Look, I am both ideologically and morally more aligned with Israel (or the pre-Otzma-Yehudit-getting-an-ounce-of-power Israel anyway) than I ever could be with regards to Hamas. But "what's the alternative to doing an ethnic cleansing?" is "not doing a ethnic cleansing". Yes, that's harder. It involves more work, it involves more risk, and when the book closes, you don't get every last inch of what you want. It also means not fairly blithely killing and displacing civilians 'cause you can't nail down the people you have an actual problem with. Skill issue.
And let's be honest: it's more and more obvious that the people that Ben-Gvir and that crew have a problem with are not merely Hamas, but "everyone in Israel who isn't Jewish." (Israeli Arabs are absolutely next in line for that guy.)
Like, fuck Hamas, to be clear--I know, what a bold position, I'm so brave. But the thing is, it seems obvious that what Israel is doing won't even achieve their stated aims about Hamas in the first place; Ismail Haniyeh is not going to get creased by a bomb dropped on Gaza, you know? But what Israel is doing may, however, move most of an ethnic population out of their homes and leave it conveniently empty. And we just plain have expectations of ostensibly-liberal countries...and one of them is to not do that. Ethnic cleansing's a war crime even if you think free-firing a hospital because Hamas might be there isn't.
Because Israel has herded Gazans to the border and is steadfastly refusing to guarantee that they may return to their homes if refugee placement and aid becomes available in Egypt.
It’s almost as if they want those Gazans, and not merely Hamas, gone. One of those things is a war crime.
> What's happening in Gaza is by all means not a genocide.
You are correct, which is why (I assume as you were replying) I was editing my post. It is absolutely an attempt at ethnic cleansing, where they are herding Gazans towards the south in hopes that they just fuck off to Egypt.
> There's no other way to fight urban warfare in reality, that's the point.
That's an unfortunate situation for a member of the liberal order to be in, and I sympathize. I also don't think that changes the calculus. Civilians don't stop mattering because you want to (justifiably!) neutralize the authoritarians hiding amongst them.
It’s not a genocide yet I suppose, if you define such a thing purely by percentage dead, but it certainly seems like Israel would like to do a nice big genocide, and like what they’re doing shares many characteristics with the actions of a country engaging in a genocide.
In agreement with the other commenter, the loss of life implicit in depriving so many people of homes, food, clean water, and medical care can’t be justified even if it results in the elimination of hamas after a long process of starving them out. I’m no expert, but I’d advocate a response that ensures Israel cannot be hurt by further attacks, cuts hamas off from arms or reinforcements, then negotiates the release of hostages. What they’re doing instead is needlessly murdering tens of thousands of innocents, and I can’t imagine that number remains in the double digits by the end of this.
>> There's no other way to fight urban warfare in reality, that's the point.
In that case the IDF should not fight an urban war. There is no strategic
objective that can reasonably be achieved that justifies the carnage. What the
IDF is waging in Gaza is clearly not any kind of defensive war: it is a
retaliatory operation motivated by the humiliation suffered by the IDF and the
Israeli government who failed, miserably, in their responsibility to defend
their people. Hamas could never have perpetrated the 7 October atrocity, if
the IDF was not asleep at the wheel, or rather off to defend the fascist
settlers, and leaving the "socialist" kibbutzim to defend themselves. If the
IDF really wanted to avoid a repeat of 7 October, the way to do that is very
easy and does not require any Palestinians to be bombed at all: just don't
fuck up again. The IDF had one job. They failed, and now the Gazans are paying
for their failure. "Urban warfare" my ass, this is just shooting fish in a
barrel.
And as everyone and their little sister has pointed out, including plenty in
Israel, even if, when, Hamas is destroyed, the only way to avoid a new
resistance organisation emerging is to exterminate the Palestinians (not just
in Gaza, everywhere, and that includes Syria and Lebanon) and so perpetrate
the genocide you claim Israel does not want to. Failing that, you think
"Hamas-ISIS" are Nazis? Wait 'till you see the monsters that will rise from
their ashes, the maggots bursting from the corpse of Gaza.
As to the hostages, there's no doubt that if Israel wants to get them back,
then it should keep bombing and razing Gaza; but if it wants to get them back
alive, then it should stop now.
>> But the thing is, it seems obvious that what Israel is doing won't even achieve their stated aims about Hamas in the first place; Ismail Haniyeh is not going to get creased by a bomb dropped on Gaza, you know?
People keep saying this but I don't know why. For me it's obvious that if the IDF keep besieging Gaza, Hamas will eventually have to come out of their holes, and die.
I suspect this already happens a lot except we don't get to find out because there's no reporting from the locations where IDF and Hamas fighters exchange fire. But, reports from the few hostages that have been released, or freed, make it clear that Hamas is subject to the same deprivation of food and water as the rest of Gaza (the hostages tell stories about the poor quality and amount of meals they shared with their guards) and they're stuck in their bunkers to boot, which can't be great for their overall physical and mental stamina.
This is not a war that Hamas can win, not even survive. Not in the long run. Their best chance is to keep their heads down and wait it out. But if I understand that, IDF commanders certainly understand that and they're not going to go away until Hamas all come out of their holes exhausted and starved waving little white flags.
I think the mistake people make is to think of Hamas a bit like the partisans who took to the maquis in WWII, or maybe the Taliban against the US. It's not the same situation. Hamas has nowhere to go. They are trapped, like rats in a maze. They're not getting out of that alive, unless the IDF is forced to withdraw by political pressure, which so far is not happening.
Besides which, if the IDF keeps at it like it is, it won't really matter because there won't be any Gaza, or Gazans, left for Hamas to control.
Hamas (and I mean the Al Qassam brigades) are toast. The only question is how much Gaza will bleed until they pop out of the toaster.
I'm not sure if the continued existence of Haniyeh and his band at Qatar is of any consequence. IDF are clearly keeping the Al Qassam brigades and Yahya Sinwar in their sites, for now. Maybe when they're done with them they'll turn to Haniyeh, but he'll probably won't matter at all by then.
Haniyeh and the others in Qatar are not the leadership. Sinwar and the commanders of Al Qassam in Gaza are the leadership. They're the ones who organised "operation Al Aqsa flood", notably without informing Haniyeh, they're the ones holding the line in Gaza, instead of being entertained by the Qataris while their people die by the hundreds daily. That's why Israel is after them and tolerating Haniyeh, who is more useful to them as an intermediary to Sinwar, than anything else.
Once the war is over and Sinwar is dead or captured then they will probably turn to Haniyeh, but until then his role is reduced to that of a senior negotiator and nothing more.
All fine, even if I don't buy it. Also, Israel actively, and openly, supported Hamas as a counter to Hizbollah (just a side note).
Still doesn't justify the conduct of war in Gaza we see, because so far nil on taking out the Hamas leadership you mentioned. And going by public statement of senior Israeli government officials (which by no means is representative of all Israelis nor all jews), the goal is more a depopulation of Gaza, with a asecond priority on Hamas leadership. One could even say, Hamas needs to be kept alive and active in order to serve as an excuse for continued war, one could say ethnic cleansing, in Gaza.
It's possible, there was an article in the NYT and reports elsewhere in the press a couple months ago on how Netanyahu directly funded Hamas because he though they were the best foil to a two-state solution. That guy is such an idiot.
Yeah, on Netanyahu we agree. He is also dangerous, as his attempt (?) of dismantling the judiciary branch of government showed. He absolutely is part of the group of wannabe authocrats in Western-style democracies: Trump, Le Pen, the AfD, Meloni, Erdogan, Modi... The list is quite long, unfortunately.
And let's be honest: it's more and more obvious that the people that Ben-Gvir and that crew have a problem with are not merely Hamas, but "everyone in Israel who isn't Jewish." (Israeli Arabs are absolutely next in line for that guy.)
Like, fuck Hamas, to be clear--I know, what a bold position, I'm so brave. But the thing is, it seems obvious that what Israel is doing won't even achieve their stated aims about Hamas in the first place; Ismail Haniyeh is not going to get creased by a bomb dropped on Gaza, you know? But what Israel is doing may, however, move most of an ethnic population out of their homes and leave it conveniently empty. And we just plain have expectations of ostensibly-liberal countries...and one of them is to not do that. Ethnic cleansing's a war crime even if you think free-firing a hospital because Hamas might be there isn't.