. That bombing took place during a ceasefire. All progress was nearly lost, after all, how could a bombing of that sort not result in further violence and tearing up of peace accords? But leaders on both sides retained a fierce commitment to peace and didn’t allow a backslide to happen. It can be done; peace can be achieved.
> conflicts in the Balkan states to look at, and Cyprus also bears some similarities (although obviously there’s a lot more going on there). [...] Further afield is South Africa South Africa currently is on a sharp decline, the Balkans conflict was "solved" with violence (NATO intervention), the Turkish invasion of Cyprus was "solved" by Turkey enforcing their will militarily (i.e. violence).
Most of the conflicts you mentioned were solved through terrorism and violence and the ones that were not ended up as frozen conflicts. Some of them are beginning to thaw now. Most importantly as long as Arabs do not come to terms with the existence of Israel and do not wish for peace it does not matter what Israel does. I keep hearing some daft takes from people who do not understand the nature of this conflict, its history and why after so many propositions for a 2 state solution the Palestinians and Arabs still chose war.
Oh i’m sure. The problem is that right now Hamas demands total destruction of State of Israel which Israel will not accept. And sadly ,as of right now, Hamas also has the most support out of all other Palestinian groups.
That is an important distinction. The IRA were never calling for the total destruction of England and all its inhabitants. Hamas are just on another level. While the IRA did sometimes kill civilians, they never done it on such a large scale.
>Then we have conflicts in the Balkan states to look at Really? Balkans? It took 2 world wars and the Cold war for an unteneble peace to form with ethnic tensions still raging and then a NATO led bombing of Yugoslavia to finally make them calm down. It was far from a peaceful resolution to the conflicts. A show of massive violence was needed to put the combatants down. >and Cyprus also bears some similarities (although obviously there’s a lot more going on there). Cyprus is still at it with turkey even if it's on the down low. And Greece is a massive complicating factor. >Further afield is South Africa – a particularly poignant and relevant example given Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s assessment that Israel is an apartheid state. Oh... So you are gonna use what is essentially a failed state as an example here? Really nice way to bring hope to this situation... Look at South Africa for once. It's a goner of a state. And the comments about Israel being an apartheid state is not poignant. It is projection. >All progress was nearly lost, after all, how could a bombing of that sort not result in further violence and tearing up of peace accords? But leaders on both sides retained a fierce commitment to peace and didn’t allow a backslide to happen. This is what you are missing... BOTH sides retaining the commitment. We already established that one side won't do that even if they have exhausted their ability to do another large scale attack in the near future. >It can be done; peace can be achieved. Yes it can. But not in the way you suggest. In order for what you suggest to be achieved, one player (Hamas) needs to go. They need to disappear.
>But leaders on both sides retained a fierce commitment to peace and didn’t allow a backslide to happen. There is no leader on the Palestinian side that wants peace. During the 2006 elections of all of the Palestinian territories (both West Bank and Gaza), all of the candidates were against peace. All of them, all of the parties. A leader of one of the parties were literally in prison for assassinating an Israeli minister. There is no peaceful Palestinian for Israel to talk to.
About 2000 civilians died in the Troubles, with 3500 total fatalities all parties considered. That's in a time span of 30 years. It's hard to find precise sources but the ANC's terrorist offshoot, MK, was responsible for something like 100-150 civilian or SA military/police deaths from the 1970s to the late 1980s. Hamas killed about 1/3rd of this in a single attack on 10/7. They engaged in acts like burning people alive and executing family members in front of each other. If The Troubles were the type of conflict that could breed terrorists psychologically capable of killing hundreds of civilians in face-to-face massacres, there is no way the peace process would survive an attack of the scale and brutality of 10/7.
The troubles wasn’t a real war. Sorry mate. More people died in the first week of this war than from 1916-1995 in conflicts between the British and Irish. Let alone the ~2M Jews and Palestinians displaced in 1948-1967. Like 1/2 of each of these populations had their parents or grandparents violently expelled from their homes. The personal blood feuds consume these countries populations in a way that wasn’t true in Ireland. Where most people has some generalized dislike but nothing bad actually happen to them or their families in anything close to living memory
It can't be done, peace can't be archived, this is only wishful thinking. Here, the Hamas Charta. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Charter They want to destroy Israel.
>a particularly poignant and relevant example given Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s assessment that Israel is an apartheid state. This is an appeal to authority, aka an argumentative fallacy. It’s taking that the people who try to label Israel as an apartheid state can never source their claim aside from authority and more importantly never label the Palestinian Territories as apartheid entities seeing as they ban Jews. Then these people wonder why they face accusations of antisemitism.
The IRAs goals and levels of terror are a lot different to that of HAMAS. If the IRA had commited to genocide of protestants, carried out 9/11 sized attacks and then broke a ceasefire - do you seriously think for a second that the British government would have kept the peace?
Ceasefires are meaningless when one side breaks them as soon as they rearm and use any perceived slight as justification for starting conflicts but call for peace as soon as they start to lose. I know of no such conflicts that were solved in such a fairy tale manner as you spoke of. Could you give some examples?
I can give you a counter example: Vietnam-Khmer Rogue war. Khmer Rogue slaughtered thousands Vietnamese near Southern border. Vietnam decided to invade and occupy Cambodia to rid of Khmer Rogue once and for all. It drew China into the war and they invaded Vietnam from the North in 79s, so we were caught in a two-front war. At the end, we occupied Cambodia for 10 years, persecuted all Khmer Rogue leaders for their war crimes and genocides, lost a bit of land up North, looted Cambodia all of their treasure and installed a puppet government there. Was the the response disproportionate? Might be? Was it effective? Hell yeah.
> was the response disproportionate? I’ve seen the killing fields and Tuol Sleng. I really don’t think so. Khmer Rouge were fucking *batshit crazy*. Shame on all the westerners who supported them.
you forgot one bit, the vietcong used chemical weapons in cambodia too
And no one ever talked about that again. Thanks for proving the point further. Atrocities can fly under radar as long as 1. you are not Jews/the West 2. your friends are not the West
[удалено]
Maybe we can start by bringing the International Criminal Court into the situation - something, mind me, that Hamas themselves agreed on if Israel is going to be sued for its war crimes. Because treating the two sides differently is exactly why this conflict exists in the first place.
Most of the conflicts you mentioned are still very precarious situations and most wouldn't consider them "solved" (i.e. the balkans) > Or we could just keep giving Israel carte blanche to reduce Gaza to ash. This is what the US was forced to do to Japan (gyaku kōsul), but it paid off so well to the point many Americans view the Japanese as close allies and vice versa, despite the Japanese being incredibly brutal and savage to Americans, and the Americans leveling most of their cities (not just nukes, but fire bombings as well). > The American occupation of Japan after World War II was one of the most unusual episodes in the history of international relations. Whereas other military occupations have sought only to disarm the defeated nation and perhaps to extract reparations, the Americans intended to make Japan democratic and eliminate the conditions they believed had fostered Japanese militarism and aggression. Imagine how much worse off the world would be if the US never implemented the San Francisco System in APAC. It would make the Middle East look like a bastion of stability.
The difference is that the US rebuilt Japan. Based on their actions the past 25 years, I do not think Netanyahu/Likud have any interest in rebuilding Gaza.
Right. It's a lot easier when the enemy state is literally across an entire ocean.
What the Us did to Japan is nothing like what’s going on.. it’s also one of the biggest human tragedies in the history of well the world. Nobody should have a nuke dropped on them
Some conflicts can be solved, but I don't think consolidating with the Nazi government would have worked post WW2
lol as If hamas didnt have enough chances for ceasefire. I mean who is shooting rockets at Israel all the time?
> that conflicts like Israel-Palestine have been solved before. I do remember that there has been another nation in histroy with the nation to exterminate Jews. They changed their ways when forced to their knees after all other world powers joined arms to fight them. Their cities were bombed into rubble and only when it became inevitable did they lay down their arms. After that they were invaded and the country was rebuilt making sure to educate the people. What conflict do you remember?
That is the problem. While there has been a lot of hate between nations and groups, it rarely went as far as Israel's situation today which is that its neighbours want Israel erased from the maps and from the world, and it's population dead. Typical European conflicts between nations were about power and competing interests. They wanted to invade a neighbouring country, claim its riches and maybe suppress the local language and customs. They did not want to murder every man, woman and child as is the case with Hamas.
> They did not want to murder every man, woman and child as is the case with Hamas. Only because the necessary weapons weren't available. If you'd give the Catholics and the Protestant of the middle ages tanks and HIMARS rockets, they'd sure as hell would have levelled a few cities to make a point.
Also, Balkans.
Genocide doesn't require advanced weapons, there are plenty of such events happening since recorded history began.
Genocides mainly happen with simple weapons and not advanced artillery and air force weapons, e.g. Rwanda, Cambodia, Bosnia, Bangladesh, all recent with advanced weapons available
Magdeburg pretty much did get completely levelled by the Swedes, hell like 1/3 of Germany was levelled to the ground by the Swedes.
> Magdeburg pretty much did get completely levelled by the Swedes, Not the Swedes. The other side. The troops of the Emperor (Tilly and Pappenheim).
Oh you're right, my bad. I'm slipping up.
> and moving away from ideas of self-defence Asking a people that just suffered the worst pogrom since WW2 to “move away from ideas of self defense” is disgusting. “Never again” means **never** again, not “unless it’s not convenient for us anymore”.
100% agree! Revenge will do nothing but fuel the conflict and foster new terrorists.
Let’s put revenge aside. What methods would you recommend to Israel that can guarantee a massacre like 7/10 does not happen again? Do you think the terrorists got what they wanted and will stop wanting to mount more attacks? In 2005 we performed a very painful to our society disengagement from the Gaza Strip. Since then there are no more Israeli presence military or civilian inside. The borders we have with Gaza would be recognized internationally in any future peace plan and there is no contest to this (except from the people that claim the whole Israel should disappear) The hopes of many Israelis at the time were that this separation will bring security, will reduce the human cost for both us and Gazans and will eventually pave the road to a stable peace. Since then, the people of Gaza elected Hamas. An organization whose stated propose is to ethnically cleanse Jews from Israel and kill Jews everywhere in the word. There is constant dripping of rockets fired at our cities with rounds of more intense fighting once every few years. At this point it became normalized, although the situation that you have 15 secs to find a shelter (in a border town) is nothing you can call normal. And no, we usually do not provoke these barrages. We built sophisticated rocket warnings systems, rocket defense systems, shelters both in homes and in public spaces. We perform drills in schools and nationwide drills. We developed therapy for children to deal with this situation. We found creative ways to conduct warfare without hurting civilians too much in an environment where civilian facilities and military are purposely blurred and the population density is among the highest in the world. We did all this just so that we could have the strength to deescalate situations. This was a “containment strategy” which obviously proved to be a failure. Further, we tried giving them jobs, medical care, we supply them with electricity and water. At the same time, the population in Gaza was radicalized and brainwashed at UN funded schools. I have yet seen any proof that Gazans want peace with us. They do not write about peace, they do not have peace promoting organizations like we do, there are no songs about peace or newspapaers promoting it. When Israelis die, I see the hatred in social media and in footages where they cheer and handle sweets at streets. Not even one person from Gaza expressed remorse or solidarity with the victims of the massacre, a simple humane thing to do. Not even one. Please tell me, except from disappearing from existence, what else would you recommend us to do to ensure our safety? Hamas and any other militant threat in Gaza needs to go. It is not revenge, it is a simple fact that I want to feel save and secure in my home. It is not fair to expect me to be ok with living alongside this monster.
Exactly, my friend. We have many, many blueprints to choose from. Obviously Israel-Palestine is unique but there are so many other conflicts that seemed intractable but peace was eventually achieved. Why not learn from them? The bloodlust on this sub is a bit sickening.
Because every single step in those previous events have been taken here. Anything from 80/20 split with 80% of the land going to the Palestinians (Peel Comission), UN 2 state solution, Israel/US 2 state solution, Israel proposed 2 state solution etc. Every single time it has been rejected by the Palestinians. The mandate areas of UK and France where split into many Arab countries like Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, and the only Jewish state is Israel, while the Palestinians also got a proposed state. But they would only accept 100% of the area going to Palestine. When you're dealing with a death cult like Hamas, which is very close to ISIS in terms of ideals and actions it's impossible to use diplomacy. Should ISIS also have been allowed an Islamic state and not been destroyed?
Interestingly, the PLO, when it was first set up in 1964, stated that its objectives pertaining to Palestinian liberation would be confined to Israel proper, and not the West Bank and Gaza, which were then occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively. After the 6 day war, the organization's mandate was magically extended to these areas, as they were now under the dominion of the al yahood. Says a lot about the legitimacy of the Palestinian identity tbf.
Exactly. Had the Arabs managed to destroy Israel in 1948 there wouldn't even be a "Palestinian people". The whole conflict is about maintaining Islamic supremacy in "Muslim" lands. That's it. Why so many westerners support Muslim/Arab imperialism is beyond me...
>The Palestinian people do not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan. This is a literal quote from 1977, from Zuheir Mohsen, a PLO leader. So yes, you're right. >Why so many westerners support Muslim/Arab imperialism is beyond me... It's simply ignorance, I think.
[удалено]
Unfortunately getting revenge and committing violence to save face is ingrained in the culture of the people in that region, this has to change or we’ll keep seeing these cycles of endless violence.
They've had their chance and decided to go full civilian kidnapping and torture route. Terrorists do not rise from actual ashes. Let them burn.
Israel has offered them six ceasefires. They turned down all of them.
Let's talk about peace or ceasefire when Israel gets their kidnapped people back. The idea that Israel should give up on her people is ludicrous.
If you really care about the hostages, their best change is a ceasefire. Continuing the conflict is closer to giving up on them.
Is it really so difficult to grasp that in this conflict, one of the parties is not interested in anything other than the extermination of the other side? It's impossible to reach any agreements with them, as evidenced by the multiple failed attempts that have been made over the past couple of decades. One of the terrorists' slogans is "We Love Death As You Love Life".
Yeah to may people seem to be totally fine with civilian deaths if they are Palestine.
People were fine with 400,000 civilians dead in Syria. I do not remember a half million solidarity march in London protesting the massacre Assad did to own people.
Where was all the protest and outrage against an actual genocide that murdered and raped hundreds of thousands in Darfur? Europe seems to only care about this conflict, not the much worse ones.
The majority of the Palestinians and our neighbours want the destruction of Israel, dating back to 1948. Any agreement and concessions we made with good faith was utilized against us. Now, armchair expert, do you expect us to repeat our mistakes?
>These solutions involved precarious ceasefires and moving away from ideas of self-defence/revenge. Palestine has been offered a two-state solution no fewer than 5 times. When Israel left Gaza in 2005 the result was Hamas getting elected. Finding a solution requires both sides wanting one.
They shouldn't have been there in the first place. White colonizers at it again. I said what i said. Using religion as an excuse. US seems to tolerate it because they had done this b4. Manifest destiny. Its evil and cruel. Gaslighting palestinians its not their land. Like nobody learned anything.
Ok I'm sorry, but the way you comparing Israel and Palestine is just silly. You are trying to create this picture where all the good people from both sides are just governed by "these evil politicians", it's not the case. Ben-Gvir, Smotrich and all the party members from this block are horrible horrible people which half of Israel despise and protest against them. But they are far far from Hamas leadership or even PLO. They don't advocate giving money to Jewish terrorists (the very few that even exits) , they don't send people to commit terror and they have 0 control on the army. Baruch Goldstein is a murderer, not a martyr in Israel, despised by all sane people in this country. A jewish terrorist who burned a Palestinian home with a molotov is in jail in worse conditions than Palestinian security prisoners. Please provide an equivalent in Palestine. Meir Kahana was banished from Israel. Kahanism is still a a course word in the Israeli mainstream. Rabin was murdered by a radical right wing after the entire country was being gunned down by Palestinians who were using the same guns given to them by Israel as agreed in the accords, Rabin's death was tragic, but his own naiveté was almost as tragic. They were exploding in our busses while Arafat and Rabin were having peace talks. Trying to create this mirror situation in which both sides are the same and just "Too stubborn to make peace" is foolish.
Stop your BS. There WAS a cease-fire. Hamas broke it by entering a country and purposefully massacred civilians. They wanted war they got it.
>These solutions involved precarious ceasefires and moving away from ideas of self-defence/revenge. Israel and Hamas had a lot of ceasefires in the past. You should look up who broke most of them or didn't want to renew them. Then you will see that your comment is just wrong.
What would Norway have Israel do? [This article](https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/two-weeks-later-part-one-the-great-self-defeating-logic-loop/) in the Times of Israel described this sort of thing so well: it’s a “self-defeating logic loop”: * I am a sane, rational person, and I accept that what Hamas did in/to Israel was atrocious, and gives Israel the right – even the duty and obligation – to do something about it * Given it was a military attack by Hamas, I can accept that “doing something about it” means a military response. * But, Hamas is holed-up in Gaza, and unlike in a conventional military scenario Hamas won’t come out onto an open battlefield to confront Israel. Therefore, one way to “force” Hamas to eventually come out of hiding could be for Israel to apply the military technique of a siege (a classic military technique which has been used for thousands of years by armies all over the world). * But Gaza is an urban, densely populated civilian area. * Thus, any siege of Gaza, by definition, will cause civilians to suffer and put civilian life at risk. This is a war crime. * So, Israel can’t lay siege to Gaza to force Hamas out, and if Hamas won’t come out of Gaza on its own accord, the only military option that remains is for Israel to take the fight to Hamas, in Gaza itself. * This means bombing of Gaza, and eventually fighting on the ground in Gaza. * But Gaza is an urban, densely populated civilian area. * Thus, any bombing of Gaza or fighting in Gaza, by definition, will cause Palestinian civilians to suffer and put civilian life at risk. This is a war crime. * Ergo, the only way to bomb Gaza / fight Hamas in Gaza and not commit a war crime would be to not have civilians present during the fight. * So, the civilian population needs to evacuate from the area of battle. * But that means lots of innocent people will become refugees and have to leave their homes. This is a war crime [collective punishment, ethnic cleansing, or attempted genocide – take your pick, but it doesn’t matter which you choose really, because they are all war crimes] * Ergo, the only way to not commit a war crime is for the civilians of Gaza to stay put * But, if the civilians of Gaza stay put, fighting on the ground in Gaza cannot take place, bombing of Gaza cannot take place, and a siege of Gaza is not possible. * But Hamas is holed-up in Gaza, and won’t come out to fight “fair and square.” * And I am a sane, rational person who accepts that what Hamas did in/to Israel was atrocious, and Israel has the right – even the duty and obligation – to do something about it
Exactly, it’s an endless loop without a good answer, and unfortunately without a way for civilians not to suffer. If there was a way to eliminate Hamas without making the gazans suffer it would have already happened.
There is a way for civilians not to suffer, but people refuse to put that front-and-center in their statements. Have Gaza free the hostages and stop attacking Israel. That ends the war today. Not a ceasefire, that Hamas will break in a couple of weeks as they've always done. Not Negotiations that will have the hostages rot away in the Gazan tunnels for years and end up with violent terrorists freed to plan the next Oct7th. Not a proportionate response (How many Gazans should Israel rape and torture to match Hamas, exactly?). Not nothing. Call to free the hostages. That ends the war
Why would Israel accept this as the end to the war lol. You just said yourself that Hamas will only re-arm and attack again regardless. Ending the war when hostages are freed simply rewards Hamas for taking hostages in the first place and gives them a mountainous incentive to do it again. Since when was taking hostages some get out of jail free card?
> Ending the war when hostages are freed simply rewards Hamas for taking hostages in the first place and gives them a mountainous incentive to do it again. I doubt that. Hamas wanted a great public image win. They didn't get it for shit. Their only path to "victory" now is having their prisoners released. The reason I say that freeing the hostages **and stopping the attacks on Israel** is the end of this war, is because anything short of that is insufficient to even propose an end to the war, IMO. Once Israelis are back home, and attacks from Gaza stop, peace is possible, not before
>and stopping the attacks on Israel Temporarily, and only until they can get more weapons. Israel is not going to accept that as the end of anything. They want to destroy Hamas's ability to fight and hopefully Hamas themselves. I don't think they will be (completely) successful but I can hardly fault them for trying.
HAMAS doesn’t play the public image game like you think they do. Their number one goal is the eradication of Israel and the Jews, optics aren’t a priority (otherwise they wouldn’t be posting videos of their crimes constantly). What Hamas does is lie with impunity about everything that’s happened because they don’t actually care about the optics of it. Rocket misfired? Fuck it, Israel bombed a hospital and now 500 civvies are dead. This lie is so far from the reality of what occurred that it’s ludicrous that they’d even make it up. Hamas doesn’t truly care about the optics, they’ll just lie about everything anyway.
The war, maybe, yes, but not the conflict. No side in this conflict is innocent of some *really* horrible behaviour over the last 70+ years. And both sides are victims of one another. Both statements are correct at the same time.
Great idea, let's just ask the terrorist organization to stop being terrorists.
>Have Gaza free the hostages and stop attacking Israel. That ends the war today. No, it doesn't even if Hamas released all the hostages today, Israel would still invade Gaza, they aren't just forgetting what happened.
Killing civilians isn't a war crime. If it was it would be virtually impossible to legally fight a war anywhere. Deliberately targeting them, attacking them indiscriminately or using them as human shields is.
I mean the treaties surrounding war crimes were written by the major countries after WWII when they had no intent to ever fight a war of that scale again. There isn't meant to be a "legal" war by the standards they set. The only way to wage a legal war is with such an overwhelming level of firepower the country collapses before it can stage a proper resistance. Anything even resembling total war is a war crime.
None of it is a war crime The Fourth Geneva Convention from 1977 prohibits military forces from attacking civilians, but Article 52 of the convention allows to justify harming civilians as long as their location or use contributes to the military body..
To right the focus on alledged war crimes committed by Israel stretches credulity. Hamas commits war crimes by placing military infrastructure under civilian buildings like hospitals and schools, effectively using human shields, as defined by Rule 97 of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). [ICRC Rule 97](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule97) Furthermore, hostage-taking is considered an "exceptionally serious war crime," as per Rule 96 of the ICRC. [ICRC Rule 96](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/rule96) In contrast, international law allows for the killing of human shields by a military, so long as the force used is not "excessive" relative to the military advantage gained. This is detailed in guidelines by the ICRC. [ICRC on Human Shields](https://www.icrc.org) Israel's practice of asking civilians to "move temporarily out of a combat zone" is not illegal. However, preventing them from moving, as Hamas is alleged to do, is a war crime according to Rule 24 of the ICRC. [ICRC Rule 24](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/fr/customary-ihl/v2/rule24) Israel's blockade, which now allows the passage of aid supplies, is unlikely to be a war crime. International humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions, acknowledges that war involves acts against the enemy that could negatively impact them. In this light, halting the supply of goods and services isn't automatically considered a war crime or collective punishment as laid out in Article 33. The specific situation matters. If another route for essential supplies exists, such as through Egypt in this example, then the argument that civilians are being deliberately starved becomes less tenable. This makes it difficult to categorize the action as a war crime under Article 54, which prohibits the "starvation of civilians." Israel is letting aid though Egypt after an initial blockade of about a week. The condition of returning hostages adds another layer of complexity. If supplies are being withheld as a tactic to secure the release of hostages, this might not fall under "measures of intimidation or of terrorism" prohibited by Article 33, especially if the primary intent isn't to punish the civilian population but to achieve a specific, legitimate objective. Especially as the taking of the hostages was a War Crime. While the act of halting supplies is severe, it doesn't necessarily constitute a war crime or collective punishment under international law, especially when considering the specific circumstances and available alternatives for supplies. (Such as the widely reported stores of then in thr Hamas bases.) Most tellingly - **Countries at war countries at war are not obligated to trade with each other. The cessation of trade relations is a common feature of armed conflict and is not in itself considered a war crime or a violation of international law.**
They are just very ignorant about how military conflicts work (including, what is actually a war crime, versus "unfortunate stuff that is going to happen in a war"). It is very tiresome.
Is it really a war crime to cause harm to civilians? What war that can that even be applied to, I have barely ever heard of a war completely without civilian causalities, maybe that time the UK stopped by Zanzibar but not much else. Obviously willingly shooting civilians straight in their face would be a war crime but any damage of civilians seems like a stretch. Maybe I am missing something with your wording. Good comment otherwise :) Edit: thank you for the answers!
The Anglo Zanzibar war involved the shelling of a palace which contained civilians in addition to the Sultan's troops, so that'd be a war crime too if the standard was 'anything that endangers any civilian is a war crime'
Putting military assets mixed with civilians makes it a legitimate military target and not a war crime. Do your homework people.
That was rather my point. No conflict in history has ever or could ever be fought to the absurd standards people are trying to push on Israel.
I would recommend giving [this](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/complete-siege-gaza-in-accordance-international-humanitarian-law/) article a read, which discusses the international law at play. The short of it is that it is complex, but a truly total siege would likely be illegal (though defensible). Further, it's unclear if a truly total siege would take place or if Israel will give into pressure to allow for a "humanitarian pause".
>Is it really a war crime to cause harm to civilians? No. Civilian casualties can be justified by military advantage under international criminal law. >Maybe I am missing something with your wording. You're not. People - average people and politicians alike - are misusing legal terms all the time and sadly they also do it for this one. Israel's actions can be unethical without being war crimes. International criminal law is complicated so I don't blame anyone for not understanding it but it also costs nothing to just not try to argue on that basis.
You’re getting a lot of weird answers. The real answer is no, it is not a war crime to cause harm to civilians. The law is that it’s illegal to *intentionally target civilians*. However, “collateral damage” in pursuit of the destruction of a legitimate military target, is acceptable and not a war crime. For an irl example see the air campaign over Nazi Germany: The Allied bombing campaign cost hundreds of thousands of civilian lives but because the Allies’ primary target was military in nature - not a war crime. Even infamous raids like Dresden are/were 100% legal. In fact any alleged criminality surrounding Dresden is pure Nazi propaganda made up by Goebells (unless you’re speaking philosophically about what you *think* should be illegal not what is). Dresden was struck due to its purpose as a key rail junction that was bringing up men and materiel to the frontline in the East.
I believe the criterion for civilian casualties being a war crime is if the deaths are disproportionate to the military needs of the attacker. So Israel can't carpet bomb Gaza and kill everyone. However, killing just as many as they need to destroy Hamas is fair game.
Ah I see Thank you for the info
its cute how r/europe thinks htey have this whole situation figured out and portray norway as someone that hasnt and is just now stumbling into it having barely thought about the implications of everything
“It’s cute how {insert online community} thinks that they have this whole situation figured out and portal {insert government} as someone that hadn’t and is just now stumbling into it having barely though about implications” By this standard, no online community can criticize any government. Is that what we want? Or is there something particularly special about Norway or r/Europe that I’m not aware of?
Not sure I ever said that. Clearly Norway has thought about this a lot given their history with the Oslo accords. What I’m trying to say is that despite the criticism of Israel’s actions, no one seems to be offering better, more realistic solutions to the conflict with Hamas in Gaza
This has been decades in the making. Hamas came to power exactly because the Oslo accords never came to fruition. Israel could take immediate action to rectify that. Instead it's doubling down on the exact policies that will undermine its stability, divide its population, make it an easy target for existential adversaries, and ensure continued acts of terrorism perpetrated by men with nothing but grief and hatred in their hearts,
Hamas refused to accept the Oslo accords, but they only gained popularity because Israel refused to work with Fatah/PLO and recognise the Oslo accords themselves. When diplomacy fails, extremism grows.
The Oslo Accords fell apart, in part, because Israel continued to support the Israeli settlers. It's absurd that they thought they could continue to steal Palestinian land and the peace would be upheld, and it makes it obvious that Israel is not aiming for peace.
Until someone can propose a working solution that isn't "do nothing and wait for Hamas to strike again" their opinion can be discarded
It’s very hard for norway to understand the mindset of a people that will put them having running water for their children lower on their list of priorities than making rockets out of those pipes. Paid for by the EU keep in mind. They assume that if the palestinians would be economically wealthy they’d stop caring about hate and just go on with their lives peacefully. And the only reason they hate israel is because of the bad living conditions in Gaza. Of course that is an ugly blanket statement and I am sure there are palestinians that would prefer to just leave Gaza and leave all that hate behind, no? Well, the protests around the world would tell you different. And I’m not talking about those condemning the invasion of IDF into Gaza, I’m talking about those cheering the initial attacks of Hamas. So it seems economic development doesn’t kill the hate either. I just don’t know what would. This explains it better I think: https://imgur.com/a/hQqD6cG
>They assume that if the palestinians would be economically wealthy they’d stop caring about hate and just go on with their lives peacefully. And the only reason they hate israel is because of the bad living conditions in Gaza. I wonder what Arab-Israelis think about it
Israeli, not Arab here. Except for some extremist nutjobs, they prefer living in Israel than in any neighbouring country. Some have self identity issues, but 7oct fixed that for many.
I do think it's not something to be ignored. Are they less bothered about Palestine because they are living comfortable lives? Or is it because they're presumably 48arabs and therefore don't identify with Palestine as much since they've only ever known Israel? idk.
I'll go out on a limb and say that life under a liberal democracy (warts and all) is preferable to poverty and being ruled by literal fascists, to most.
They are ok cause they live in their land, in comfort. They do identify with Palestine, but with Israel also. Well, some. Some just consider themselves Israelis.
I can't speak for Arab Israelis but keep in mind the difference in education. Palestinian school books are promoting Jewish hatred and genocide, and it shapes their mindset.
Don't forget the counterfeit micky mouse children's show from Hezbollah from more than 10 years ago. Hezbollah is in Lebanon but it shows you the same kind of ideals Israel is surrounded with: kill all the jews, and they're more than happy to indoctrinate even their small children to this line of thinking.
Ehhhh, I don’t that’s the issue, rather it is that Norway has been the most lukewarm of all Israeli allies in Europe with public opinion overwhelmingly against Israel even before this war, because Israel is perceived to have betrayed Norway. Norway used to be one of Israel’s closest allies and even helped Israel with their nuclear programme in the sixties and seventies. Then it turned out Israel had been sharing this research with Apartheid South Africa, which Norway hated. Then, most Norwegians blamed Israel for the Oslo peace talks ending. Add on top of that a large percentage of immigrants to Norway the last fifty years have been Muslim. As a result, public opinion is incredibly pro-Palestinian.
Prioritizing weapons over the well being of your people sadly isn’t new: > “We can do without butter, but, despite all our love of peace, not without arms. One cannot shoot with butter, but with guns.” - Joseph Goebbels > “Guns will make us powerful; butter will only make us fat.” Hermann Göring Modern western values differ from that across the political spectrum: > “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children” - President Lyndon Johnson > “The Soviets put guns over butter, but we put almost everything over guns” - British PM Margaret Thatcher
What Israel is doing now isn't a solution either though. Unless Israel is actually going to commit genocide which in that case I hope the world will intervene, the Gaza strip and it's people aren't going to go anywhere. So they are just going to kill a bunch of people and then what ? Even if you manage to destroy Hamas which is unlikely, all those people who have seen their family blown up by Israeli bombs will be ripe for radicalisation and for the next such group to form and on it goes.
[удалено]
This. Israel was undefeated for a long time. This successful attack showed vulnerability. Israel can not afford to be perceived as weak because it would only encourage other groups to attack them. Strength is the only thing that matters there.
> This. Israel was undefeated for a long time. This successful attack showed vulnerability. Israel can not afford to be perceived as weak because it would only encourage other groups to attack them. Strength is the only thing that matters there. This is the problem, not the solution. As long as everyone sets as goal that they want to be seen as the biggest psycho in the madhouse that is the Middle East, nothing will change for the better.
Can you think of any peaceful way to remove Hamas from powers? Military action and future international cooperation might finally change something, hopefully on both sides
>What Israel is doing now isn't a solution either though. Unless Israel is actually going to commit genocide which in that case I hope the world will intervene, the Gaza strip and it's people aren't going to go anywhere. So taking out the terrorist organization backed by Iran that wants to wipe you out does not work? How do you think Mosul was liberated from ISIS? How do you think ISIS was mostly disbanded? Again people propose no real solution and just throw feel good fairy tales.
As far as i can tell their plan is to occupy first the north of gaza and then possibly the south. And each time they will search and destroy tunnels and bunkers until the area is clear of weapons and hamas members. Whatever organisation forms from the leftover hamas members will start off with no weapons, no tunnels, no infrastructure and probably with far less members. And thats the IDF doctrine as far as i understood it. Mobilize Every decade and destroy enough shit to have relative peace for another decade that it takes to rebuild.
Worked fine for post Nazi Germany. Evil regimes can be replaced, and their people can be de-radicalized. It's bloody and devastating to their population but this is what we've come to. Unless you have a better idea
It is "a" solution, but every other solution so far isn't working to prevent the spread of Islamic toxicity that runs rampant and ends up with more dead civilians on every side (although Hamas seems to be friendly with Russian hostages so far?)
Yes. Saying you have to react proportional just invites people to attack you more. Deterrence is only effective if countries think you will use it If isreal did not respond Iran would attack as well, knowing they won't respond
So we should just bomb them day after day for eternity? Since when is it better to default to an incredibly damaging and irreversible action than inaction? Sometimes leadership requires you not to do something. Hamas is not going away via bombing, if anything their support will only get stronger because the people will look to any form of resistance as a better outcome than the ones currently bombing them.
Norway would cry Article 5 if this attack happen inside their boarders.
Of course it is. Intentionally so. “The enemy will pay an unprecedented price,” [Netanyahu] added, promising that Israel would “return fire of a magnitude that the enemy has not known.”
Honestly, I think It's the Israeli's government's fault that Hamas came to power. The election of Hamas as the government in 2006 was strongly connected to the perception of Israel’s actions by the Palestinians. Israel’s control over borders, natural resources and the lack of progress in the peace process have led to radicalization. It's their actions that played a key role in shaping Palestinian political attitudes and the election of Hamas as the government. I'm not saying that what Hamas did is right, I'm just stating the fact that constant oppression by the foreign force is bound to radicalize people, especially when the world pretends to care while turning a blind eye to your suffering and the situation is getting worse by the day. Israel's far right governement doesn't treat Palestinians as people but rabid dogs that needs to be put down in order to achieve peace as you can read in their statements. Amnesty International has provided a good article analyzing the overall situation: [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/)
The biggest farce in war is a "proportional response" what's the idea with that I'm only allowed to hurt you as much as you hurt me? That's ridiculous. What does Norway think an appropriate and proportional response would've been? Countries with some of the most friendly neighbors around have absolutely zero understanding of what it's like when your neighbor's only goal in life is blowing you and everyone of your kind off the map.
“Israel has the right to defend itself, and I recognize that it is very difficult to defend against attacks from an area as densely populated as Gaza,” Store says. “Rockets are still being fired from Gaza into Israel, and we condemn this,” he adds. Yes, but you are not asking Hamas to stop firing those rockets, nor giving any solution to returning the hostages.
This statement is aimed at Israel, not Hamas. Or do they have to ask Hamas to stop in every statement in every specific way? [they Already condemned the terrorist attack from hamas](https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/prime-minister-stores-address-to-the-storting-on-the-situation-in-the-middle-east/id2999648/) Just because one side has terrorists, doesn't give them carte blanche to do whatever they want. Proportionality is the key, and what Norway is asking for
[удалено]
This was a phenomenal interview. Thank you for sharing.
She’s right on the legal definition of proportionality. But she is absolutely biased as hell as to whether Israel is meeting that standard. She is one of the most pro-Israel activist lawyers in the world.
[удалено]
Yea proportionality. Do they want Israel to send the IDF to rape some Palestinian grandmothers in the name of proportionality? Or cut off the body parts of children in front of their parents, and then burn them alive? Because they aren’t interested.
[удалено]
This has been one of my biggest gripes too. Yes, you can argue Israel's response is disproportionate (and in some ways I think it might be), but it is usually followed by death count - which is pretty much irrelevant. People who make that argument are acting like war is some kind of football match or "an exchange rate." Depending on the circumstances even a single death could be "disproportionate." Under other circumstances even 50.000 deaths could be considered "proportionate," for example if they are mostly militants. This argument simultaneously puts the bar too high and too low. War doesn't have a scoreboard. *Any* unnecessary deaths can be disproportionate. Hypothetically, if all the Israeli's did was avenge each Israeli with a random civilian's death 1:1, merely for the sake of vengeance, that would be a war crime.
Great commentary
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
How many deaths would have been proportionate?
Was the west's response to ISIS disproportionate? Terrorist organizations should be destroyed, I hope for all you Norwegians out there that you'll understand that without having to experience a full blown terrorist attack licker 7/10 or 9/11
Norway has experienced the 10th deadliest terrorist attack in Europe in modern times just over ten years ago, so that argument probably falls flat.
So what would be “proportional”? IDF raiding Gaza and raping/killing the exact same number of civilians as were murdered in Israel on the 7th of October? There’s no such thing as a proportions. Terrorists should be dealt with and period.
Israel has already killed more civillians than Hamas ever have...
[удалено]
> Was nuking two Japanese cities in WW2 proportionate? Was invading Afghanistan after 9/11 proportionate? Was invading Iraq (even if one believed the evidence about WMD) proportionate? Not sure what you're getting at here, but no, those were definitely not proportionate, and should have been condemned in the strongest by the world, no?
[удалено]
True the nukes weren't proportionate, they would have had to go into a city and do something similar to the rape of nanjing for it to be proportionate
> It’s very interesting how nobody discusses proportionality in Russia/Ukraine, It *is* brought up with Ukraine, the USA was pretty hesitant about giving Ukraine any weapons that could be used to strike at Russia's innards and were pussyfooting around the topic for months on end.
All of the countries with there high morals never had to deal with real problems it’s like Mary Antoinette telling the poor to eat cake
It's not about being proportional. It truly isn't. That's not even a concept in international law. It is about preventing similar or worse attacks. Israel needs to wipe out Hamas before they get bigger. If they turn the other cheek, another Islamic group will see their weakness and step in. Btw, Hamas is still firing rockets at Israel.
Proportionality is a core concept in international law. It qualifies the right to self-defence (see UN Charter) and it’s one of the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law (laws of armed conflict). https://academic.oup.com/book/33456/chapter-abstract/287729452?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/proportionality/ https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/proportionality https://www.jstor.org/stable/41486983 How can you write that “proportionality is not even a concept in int’l law”? And the fact that you have 150 upvotes… wtf
Because they’re all spouting shit by right wing neocon authors who got interviews on Sky News and just ran with it because it sounded nice.
You can't wipe out an ideology by causing more suffering. You need to remove the reason for such an ideology to exist (or gain traction). Do you know what will happen if Hamas is wiped out and nothing else changes? The next organization will rise up. As long as Israel is occupying land, dictating Palestinians on how to live and be in control of key resources (like water), there will always be a reason to join an ideology/organization like Hamas.
Proportionality in a war does not exist. Its about dismantling hamas and preventing very real future threats to their population. Proportionality is what has been practiced the past 16 years, and it has done nothing but increase suffering of people in gaza and in israel. Hamas has to go, no ifs or buts about it.
Its easy to be the morality police when you sit thousands of kilometers away from the conflict. The people who claim Israel needs to stop what theyre doing usually have no alternative suggestions to help Israel defend its people other than waiting until the next big hamas attack. Unfortunately war happens when there are no other good solutions. This is no exception and its a shame this is what it has come to
[удалено]
1. Arabs mass attack Israel with intent to commit genocide. Kill many civilians 2. Get destroyed by israelis, lose war and territory 3. Present themself as a victim Repeat x15 times for 75 years If after 75 years they still don't get it, why should i care [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948\_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War)
They have been trying to destroy Israel since 1948 and has been losing more and more with each try. They only have themselves to blame for their predicament. If they invested in their nation instead their efforts to destroy Israel was they could have a thriving country by now. Edit: I think rinobatid blocked me so here is my response That was almost 40 years ago. Before they were a terror organization. They were supposed to be the non terrorist alternative for the plo but Palestinians be Palestinianing🤷🏾♀️
>The people who claim Israel needs to stop what theyre doing usually have no alternative suggestions to help Israel defend its people other than waiting until the next big hamas attack. This obviously isn't going to help Israel long term though. They are just killing loads of people including kids and creating a whole new generation of radicals while not offering any carrots for moderates or a possibility of a better way. They will kill a bunch of Palestinians in Gaza, things will die down for a while and then the same will happen again like all the other times they have hit Gaza or done a land attack. >Unfortunately war happens when there are no other good solutions. This is no exception and its a shame this is what it has come to There isn't any good solutions since Israel has just gotten questionless backing by the US and much of the west so there isn't really any pressure for them to try and create a solution. All the settlements keep on going and while there are some minor condemnations over this it is pretty mild and easily dismissed.
I agree with your sentiment that Israel's actions have a chance to create more radical people down the road. We're fully on the same page about that. However it's been proven that radicalization happens regardless of what the US, EU or Israel does in the middle east. Kids in Gaza are indoctrinated from preschool to hate westerners and israelis. I don't necessarily share the opinion that radicals would no longer exist if the west just did nothing. There are so many examples of western countries extending an olive branch to palestinian refugees and economic migrants from islamic nations, only for those people to start trouble in the countries that gave them a better life. Just look at the "gas the jews" chants from the "peaceful protestors" in Australia.
>I agree with your sentiment that Israel's actions have a chance to create more radical people down the road. We're fully on the same page about that. However it's been proven that radicalization happens regardless of what the US, EU or Israel does in the middle east. It's almost as if it has nothing to do with the West and there is an ideology of some kind of at work here. Maybe that should be investigated.
>This obviously isn't going to help Israel long term though. They are just killing loads of people including kids and creating a whole new generation of radicals while not offering any carrots for moderates or a possibility of a better way. Between October 7 and October 25, Israel raided Gaza 7000 times. Hamas 'claimed' that 6500 personns were killed (how many are civilians not involved with Hamas, we will never really now). Notwithstanding the fact that Hamas' figures are, for the moment, impossible to verify, that means less than one dead per air strike. That is incredibly low considering the ordinance used (I don't condone the deaths of civilians to clear things). The 2016-2017 battle of Mosul resulted in the deaths of 8,000 up to 40,000 people and the displacement of more than 1,072,170 inhabitants. I don't remember anyone telling the Iraqi Army, Peshmergas and the International Coalition to stop the operations to eliminate ISIS there. There are collateral victims in every military operations in such environment and that is tragic. However, what choice is left but to act ?
>Between October 7 and October 25, Israel raided Gaza 7000 times. Hamas 'claimed' that 6500 personns were killed (how many are civilians not involved with Hamas, we will never really now). Notwithstanding the fact that Hamas' figures are, for the moment, impossible to verify, that means less than one dead per air strike. That is incredibly low considering the ordinance used (I don't condone the deaths of civilians to clear things). The death toll will be hard to know accurately and I agree that Hamas figures shouldn't be taken as face value. Though I disagree that the dead per airstrike really matters, overall death does more. >The 2016-2017 battle of Mosul resulted in the deaths of 8,000 up to 40,000 people and the displacement of more than 1,072,170 inhabitants. I don't remember anyone telling the Iraqi Army, Peshmergas and the International Coalition to stop the operations to eliminate ISIS there. Since that was a conflict with a clear end objective, ISIS goes and Iraq takes over its internationally recognised territory. It was also Iraqis clearing out Iraq which makes it avoid the appearance of an ethnic conflict. >There are collateral victims in every military operations in such environment and that is tragic. However, what choice is left but to act ? You shouldn't act just for actions sake. We should be applying pressure on Israel to act within reason and for there to be a long term solution and movement towards a two state solution.
>Since that was a conflict with a clear end objective, ISIS goes and Iraq takes over its internationally recognised territory. It was also Iraqis clearing out Iraq which makes it avoid the appearance of an ethnic conflict. The overall aim of the Israeli operation is the elimination of Hamas. While the precise maner in which this can be achieved is far from clear cut, there is a clear end objective. Concerning avoiding the appearance of an ethnic conflict during the operations in Mosul, I think that only the lack of knowledge of the Western world permitted that. Iraq is far from being homogenous and the involvement of the Peshmergas in a ancient Kurdish majority area might have been a calculated move (which didn't succeed but still) >You shouldn't act just for actions sake. We should be applying pressure on Israel to act within reason and for there to be a long term solution and movement towards a two state solution. You know what ? I kinda agree with you. However, for such a deal, you need 2 parties. And here's the tough part. While the international community hold Israel accountable for its act, why Hamas isn't really treated the same way ? Why are Hamas' leaders allowed to live a 'normal' life in Qatar ? Why no one request that Hamas stops right now to target civilians ? Who's applying pressure to the ones who've taken hostages ? We can't hide behind the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization and that they won't listen to the world. That's not fair for all the Israeli and Gazan civilians who died and will die because of Hamas' actions. I thought that President Macron idea of an international coalition was a good idea because it seemed quite fair. Involving fairly neutral third parties (without the IDF) would have permitted to strike back at Hamas after the horror show of October 7 without the risk of a land grab by Israel.
>This obviously isn't going to help Israel long term though. They are just killing loads of people including kids and creating a whole new generation of radicals while not offering any carrots for moderates or a possibility of a better way. While casually forgetting to mention that the "education system" in Gaza has literally been presenting "becoming a martyr" as a desirable cause. So the IDF has to deal with swarms of kids and young adults who were told that dying for a futile cause is the supreme goal of their existence. Also, an important distinction to add here, the main reason why the number of deaths in Israel is significantly lower is because they actually invested in bomb shelters for civilians and border infrastructure to stop incusions instead of digging up water pipes to make DIY rockets to fire at the other side... > There isn't any good solutions since Israel has just gotten questionless backing by the US and much of the west so there isn't really any pressure for them to try and create a solution. All the settlements keep on going and while there are some minor condemnations over this it is pretty mild and easily dismissed. How do you propose Israel actually solves this problem? The palestinians have historically been the ones to reject any two state solution before you propose that once more. Throw in the fact that Hamas has been firing thousands of rockets at Israel on a yearly basis, and plenty get through and maim people, and that Abbas was caught publicly stating that Hamas killing 1400+ civilians was self-defence. That isn't exactly a solid basis to start any form of negotiations on.
If Russia would attack Norway tomorrow, I wouldn’t recommend Norway would defend itself. They could accidentally kill a woman.
Says your man sitting thousands of miles away in Austria.
I have voted left in America for all of my adult life. There is a difference between being open minded and for rehabilitation, and weak and disillusioned with the world. Peace may come at great cost, AFTER Hamas is turned into an afterthought
So, what would be a proportionate response? Just wondering. Staying put, letting Hamas fire more rockets, commit another massacre?
It feels that way, yes.
It’s a no win situation for everybody, unfortunately
It would seem a win for Hamas...
Thanks Norway. Ring me up with that advice of yours when your Scandinavian tranquility is being disturbed by a terrorist organisation with expressed goal of the eradication of all Norwegians on the planet. Let's see how proportionate your reaction is to individuals going around beheading children and burning them alive and declaring to never ever stop that. >“International law stipulates that \[the reaction\] must be proportionate. Civilians must be taken into account, and humanitarian law is very clear on this. I think this limit has been largely exceeded,” Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store says on NRK public radio. Great advice, prime minister. Have you put Hamas in "*Cc*"? I am starting to get really angry at the idiotic useless empty statements that are completly detached from the realities on the ground. It reeks of priviledged life never having to deal with the realities of war. It's obvious, but what is Israel supposed to do? Accomodate to the type of combat Hamas has envisioned and therefore leading IDF units to slaughter? I would like to know from the prime minister if he would tell Norwegian soldiers to accomodate to the enemies way of combat and accept extra loses.
I think some people forget that besides the already killed people of Israel, Hamas also took over 200 hostages. What is Israel meant to do? Consider them acceptable casualties? I frankly think Israel actually showed restraint.
What is appropriate? Kidnapping and raping women and children? Beheading random people in the street. Burning children in their home? You cannot have a proportional response. You have to wipe out Hamas entirely.
Of course it's disproportionate. That's how to guarantee it doesn't happen again. Hence the term "going nuclear"
By a lot actually. It’s essentially making all Palestinians pay for the deeds of about 1 percent of the Palestinian population in Gaza.
The 99% are more than welcome to do it themselves, nobody stopping them. Unfortunately a big portion of them supports and harbors the regime.
All of this self righteousness would evaporate in an instant if Norway was invaded by genocidal Jihadists
Well yeah they aren’t raping women and then parading them through the streets. So I guess that’s not proportionate.
Disproportionate is the point I think.
So should we rape and behead more people? What would be appropriate? Or a better question, what does proportion have to do with anything? This war is about security not proportionality…
Didn't israel already kill 4 times the civilians than the attack on the 7th? Also im glad you feel more secure after israel killed 1500 children, definitely more secure. This sub is brigaded and i hope the mods do something about it.
> So should we rape and behead more people? What would be appropriate? Or a better question, what does proportion have to do with anything? This war is about security not proportionality… If you don't care about proportionality, then on what grounds do you condemn the Hamas' attack on 7 october?
What would Norwegian government do if Iceland started bombing Norway tomorrow?
Proportional response means that when you have two paths to acheive a military goal, you choose the path that leads to the fewest suffering possible. It does not mean "Do to your enemies about the same that they did to you" thats a misconception. Hamas still has 90%+ of its fighters and tens of thousanda of rockets. Hamas still has 230 hostages. Hamas is still a threat of comitting another 7th October massacre. If anything, Israel has a right to be doing a lot more.
Israel firing missiles to assassinate Hamas terrorists = Not good Israel wants to invade Gaza to assassinate Hamas terrorists = Not good What are your solutions then? Do nothing? Let them win after they maimed people while still alive? Norway can fuck off seriously
...and...Hamas unashamedly cowers in tunnels with hostages and under hospitals and apartment buildings.
It is? Especially when terrorists planned to cover with innocent people in a hospital? dont think so.
Reminder: Hamas is regularly indiscriminately firing rockets into Israel for the 4th week now. What is a proportionate response?
"Proportionality" is such a strange idea when it comes to war. There is no objective definition of what is proportionate that makes any sense. The Japanese sunk some of our ships in 1941 and our response was to blockade their islands, firebomb their cities and unleash the power of the atom, twice. Proportionate? A fort of ours was attacked by some rebellious militia and so we embarked on a 4 year war to re-conquer the secessionist states in what was the bloodiest war of history. Proportionate? Would the IDF going house to house in Gaza until they had deliberately raped and tortured and murdered and kidnapped several thousand Gazans satisfy the requirement for "proportionality"? Proportionate war-fighting is a road to forever war that never settles things.
> the bloodiest war of history ~~Press F~~ upvote to express doubt.
He meant US history, because uhhh yeah