hundreth

Now do the 23 officially Islamic nations...

Your response to me pointing out that Palestinians have no control or agency is to write an entire essay criticizing Israel with repeated talking points. Why do these strict border controls exist? Because Gazans use every available vulnerability to attack and kill Jews when they're open. You can pretend that's not the case, but it is. When there's periods of peace, these restrictions are slowly lifted, as more work permits were handed to Gazans directly preceding the Oct 7th attack. Yes, the Palestinians attempted a march of return which you broad strokes paint as a "peaceful" protest. In reality it was a gray area, where some protesters were combatant. The march of return is also one instance in a 70 year conflict that now anti-Israel voices use to justify Hamas' violence. Oh, they tried a peaceful protest and look what happened, so Hamas has no choice but to kill Jews. How about trying extended peace? By peace I mean, not attempting attacks on Israel. This isn't that complicated. Trust would be established, and all the conditions you complain about would be improved. You may not like that Israel is the one controlling to what extent that happens, but this is how it is. Also, most of what you said re: economics are just excuses. When you're focused on positive outcomes, economic possibilities are always there. Jews have been in situations where they were at huge economic disadvantages for centuries. They always find a way. If the tables were turned, Jews would have turned Gaza into Singapore with all the foreign aid money and opportunities they've had. But again, Palestinians have no agency or control in your world view. There's no possible way for them to better their situation, it all falls on Israelis.

There are many valid criticisms of Israel. Unfortunately, you'll never see Israel's critics ever assign any accountability or agency to the Palestinian people. That's why they're essentially ignored. They'll sit there arguing with you about how "from the river to the sea" is not ONLY a genocidal slogan, but some minority of people don't mean it that way but use it as a dog whistle to appeal to the antisemitic masses. None of them think to themselves, why am I defending a phrase used with genocidal intentions AT ALL? Why not urge them to adopt a new slogan without all of the historical baggage? They would never use this logic in favor of Israelis. Could the Palestinians make any other choices? Of course not, EVERYTHING is Israel's fault. It makes it essentially impossible to have a constructive conversation with them.

Being a Hamas member is a fluid concept. I doubt there's an official all encompassing roster of Hamas enlistees. You're Hamas when you pick up weapons and engage in combat with the IDF. Then you're not Hamas when you take the vest off. The focus is on Hamas infrastructure more than combatants. The only thing they can do is cut off Hamas' command networks, tunnels and stockpiles. Like many here have mentioned, you can't militarily defeat a state of mind. You can only temporarily disable their capabilities. Hopefully during this power vacuum, there is space for something more positive to emerge.

I'd also like to add that there are some key differences between Hamas' actions and the current IDF campaign: For one, prior to Hamas' attack there were actually attempts to improve relations with Gaza by increasing work permits, etc. There was a break in the conflict. For this one moment in time, the Gazans were relatively unprovoked. Israel responded directly to a serious escalation. Two, Hamas' actions had no tangible goal. Intentions matter. What was Hamas hoping to change? Nothing. They literally achieved nothing except for murder. The IDF has a direct goal, eliminate Hamas. Something will change, even if you don't agree with the strategy or outcome. Again, intentions matter. If a ceasefire happens, and Hamas remains in power in Gaza, I will concede the operation was a failure and unwarranted.

Silly analogy I'm not even going to bother responding to. Do better. Ok, and what point did you make? By flipping the script you haven't disputed anything I've said. I actually agree with your reframing of what I wrote. Of course Hamas is inevitably going to do Hamas things, which is inevitably why they will be destroyed. The only realistic range of different possibilities would be where Israel values it's own casualties vs. Palestinians. Hamas is always going to attack, and Israel is always going to retaliate, to what degree is where the meaningful discussion is had. If you want the most cynical interpretation of events, there it is. There are certainly some in the Israeli administration who agree with it. Certainly not all, there's a lot of disagreement and divergence of opinion among Israelis. Personally, I don't think there is an official plan. Right now Israel is reacting, and no one really knows where exactly this is going. Like most conspiracy theories, there's too many players with different agendas to really make them happen so simplistically.

Maybe, but it's not like they were very fond of the Israelis before this. The reality is that Hamas put Israel in an impossible position. Of course they needed a strong retaliation. You can't massacre ~1200 Israelis, kidnap 200 and then turn the other cheek. The Middle East is no picnic. A sign of weakness like this will invite many more attacks. You can say what you will about the 2006 Lebanon war, but it has kept Hezbollah and the IDF out of a major conflict for almost 2 decades. The Lebanese do not want to deal with another 2006. It is a deterrent, whether you like it or not. So now that Israel has responded, as it always was going to - you have to take the best of the worst options. That is what is happening, the removal of Hamas. Hopefully something good comes of it. Is there any guarantee? Of course not. We'll see what happens.

I believe it's necessary to remove Hamas. Hamas is tormenting both Israelis and Palestinians by stealing aid, not holding elections, organizing attacks on civilians from both sides, etc. They are a non starter for peace negotiations in the region, and they've radicalized large swaths of the Gazan population. This requires a very invasive troops on the ground approach with a lot of ugly guerrilla warfare. It's not enough to take out the leaders, you need to uproot Hamas from the ground up and change the status quo. Because of how entangled Hamas is with the civilian population, it's really difficult to limit civilian casualties and collateral damage. The IDF's approach of air striking the region before sending ground troops in is reasonable if you're trying to reduce Israeli casualties, which they definitely are. This doesn't mean they're trying to indiscriminately kill Gazan civilians. I think this is an unfair claim, as there's a 1 to 1 air strike to civilian casualty ratio. If Israel's goal was to eliminate casualties, it wouldn't be this way. On the other hand, where you draw the line in terms of risking Israeli lives is a gray area and Its worth having this discussion. Do I believe that Israel is perfectly toeing the line between risking Israeli vs. Palestinian lives? No. Exercising caution is important here. I think Biden is actually doing a great job of walking this careful line. A ceasefire is not the answer here. If we begin a ceasefire before Hamas is eliminated, all of this damage, destruction, and lives lost will be for nothing. With all the pain and torment this saga has created, we should have some tangible difference here with a promise of change. The big question is, what comes next? After Israel removes Hamas and polices the area for a bit, where do we go? I think the U.N. will need to step in with a peacekeeping force and ensure aid, food and resources all go directly to the Palestinian people. I think if Palestinian lives slowly improve economically with mutually beneficial trade partnership with Israelis, these wounds will slowly heal and peace will become possible. From the Israeli side, Netanyahu's right wing government will need to be replaced with policies that prevent settler expansion, etc.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. Those Mizrahi Jews living there had less to do with Israel than Palestinians do with Hamas today. Those Mizrahi Jews had literally zero to do with Israel's formation, yet they were uprooted.

Lol "mutually beneficial." Nice way to hand waive away the persecution and ethnic cleansing of Jews who lived in those areas for thousands of years and were forced to leave behind their homes, culture, businesses, and wealth to start from scratch in a new area with a new language. Jordan was created in 1948 too. Wouldn't it be "mutually beneficial" if the Palestinians went there? The logic doesn't quite work when the script is flipped, eh?

What Jewish minorities? There are barely any Jews living in Muslim nations today. Take a guess why. As a Jew, there are many Islamic nations I cannot even visit for fear of being attacked, kidnapped or arrested.

Are you going to make excuses for every Islamic nation? There are 23 of them. Get to work. I absolutely can deny that. They treat their own people exponentially worse than Israel treats the Palestinians. You can make all the excuses in the world, at best this is collective punishment. At worst this is a continuation of Jewish resentment in the region that has continued for centuries. This myth that Jews and Muslims lived in peace holding hands and singing together is nothing more than propaganda. These nations didn't just wake up one day and decide they hated Jews. There was already tensions for millenia.

Yes, when you zoom out the whole thing is extremely silly. Israel's closest neighbor, Jordan... was given 4x the land from the same British Palestine and is now 95% muslim population, yet @Karmadhi wants to talk about how these nations are friendly to minorites. With all the vast real estate these Islamic nations have, they expelled and ethnically cleansed 99.9% of Jews from their lands. Where did they go? ISRAEL. Because of this, it is essentially a non issue and no one is rioting in the streets for expelled Jews. Yet none of these nations have offered to take the Palestinians in. The entire Palestinian population could be easily absorbed by the Arab world. The reason is, it's not about the anguish of the Palestinian people, it's about being a thorn in the side of the one small Jewish state.

Here's another one for @Karmadhi: Afghanistan alone spans 252,071 sq miles. Iran spans 636,400 square miles of land. Do you know how much Israel spans? 8,630. You can fit 73 jewish states inside just the ONE Iranian islamic state. That's just ONE.

It's very convenient you didn't mention Iran. Do you know what Iran's official name is? The Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI). They aren't the only such nation.

What? You don't see any Islamic states?

@zazen so you're just not going to engage in any of these perspectives?

I do agree that you need to address the core cause. I don't agree that removing Hamas requires genocide. It does require a very unfortunate series of painful events. In a different post you expressed support for a two state solution. I don't see how you get there with Hamas in control. In one breath we condemn Netanyahu for comments about how Hamas is beneficial for the purposes of keeping Palestinians divided, and in another breath we criticize Israel for removing Hamas. As per your words, the Palestinians require a state with full sovereignty. You simply can't get there with Hamas. Do you disagree? There are no paths forward without significant pain and turmoil. You can call for a ceasefire now, and then have things continue as they were, with attacks against Israel followed by "mowing the lawn" campaigns, but I don't think anyone wants this. No one else is going to come in and remove Hamas, so Israel has to do it. Of all the negative outcomes and possibilities, this campaign of removing Hamas is the most favorable - with the most promise of change. I do agree with the need for Israel to exercise extreme care and precision when doing this, and we can argue about whether they're doing a good enough job - but I think the overall cause is justified. So what's the next step to get us somewhere? I feel the UN needs to step in and send in a peacekeeping force. The UN played a large role in creating this mess. The Israelis cannot rule Gaza, there's too much bad blood. There's a chance for money and aid to go directly to the Palestinian people and lead to more prosperous lives. The UN needs to be on the ground to ensure this happens without militant groups like Hamas stealing the money. I believe the greatest contributor to peace are good conditions for the Palestinian people. A proper economy, jobs, a sense of purpose, and trade between Israel and Gazans will slowly heal these wounds. Terrorism breeds in environments where there is nothing to lose. Israel does want peace with it's neighbors - this is evident when you see it's relations with Egypt, Jordan, and what was in progress with the Saudis. This is exactly what Hamas was trying to sabotage, and it was in fact successful. These peaceful bonds with surrounding neighbors are built on trust and mutually beneficial economic relations.

Low level poor kid? Are you aware how command hierarchies work? The goal is to break Hamas' control of the region. How you do that is by going in and rooting out Hamas from the ground up. Hamas is like a hydra with many heads. You cut one off, another grows back. Israel has eliminated many of their leaders and commanders over the years. This is the necessary step to uproot them completely. It's not mutually exclusive with eliminating the leadership, it's just doing that alone doesn't solve anything. The Hamas leaders will be taken out too.

So what if their leaders are elsewhere if they have no power in the region any longer? Not sure I understand why that point is brought up. If all you did was eliminate the heads of Hamas, nothing tangible would change... as the next in command would become the leader and status quo would continue. Those leaders in Qatar will have their day too. Hamas will be finished very soon. That's not to say radicalization and culture will change, but the entity known today as Hamas will cease to be. Now what you do with that power vacuum to actually effect change is a different story. That is the truly difficult part. I hope something good comes of it.

Believe it or not, that's what Zionists mostly did. They bought up unused swamp lands. That's also what the majority of the land they were given by the UN was. Existing Jewish communities and infertile desert / swamp lands. Once war erupted, the circumstances changed.

Lol I have a feeling this help Israel more than harm it when all is said and done.

There are obvious reasons for Israelis to fear immediate "full sovereignty" to the Palestinians. Would you be opposed to a pathway to sovereignty with a specified timeline and conditions which build trust over time? Let's say for example 5 years. Recognizing Israel. Minimal attacks. Terrorists jailed. Etc. Obviously Israel would need to abide by a set of conditions specified by Palestinians as well.

There are lines Israel will never cross despite Western pressure, which are leaving large security gaps.

There's people here literally arguing to move Israel to the United States and some of you are responding to them in good faith