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.
“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.