My guess is that this war’s lasting legacy may not be some geopolitical break after years of conflict but the images of the innocents we’ve seen, including children, killed in almost every imaginable way.
I think this war will be seen as the beginning of the end for the western worlds support for Israel. The director of the ADL was recorded as saying: "The issue of the United States’ support of Israel is not left and right. It is young and old.”[1]
It may take a few years or even a couple of decades but eventually there will be a viable US presidential candidate who is more tempted by the votes on the table than by the pro-Israel lobby.
This is assuming people's viewpoints don't evolve as they get older.
“Celui qui n’est pas républicain à vingt ans fait douter de la générosité de son âme; mais celui qui, après trente ans, persévère, fait douter de la rectitude de son esprit.”
A quick search shows the quote originating in the 19th century.
As a young man I was generally pro-Israeli, I can remember a teacher in high school telling us about how great Israel was the morning after 9/11, how they fought all those wars against Arabs who hated them (for no reason at all), Moshe Dayan's cool eyepatch, etc etc.
I'm 36 now, and things are different:
- I know who Netanyahu is, and what he's said.
- I know who AIPAC are, and what they've said.
- I know who the ADL are, and what they've said.
- I know how the British Mandate of Palestine ended
Younger generations will be finding a lot more of what I learned a lot more quickly.
As a younger person than you, I moved from being vaguely pro-Palestinian in the past to being staunchly pro-Israel now that I have learned more about:
- how Israel has repeatedly needed to fend off simultaneous attacks on its existence
- what the rules of war actually are, and what counts as a war crime or not, and how restrained Israel has been in this regards
- how Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are highly radicalized and even celebrated the 9/11 attacks on the very day of
I’m not claiming to be representative of people my age. I’m simply providing a counter example to you, to show that “learning the facts a lot more quickly” can lead one to different conclusions.
For me, I will unapologetically stand on what I perceive to be the side of civilization, against the forces of barbarism that we saw unleashed on 10/7. Others may perceive differently, or have different values. That’s fine, but it doesn’t make one perspective the obvious and objectively correct one.
AIPAC, the ADL and 1948 Britain (?) are not Israeli. We agree with some of what they do. The Israeli public is VERY conflicted about Netanyahu. It's like saying that since Trump got elected, America is a racist misogynistic country.
I am Israeli. I want to live without fear of being gunned down in my house or at a rave at 6 AM like the 1200 people who died on October 7th. I want to live without fear of a rocket fired from Gaza exploding on my house.
Am I allowed that right? If I am, pray tell, how do we get from October 7th to there?
It feels like everyone in the world is criticizing what the IDF does. Nobody seems to have an alternative. Hamas keeps repeating that they want no Jews between the river and the sea and they plan to commit October 7th-like atrocities again and again. What is the IDF and the Israeli government supposed to do?
I don't know what the solution is. People much smarter than me have tried to come up with one. What I can definitively say is large-scale civilian casualties in Gaza is unlikely to prevent another October 7th someday, and may well help cause another one.
Civilian casualties in Gaza are a tragic, unfortunate side effect. It's terrible. But October 7th changed things. 1,200 dead, 240 kidnapped, more than 100,000 still displaced. "Some problems are intractable" is not good enough anymore, our lives are in danger.
So Israel acts, with the goal of destorying Hamas's military ability. If you forcibly take away the other side's guns they can't shoot you anymore. That's not a syllogism, it's simple logic.
This is a solution with a terrible cost, brought about by Hamas's continued active use of their citizenry as human shield. Hamas can end this today by disarming and surrendering. The Gazans would get a functioning state and a better life for their citizens.
Israel doesn't have this option - right now it is do or die.
If there is a way to neutralize the threat from Hamas without civilian casualties, I'm all ears. If not, I assert that any reasonable westerner would act exactly the same. Go ahead and prove me wrong.
There's a huge difference. With Afghanistan, Americans living in Chicago or New York or Houston were halfway across the world. This is here. Gaza is 35 miles from Tel Aviv and 40 miles from Jerusalem.
I don't know what the goals were in Afghanistan. Short of ICBMs, I don't see how Afghanistan could ever threaten the US. The threat against us is local and immediate and has already proven to be real.
Rightly or wrongly, the US went into Afghanistan because of a "local and immediate" event in New York City in 2001. It serves as an illustration of how hard it is to change a population's ideology via force. The distance isn't really what matters.
Again, I don't doubt the threat. It's demonstrably real. I doubt the IDF's current response to that threat is going to be successful at neutralizing it. I strongly suspect the response to that threat is going to make things worse in the next few decades.
There's still a large difference. The Afghan government collapsed. The Afghan people, presumably, did not fear for their lives enough to stand up to the Taliban. Biden said "American troops cannot and should not be fighting in a war and dying in a war that Afghan forces are not willing to fight for themselves."
This is not about Israel protecting someone else. This is about physically protecting our home. We do this or we die.
Hamas rockets have the range to reach about 80% of Israel's population. They've shown willingness to amass and fire them in large numbers. It's not a question of "if", but "when". Again, would you sit and wait?
> The Afghan people, presumably, did not fear for their lives enough to stand up to the Taliban.
I would presume, as with Hamas, that it's the opposite; that fear for their lives is precisely why they do not stand up to violent extremist groups controlling their area.
> Again, would you sit and wait?
I'd start with fixing the intelligence failures that permitted the attack to proceed.
I'd also be investing a lot in expanding things like Iron Dome and border surveillance.
There are actions available that are not "flatten entire blocks of Gaza and displace a million people, generating the next generation of pissed off extremists".
First let's continue to distinguish between the PA, that's still functioning (for some definition of the word) in the West Bank, and the Hamas government of Gaza.
> I would presume, as with Hamas, that it's the opposite; that fear for their lives is precisely why they do not stand up to violent extremist groups controlling their area.
I can accept that.
> I'd start with fixing the intelligence failures that permitted the attack to proceed.
Of course they're doing that, and will continue to do that after the war ends.
> I'd also be investing a lot in expanding things like Iron Dome and border surveillance.
Here's the thing about Iron Dome and border surveillance. These are like watchdog mechanisms and monitoring systems for software. You can add as many of these as you like, at some point you're going to have downtime. You and I don't know of all the times significant attacks were planned and foiled. We do know of all the rocket attacks - of which there have been many over the years - and Iron Dome is not perfect.
> There are actions available that are not "flatten entire blocks of Gaza and displace a million people, generating the next generation of pissed off extremists".
You've suggested defense. I agree. We should be better at defense. We should fix as many bugs in our defense as we can. But as the quote goes, the bomber will always get through. Things will not materially change until the extremists on their side* are removed from power, both for Israelis who live in fear of attacks, and Palestinians who live in fear of Israeli retribution - but also in dire economic terms and without prospects, even well before October 7th.
* and ours, though their damage is generally directed at the West Bank for now
> Things will not materially change until the extremists on their side* are removed from power...
Agreed! Generating a bunch of new extremists in Gaza via 6,000 bombs (so far) and a land invasion that leaves a pile of rubble in its wake is not likely to accomplish this.
You continue to make the same logical fallacy; "we must do something, this is something, therefore we must do this".
I addressed that. Take their guns and they can't shoot you.
I'm not a general. I don't know if the bombing was militarily necessary. The IDF high command thinks it was, and has proof that every bomb targeted a Hamas asset.
Israel has called again and again for civilians to leave. The vast majority did. They're not doing great but they are alive and safe, at least from Israeli attacks. International aid has been brought in over the past week.
You seem to imply there is an alternative. I explained why bolstering defense is not enough. I explained why doing nothing is not an option. I explained why this action will remove the threat, however temporarily. I agree with you that more nonviolent action is needed, after the dust settles, to achieve a more permanent peace. But for now, how do we address the immediate threat?
It is not possible to stop people from becoming suicide bombers by any means other than convincing them it's a bad idea. There is no way to take away all the resources that can be used to create bombs.
You can make it a lot harder and through intelligence and direct action stop them periodically.
There's a big difference between a single person or a three-person group creating a makeshift bomb, and an organized 50,000-strong terrorist organization.
The gaza invasion is strengthening the resolve of the terrorists. There are millions of people in Gaza. You can't stop them all. You can't watch them all. The vast, vast majority of them want to see Israel destroyed and now are more willing than ever to sacrifice everything to even just inconvenience Israeli's.
Having spoken to Israeli Arabs, I know for a fact this isn't true. Like in any other conflict, the vast majority of Gazans just want to live their lives in peace.
Not saying we'll ever be best buddies but a mutually beneficial peace agreement is definitely possible - under the right conditions.
> "Some problems are intractable" is not good enough anymore
"some problems are intractable" isn't an argument here, it's a fact. You can't just say "this fact isn't good enough". The entire idea that an occupation of Gaza could possibly lead to a demilitarization of Gazans is incredibly naïve, Iran will never stop arming terrorists in Gaza. Occupying a hostile territory always leads to more terrorism, not less. There is no reason to believe that this occupation will make Israeli's safer, and many reasons to believe it will make them less safe. Obviously it sucks to be in this situation, but rejecting the reality of the situation doesn't help anyone.
Palestinians are not the only group with atrocities committed against them here. This situation is so sticky because both sides have legitimate grievances that allow them to make compelling moral arguments for their actions.
I don't "support Arabs" (or Israelis for that matter) - these aren't sports teams, they're groups of human beings. Nor do I get my Israel scepticism from "drive-by social media" posts. Much of it is from simply reading what prominent Israeli politicians and their allies in western countries have said from their own mouths, on their own websites and platforms, for all to see.
I'm not obligated - morally or otherwise - to support anyone in an ethnic struggle in the middle east.
The post you were replying to wasn't talking about moving from pro-Jewish to pro-Arab.
You can be pro-Jewish, but staunchly against what the Israeli Government is doing to Palestinian people. In fact, there are a lot of Israeli Jews who share this view as well.
If you break it down by religion and ethnicity, support for Israel in America is the highest among white evangelicals. Young white people are leaving religion in increasing numbers and aren't going back to it. Your average white evangelical church crowd today looks like a nursing home field trip (and this demographic trend is very much on their minds. They're trying everything they can think of to reverse the trend but none of it works.)
America's support for Israel will never recover to the heights it once enjoyed.
I can see you have picked a side in this debate. In this case: Palestinians, or at least not-Israel.
Warning, what follows is an everything-sucks-and-there-really-is-no-solution.
Here are some basic facts as I understand about the long-term situation. First, how messed up is the Gaza strip?
- Gaza is an open air prison that has no functioning economy and Israel controls all electricity, food, water, etc to a practical extent. It has no real jobs or industry, it survives on humanitarian aid from the UN and in particular Qatar.
- To underscore that, Gaza really has no economy. They have no resources. Their population isn't particularly educated, they have no high-tech, they have zero relevance in the world economy.
- Gaza is run by a terrorist group and is effectively a mafia state. Remember when I said no jobs? Welllll, actually the only jobs are with 1) the government (run by Hamas) or 2) as a terrorist... in Hamas. The only money that DOES flow into Gaza (of the legitimate sort) must flow through a government state, and Hamas maintains that grip with violence and intimidation.
- Gaza was once run by Egypt for about 25 years in the latter part of the 20th century. They eventually said "no thanks" and handed it effectively back to Israel. They Egyptians HATE the Palestinians. This means, no immigration, no leaving Gaza through Egypt, no settling/expanding into Sinai. ZERO CHANCE. The Egyptians will let the Palestinians starve.
- Gaza will not get any territory from Israel. That is not happening, not now, not ever.
- Gaza has, over the last 75 years of becoming an open air prison and totally dependent on outside help, gone from 340,000 people in 1970 to about 1.5 million in 2010 or so and still growing. Keep in mind, this is an area with no real economy, no jobs, no trade, no means of self support. This isn't some Malthusian complaint. By going from 300,000 something to 1.5 million, the sheer scale of the problem is much greater. The threat the Gaza population poses is far greater. The amount of money that would be needed to fix Gaza is 500% greater. It basically guarantees they can't grow food for themselves, that there probably isn't enough water longer term. It basically is an unsustainable population for the area and region they live in. It makes EVERYTHING far worse. Basically, the largesse needed to modernize a country of 350,000 people is far different that the amount of political will/influence it takes to fund 4-5x more people.
- to make things worst, the only real function Gaza has geopolitically to be a thorn in Israel's side. Currently, Iran is funding this because Israel is quietly aligning with Sunni Arab states (Saudis, etc) who are the blood enemies of the Shiites/Iranians. Thus the only other money that flows into Gaza is for proxy war, which ... goes through Hamas and cements them. This means there will NEVER be peace, because the only jobs in Gaza are Hamas foot soldiers, and the only money that really flows through is because Hamas keeps up the fight with Israel.
- For the Palestinians, they have always survived because oil was important, and it provided money to the Arab world, and the Palestinians were a proxy to keep Israel in check. But oil will "soon" (in the geopolitical sense) NOT be important. EVs and alternative energy will vastly undercut demand in oil, and when the extra money stops to the arab states AND the rest of the world decides that paying attention to the Arabian peninsula they have no other use for is dumb, the money will run out for the Palestinians.
- A bit longer term, Global Warming is heating up, and to survive it you need a functioning grid, a good economy (aka you need money). The Palestinians are in a prison, and it'll start getting hot. But in terms of predicted population movements/displacements from Global Warming, the Palestinians are small fry.
- A separate state for Gaza with the current leadership and stated goals of destroying Israel is meaningless, and probably counterproductive. First off, it means Israel can cut off all water / electric / communications to Gaza as a hostile state. Then, when-not-if Gaza pops off rockets across the border AKA an Act of War, it isn't an interaction between a captive wards of Israel, this is Gaza-the-soverign-country vs Israel-the-sovereign-country who outguns them vastly and they can carpet bomb them.
- "Pressure Israel for Peace" is just a bandaid on the current situation, and gets it to the previous state of "holy shit there is no solution". Israel is facing a demonstrated terrorist state, and has no reason to surrender territory, concessions, independence, or ANYTHING to Gaza. Not because I like Israel, it's simply historical fact. They would be colossally stupid to do so, and would only do it for vast sums of money. Gaza is their enemy, Palestinians are their enemy, and not in the European sense of "these two royal houses hate each other but they people are just peasants that want to work on the farms and don't care about the royal games". The Palestinians at the ground level hate Israel to a fundamental core, and unfortunately there's no way to undo that.
- "Stop supporting them militarily" is also a fantasy. Even if you did, Israel is a fairly wealthy economy and trading partner. They are practically a member of NATO/EU. You think Israel would dry up without US aid? Look, what stops the extreme right of Israel, who have effectively controlled Israel since the failed Camp David talks of 2000, from carpet bombing the Palestinians in response to rocket bombing acts of war and possibly using nuclear weapons on Iran, is that we give them a lot of money. If we stop giving them money, their patience with the current stalemate ends and they explore a "final solution" and yes I know what that implies on all levels.
Is there a non-final solution?
Do you think the collective, young, ignorant, radicalized population will wake up one day in Gaza and realize "man, fighting Israel is pointless" to the point that Israel actually agrees they are peaceful and lets them build an economy? I would sooner believe in the old testament's wildest fantastical stories than that happening.
Do you think that some country desperate for people allows a million plus Gazas to move to, say, Siberia, and that the Gazans would do it? I mean, uh, maybe? Seems pretty unlikely.
Or what will probably happen, is that oil money dries up, so all the money to Gaza dries up, the Israelis refuse to help, the Egyptians refuse to help, so then they plead with the UN for enough assistance, but no one does anything besides token/publicity based support, and the (likely at this point 2-2.5 million people) Gazans starve en masse.
Look, the UN is not a world government, the international court of justice is a joke. There is no group of nations with real influence that will do anything to Israel, it's a functioning Western government with a good economy. Nobody is messing with that, because it is good business.
Listen, there's an easy solution for Gaza. They have a lot of people, and no space or freedom. Detroit has a ton of space, and lots of freedom. Let everyone move, give them a vote, and let 'er rip.
Very good take. It seems clear to me that the status quo will remain for the far future until Israel eventually decides to enact their "final solution to the Palestinian problem" of mass expulsion/genocide/forced starvation which for all we know could take 1000 years.
Actually its not. Believe it or not, I just wrote that entire thing.
Now granted, I've been writing that argument a lot in a lot of places, hoping SOMEONE would have a better idea. I've gotten zero response everywhere.
I've also probably ingest a bit too much Zeihan or War Nerd, but honestly those are the sources that give the most honest geopolitical takes on the hard issues.
Why are you using justicereport.news as a source? I hadn't heard of it but after clicking through it a little it's clearly a fringe crazy spam site (objectively-- take a look at some of the articles)
If this is worth discussing you can easily find a better source
Sorry, I don't think this kind of fear mongering propaganda works anymore. Say what you will about the younger generation, but I think they can see through this idea that funding Israel somehow protects them from theocracy at home.
There's a quote "Science progresses one funeral at a time" but it's also true for political progress too. We're never going to talk older people out of their political views, and unfortunately, we need to wait them out. The good news is that the demographics are undeniable--the popularity of their ideas will die with their generation, and we can finally move forward.
Israel is no longer some great vanguard against "Terror in the world". It is a strategically important ally, for sure, but its usefulness has been especially waning over the past 20 years. The behavior of the Israeli government and their military has been abhorrent, even in the wake of a horrible tragedy like 10/7.
In line with that: The Israeli government and its supporters have become so accustomed to unwavering American support that they have started to take actions with a sense of ill-deserved impunity. The /tantrum/ that the Israeli government and the IDF threw has eroded good will all over the world.
Based on its actions, recently and over decades, Israel is no longer seen as some unwavering force for good and right that it claims to be. The sooner Israel recognizes its increasingly precarious position of having unwavering western support, the better - both for itself, and the world.
Israel is a rich country, they don't need western support. In fact, western support is probably the only thing stopping them from straight genociding Palestinians. The day their western support ends is likely the day we see the largest humanitarian crisis in the history of the world begin.
The correct response should have been a measured hunting down of Hamas, increasing offensive attacks, and shoring up the wall. The attacks also proved that Israel's "containment" strategy has a massive flaw.
Maybe don't do this:
> At least 43% of all housing units in the Gaza Strip have been either destroyed or damaged since the start of the hostilities, according to the Ministry of Public Works and Housing in Gaza.
Or this:
> More than 6,500 people have been killed in Israeli air strikes and more than 17,400 injured.
Not only was what it did morally wrong, but Israel has just created a generation of martyrs. It has created a humanitarian crisis for over 2 million people. Over 3000 children dead. Is that justified? Or is it a tantrum?
The one thing that I think has changed between now and the last time there was a major conflict is that the internet exists. The news media is not the final arbiter of mass information. If someone, like you, challenges people by saying "it's complicated" or "those numbers are fake", I can easily point to wikipedia and a dearth of well respected and in depth research websites. It's a new world.
People who have unconditional support of Israel are now finding themselves having this information repeatedly thrown in their face, causing them to topple off of the moral high ground they believed they held. What you are feeling is likely this.
Can you remember the last time the public was so largely outraged by Israel's actions? Did it ever have this tenor? Did western countries' support waver? If "young people" is your answer, then you are about to be blindsided.
You say "The attacks also proved that Israel's "containment" strategy has a massive flaw."
... and then go on to describe the containment strategy that they've tried since 2005.
The reality is that after Hamas' declaration of war, war was a terrible necessity.
The extent of that necessity will be debated until the end of time, but I haven't seen the large public outrage that you describe. Yes, there's plenty of it, but as a whole just as much understanding of Israel's position and why so many civilians in Gaza died in the bombings.
The reality is that 3000 innocent children are dead. The reality is that many more innocent adults are dead. The reality is that almost a third of Palestinian housing is unlivable. The reality is that 2,000,000 people are now in a humanitarian crisis, due to IDF attacks.
You can waffle about if it was or wasn't necessary, but the end result is that Israel is, if nothing else, facing a massive blow to public and western support as a result of their response - a response which seems more punitive than effective. This is incredibly dangerous for Israel, and what they've done may have hurt them in the long term more than help them. The American invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan has some parallels....
I don't have all the answers, I just call it like I see it.
> The reality is that 3000 innocent children are dead. The reality is that many more innocent adults are dead. The reality is that almost a third of Palestinian housing is unlivable. The reality is that 2,000,000 people are now in a humanitarian crisis, due to IDF attacks.
Do to Hamas attacks. If the IDF could avoid killing a single civilian they would, but we've seen how Hamas hides in schools, hospitals, and civilian housing.
What other country builds tunnels under hospitals and transports anti-tank missiles in a baby stroller? Google it!
I can think of a few ways they could have avoided, including a slower pace and more targeted strikes. But they didn't. And here's the thing: it kind of seems like the whole thing was a sick trap on the part of Hamas.
>What other country builds tunnels under hospitals and transports anti-tank missiles in a baby stroller? Google it!
It doesn't matter. More than twice the number of victims on 10/7 have died in Gaza, and they're all children. Four times if you include adults.
The best you can accuse Israel of with those kind of numbers is _incompetence_.
Like I said, a sick trap. And it looks like Israel fell for it. And now Israel, the dominant power in this conflict, gets to pay the price.
Obviously the person that hides behind the innocent. Are you supposed to not shoot at someone who’s shooting at you? No competent army on earth would make that choice.
"Israel should forever exercise military control over millions of non-citizens who have no democratic control over anything, for their own good of course."
This is literally what you're saying...
And with rhetoric like this you wonder why people call Israel an apartheid state... You literally are proposing that here.
And what happened to "give me liberty or give me death", "you will not tread on me", "no taxation without representation", and all of that stuff so popular in the US? Guess that doesn't apply to the Arab...
Most of the world is run without democratic control. I mean, I hate the CCP, but given that there is no other government that is going to be able to keep any part of China running, is it so wrong to say that overthrowing the CCP by assassinating key leaders is a rash decision? Perfect should not be the enemy of good enough.
> And what happened to "give me liberty or give me death", "you will not tread on me", "no taxation without representation", and all of that stuff so popular in the US? Guess that doesn't apply to the Arab...
Americans culturally would not tolerate any of that. I think it would be good for Gazans to fight Israel for its independence on proper terms. Perhaps that would lead to a proper state instead of this barbarity. At what point did the continental army decide to kidnap children and rape women instead of engaging the British directly?
But like I said before, perfect should not be the enemy of good. I have traveled extensively. Americans have a very unique culture. Most people around the world value order, while Americans mainly value the ability to run their own affairs at the local level. The Gazans have shown no interest in American-style democracy. Fine.
This is not hypocrisy. The flags say 'Don't tread on me', not 'don't tread on them'.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
Edit: it looks like you've been using HN primarily for ideological battle. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of which ideology they like or dislike—it's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you want to keep commenting on HN, we need you to stop doing this. More explanation here in case it's helpful: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
Ding ding ding. The reality is it's already here. What the US did in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. What Israel has been doing in Palestine. Why do you think the median age in Palestine 19 years of age? How do you think that affects a population. I don't think I would have responded to well at that age to being behind a fence watching the other side luxuriate in wealth while controlling my movement, access to resources and all the while actively chipping away at my homeland either. Ceasefire isn't enough, these people need resources, access to education, etc...
> Why do you think the median age in Palestine 19 years of age?
Well this is because Hamas has a very explicit policy goal of massively increasing their population to make it harder for Israel to kick them out. Their birth rate is madness.
The one thing that I think has changed between now and the last time there was a major conflict is that the internet exists.
I would put it slightly differently. News has been more democratised - and we can argue whether that's good or bad - but people are more and more compiling their own version of events rather than relying on a tiny handful of elite journalists at prestigious institutions to compile it for them. There are also now a lot of English speaking Arabs online, which means their voices are heard more and more often.
I was being more broad, but yeah, I generally agree. It also has weakened the voice of a mainstream narrative from western powers (particularly the US gov).
Actually, and this is an aside, one of the reasons there's been such dissonance from western countries on this issue is the US' power has had a marked decrease since the Iraq Invasion. An invasion that was part of a long tantrum response to another atrocity. History repeats itself.
> The correct response should have been a measured hunting down of Hamas, increasing offensive attacks, and shoring up the wall.
I don't think most people quite appreciate the situation Israel was in on October 7th, or the initial response. People think of it as a terrorist attack - it wasn't just that, it was an invasion. An invasion that was ongoing for three days almost. Together with an invasion, rockets were fired at Israel throughout those days (and throughout the entire time until the ceasefire).
Israelis were glued to the TV for hours, as people were hiding in their homes while armed militants were searching them out. They were calling in to families, calling to news networks, as everyone watched them. (This was, among other things, a massive failure of the IDF's initial response, partially caused by a fairly successful attack on some of its forward bases.)
This was nothing less than a declaration of war. I don't think any country in the world, having been invaded by thousands of armed militants and being fired at, could do anything except strike back massively.
What's more, there were serious, concrete threats that the war would escalate. Instead of just having armed militants running around inside Israel while Israel was being shot at from inside Gaza, there were very credible threats that a multi-front war would start, which would be, at the very least, very difficult for Israel. There was probably little chance of Israel outright losing, but "a small chance we will all die" looms pretty large in your mind.
I think people in the West are just too far removed from being themselves in any physical danger from war, to really appreciate how you react.
And the easy way to see I'm right is that people in the West react exactly the same way when fighting wars. Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam!, if you think Israel is behaving differently than other countries did you're just unaware of any history.
I don't know if the initial or ongoing response is the "correct" one, but I still haven't heard anyone saying what Israel should've done differently, at least initially. The ongoing situation is more complicated, but almost any serious person agrees that destroying Hamas is critical (and completely justified) at this stage.
> The one thing that I think has changed between now and the last time there was a major conflict is that the internet exists. The news media is not the final arbiter of mass information. If someone, like you, challenges people by saying "it's complicated" or "those numbers are fake", I can easily point to wikipedia and a dearth of well respected and in depth research websites. It's a new world.
Firstly, there have been many conflicts since the Web existed, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, etc.
> People who have unconditional support of Israel are now finding themselves having this information repeatedly thrown in their face, causing them to topple off of the moral high ground they believed they held.
I think the media not being the "arbiter" of information doesn't make anybody more accurate, it makes everyone able to have their own version of the story.
Do you know how many people on Twitter are convinced by ridiculous propaganda? I can think of numerous examples, but my latest "favorite" is the nonsense of people looking at picture of released hostages, seeing them smile and wave (while still under captivity!), and decide that they were for sure treated well. I hope they were treated well! I really do. But to conclude something so stupid, as if people had never heard of coercion, is just... truly beyond me. Every day new arguments of this kind emerge online.
> Can you remember the last time the public was so largely outraged by Israel's actions? Did it ever have this tenor? Did western countries' support waver? If "young people" is your answer, then you are about to be blindsided.
Unfortunately, Israel almost always has this kind of criticism. It is almost never judged the same as other countries, in my opinion.
More importantly, some of this criticism started before Israel's response even began. People were calling for a ceasefire from Israel while the attack was ongoing. It's as if people already made up their mind about the situation, and nothing could change their opinion.
I don't think you are right here. Hamas did once have an anti-Jew mentality, but that's not the case anymore because innocent Palestinian Jews are facing oppression from Israel too.
> Well the mainstream media is normally on the anti-Israel side
This is fundamentally not true. In fact, media figures in the 2010s lost their jobs for supporting Palestine.
> Also citing Wikipedia as your bastion of respected information is laughable
It's well cited and provides tables that show the different claims between different forces (Hamas, IDF, US, independent NGOs). Who do you uncritically believe?
wow... so in response to 1400 people being murdered what do you believe the correct response should have been
Those figures are from Israeli sources[1]. We must be careful using figures from active combatants to assess something. To paraphrase an earlier post of yours [2] "All of those come from Israel, is that a source you trust?"
Was any military action "justified"
Yes. I don't think many people would have been upset with extrajudicial assassinations by the IDF in Gaza. But displacing 1.7 million people[3] is disproportionate.
>>All of those come from Israel, is that a source you trust?"
Yes... It is
>>But displacing 1.7 million people[3] is disproportionate.
This is where we disagree. These was no way to do it any more surgical then they did. All militaries soften a entrenched enemy with Ariel bombing. That is standard practice.
People that claim "they should have just killed Hamas only" are highly ignorant of military tactics and have unrealistic expectations for military conflict
If bombing was off the table, then you are effectively saying there is no reponse what you would find justified
Israel has been demonstrated to wildly lie. Not as much as Hamas, but they've been caught red handed many, multiple times in the past few weeks.
> If bombing was off the table, then you are effectively saying there is no reponse what you would find justified
Boots on the ground. Progressive capture of terrain. That's one way to do it.
One of the interesting things of this "war" is that it shows the IDF to be way weaker than it was 20 years ago, btw. This is changing the calculus in the region.
No military in history since the invention of the airplane would go boots on the ground without first doing aerial bombardment.
Name any conflict in which the side going into a nation has aerial superiority that did not do aerial bombardment to soften the target before going boots on the ground to limit casualties on your side
It is absolutely naive and asinine to say they should have gone boots on the ground without doing any bombing whatsoever
As far as it being weaker I don't know if they're weaker I do believe they became complacent just like in many ways the US military has
What kind of military tactic is cutting off water, denying food and humanitarian aid in a "total siege" and deliberately causing a humanitarian crisis? As in, they didn't cause the crisis as a side-effect of the bombing, they very purposefully starved them of food and water.
Hamas caused humanitarian crisis but redirecting decades of humanitarian aid money to their military efforts and not to building up internal infrastructure
I find it holy ironic that given the opportunity to build internal infrastructure instead they build rockets and bought guns and then relied upon their "enemy" for their basic needs
> In November 1967 the Israeli authorities issued Military Order 158, which stated that Palestinians could not construct any new water installation without first obtaining a permit from the Israeli army. Since then, the extraction of water from any new source or the development of any new water infrastructure would require permits from Israel, which are near impossible to obtain. [...] They are unable to drill new water wells, install pumps or deepen existing wells, in addition to being denied access to the Jordan River and fresh water springs.
> But displacing 1.7 million people[3] is disproportionate.
Firstly, you fight to win, not to be proportionate. If the Americans were proportionate in WW2 they would never have invaded Nazi Germany because the Nazis never invaded the USA.
Secondly, displacing people is so they don't die. Apparently you'd prefer them to be human shields.
2005 Israel pulled out of Gaza completely now it is true that there was still many restriction placed on the region but if the citizens of gaza would have tooken that time to build their internal infrastructure build actual schools build non-violent businesses etc Israel's continued isolation of the region would have been less accepted by the world.
Instead you have decades of rocket launches and using humanitarian aid to build terror networks and other things of that nature
To say we've done the same thing over 50 years is naive of the history of the region
Hamas in particular has shown that they're only goal is the elimination of the state of Israel they have no other goal
So my ongoing question to the people that believe that believe that there is a solution for peace in the region do you believe that the elimination of the state of Israel is on the table to obtain that peace
> So my ongoing question to the people that believe that believe that there is a solution for peace in the region do you believe that the elimination of the state of Israel is on the table to obtain that peace
Just, leaving and stopping the wonkyness on the west bank would go a long way I think. Stop blockading it, stop faffing around. Recognize the microstate of Palestina. Invade the whole shizzle and actively police it (Iraq style).
Like, literally anything but turtle up and airstrikes. Yes, you are saving the lives of your soldiers that way, but you are not making the problem go away, just making it worse.
What you need is for the people in the region to believe that having Hamas is worse than having Israel. I’m fairly certain literally everyone in the Gaza strip has lost people to Israel. Never mind that that happened because they were sitting on a stash of Hamas guns in a hospital. Do you think that matters to the children that just lost their father? They’ll just keep hearing that it’s all Israel’s fault from literally everyone around them their entire life.
Those kids must _want_ peace, and if you regularly keep bombarding and persecuting them that will always seem like a pipe dream, ergo, joining Hamas and at least getting back at those assholes seems like a viable option. Maybe you’ll die, but then, you might die just sitting in your house, lying in a hospital bed, or anywhere else, so what does it matter?
> The idea that if Palestinian was "free" would end the violence is a naive one, not would it result in freedom for the Palestinian people, it would instead be just another Authoritarian Theocracy in the same vein as Iran...
So we should forever oppress these people? Or what exactly is your solution here?
Here you would have to define what you believe oppression is because of late I don't believe that everyone agrees on what that term means anymore.
For example do you believe the American occupation of Afghanistan was oppressing the people of Afghanistan do you believe employing democracy and allowing women to get an education and not be property at the hands of the Taliban is oppression
Do you believe the people of Afghanistan are better off today than they were with American military occupying the country
I find allowing an authoritarian theocratic government to reign in a region to be oppressive even if it is supported by the majority of the citizenry of that region
Indeed, there is some theocratic elements[0-2] in what drives the pogrom and extermination of a people through periodically “mowing the lawn” and sustained land theft at massive scale.
Israel funded Hamas when it was founded as away to destabilize the PLO, hoping to create a more friendly Palestinian group. The PLO faded away and Hamas became even worse.
It was obviously a mistake, but only with hindsight.
What you're saying is the typical accusation that Jews are responsible for their own attackers, like blaming Jews for the Holocaust.
I think this war will be seen as the beginning of the end for the western worlds support for Israel. The director of the ADL was recorded as saying: "The issue of the United States’ support of Israel is not left and right. It is young and old.”[1]
It may take a few years or even a couple of decades but eventually there will be a viable US presidential candidate who is more tempted by the votes on the table than by the pro-Israel lobby.
[1] https://justicereport.news/articles/2023/11/14/adl-director-...