That the Israelian public is devided on the current Israelian government and its policies was reported on in Germany when it was about the judicative reforms.
Reporting this devide between religious hardliners and more liberal people stopped with the Hamas and Gaza attacks. Since then, it basically comes down to equating Israel as a nation (ignoring the fact that policy is made governments) with all Israelians (ignoring opposition to the current Israelian government) with all jews everywhere else. Ehy am I saying this? Because every critique of Israel as nation, and the policies of the current government, have been almost immediately been called out as being anti-semitic.
I think that does a disservice to everyone: jews, because it makes ever jew kind of a target for people oposing Israel (after all Israel is representative for each and every jew, if you believe certain articles). It makes it harder for Israelian opposition forces to get traction and it squarely devides Arabs / Muslims from jews, making dialogue extremely hard.
One can critizie Israel as a nation without being an anti-semite. One can also be supportive of Gazan civilians without supporting Hamas. By preventing this discourse, nobody is gaining anything.
I very much agree that calling any criticism of Israel anti-semitic is both factually wrong and very bad, on many levels.
The main thing that upsets Israelis is when the criticism is:
1. Specific only to Israel, and/or far harsher on Israel than on other similar countries for no reason.
2. The criticism offers no path by which Israel is allowed to defend itself. It's totally legit (and morally must be done) to criticize Israel if it does bad things - but if literally every action that Israel takes is criticized as being "too much", the end result can only be "Israel cannot do anything".
Btw, small language nitpick - the correct term is "Israeli" not "Israelian", at least in English.
It is tricky isn't it? Because both sides in this conflict have the right to exist and defend themselves. Terror attacks are not self defence, nor are illegal settlements or what amounts to terror bombing.
Honestly, I have no idea how solve this besides some larger power stepping in. And that won't hapoen for all kinds of reasons. Displacing all Gazans isn't a solution neither so, and if tried it would isolate Israel internationally. And by extension of that risking of deviding the world at large into supporters of Israel and supporters of Palestinians, in which case this whole thing could blow up in everyones faces.
For the record, I am completely against the illegal settlements. Though if you're referring to the current war when you say "terror bombing", I disagree with that description of it.
> Honestly, I have no idea how solve this besides some larger power stepping in.
Honestly, what needs to happen is completely obvious to everyone. The only way peace will happen is if there is a two state solution in which Palestinians get some land (presumably the WB, Gaza, and/or land swaps for existing settlements that are hard to move). And Israel gets some security assurances.
The only problem is that there have been no leaders on either side willing to reach such a deal, or at least, we haven't had leaders on both sides willing to reach a deal at the same time.
Absolutely agree on the two state solution, withe qual security assurances and existence rights for both. Otherwise it will end with a last man standing thing, and hopefully only a very small minority is actually fine with that.
Re bombing: Using unopposed air power to wreck civil infrastructre is pretty much the definition of terror bombing, we can call startegic bombing if you want. Point is, this didn't work once since it was first tried, small scale, in WW1 and at an unprecedented scale in WW2. It didn't work in Vietnam neither. Or Iraq, the Balcans... The difference between an air strike resulting in 20 colleteral casualties and a suicide bomber (which Hamas hasn't used so far if I am not mistaken) doing the same thing is the means and available resources.
For the very same reason I am utterly opposed to drone warfare as done by the West in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan, among others.
> Re bombing: Using unopposed air power to wreck civil infrastructre is pretty much the definition of terror bombing
It isn't done to wreck civil infrastructure, it's done to attack Hamas that is cynically using that civil infrastructure for itself.
> The difference between an air strike resulting in 20 colleteral casualties and a suicide bomber (which Hamas hasn't used so far if I am not mistaken) doing the same thing is the means and available resources.
Well the intent is a big difference too. Trying to kill civilians on purpose vs. air striking valid military targets.
Though yes of course, if Hamas had the means of bombing Israel with something stronger than what it's using now, no doubt it would do so. Imagine that they ever get those means - a rocket that Iron Dome can't stop for example - the direct result of that would be Israel being forced to attack Gaza with far more force.
Also, Hamas not using suicide bomers? Are you kidding? They've been using them for dozens of years in order to disrupt peace processes, among other things. Even after October 7th, there have been additional terror attacks that Hamas has claimed credit for (though I think it was stabbings, not a suicide bomber specifically, not sure.)
Re Suicide Bombers: By so far I meant in current conflict.
Re bombing and airstrikes: For not having the purpose of wrecking civilian infrastructure, the Israeli airforce sure did a great job at wrecking it regardless. And far more force, how? Cracking out the nukes?
The best strategy for Israel would have been to show retraint, because now Israel is slowly ending up as the villain of this story.
> The best strategy for Israel would have been to show retraint, because now Israel is slowly ending up as the villain of this story.
This rings so hollow to me. People were out protesting Israel the day of the October 7th attacks, which was before Israel had done anything! In the eyes of many people in the world, Israel is guilty, period, no matter what it does.
Not to mention, and this is also a pretty important point - Israel showing initial restraint would've made it look weak, which could easily have meant that this war would've turned into a multi-state regional conflict. Hezbollah for weeks was watching from the sidelines, deciding whether to join the conflict or not. Had they done so, casualties on all sides would be far far higher.
People seem to forget that the way to stop wars is to make the so costly as to not be worth it, which you don't do by showing restraint.
> For not having the purpose of wrecking civilian infrastructure, the Israeli airforce sure did a great job at wrecking it regardless.
That's a very sad consequence of the fact that Hamas uses that civilian infrastructure, thus making it effectively not civilian any more.
> And far more force, how? Cracking out the nukes?
C'mon. Israel could easily attack and kill far more people. Just look at actual mass slaughters that have happened.
Israel isn't coming anywhere close to what it could do if it wanted. Unlike Hamas, it isn't constrained by capability.
Also, it is now doing a ground offensive which is causing far more Israeli soldier casualties, instead of continued bombing.
There were demonstrations against Israel, for sure. The public perception so is shifting. Abu Ghraib like pictures, sieges of hospitals, large scale distruction of housing and so on and so forth.
The IDF is the heavy weight in this conflict, the Goliath and not the David. And when the Goliath, the heavy weight, continues punching the weaker foe, there is a point where he looks more like the baddy. Regardless of what the other party did initially. Not sure Israel can afford loosing support from its allies.
What does drive me crazy so, is the argument of "but they used civilian buildings, so they were legitimate targets". That's not how this works, and that it doesn't work that way is one of the reasons why asymetrical warfare is so damn hard. That argument didn't fly in WW2, and it doesn't fly now.
As the stronger party, an overreaction doesn't make you look strong, it makes you look butt hurt. The US did after 9/11 as well, and it got them nowhere. Restraint, with the hint of being able to use much more severe measures, makes you look strong as oppossed to be a bully. Goes dor every conflict at every level throughout history, not just the current one in Gaza.
The first step would be to stop indiscriminately killing civilians (or discriminately killing civilians, whatever, just stop).
The next step is up to them to figure out, but "commit war crimes" isn't an acceptable answer. Those pointing out the war crimes don't have to pitch an alternative to war crimes and hope the idea is accepted or whatever. Just stop killing civilians, then reassess.
Just to clarify exactly where I sit morally: I do not find it acceptable to kill 10 civilians in retaliation for 1 civilian being killed, nor do I find it acceptable that such 10x revenge killing of civilians is allegedly done in the name of saving civilians. Such statements tell me that the ones making them, don't view Palestinians as civilians to be saved. Whereas I don't believe 1 Palestinian civilian life is any more or less important than 1 Israeli civilian life.
That question is as "simple" as asking what Palestinian civilians should do when attacked.
These are actually simple questions (yes or no format):
> We're discussing how to minimize the civilian casualties happening as we speak, right?
> Not just the civilian casualties on /one/ side of the wall, /right/?
If your goal isn't that, you should speak up, because that is currently the goal of most of everyone else. Security considerations and guarantees for Palestine and Israel from each other don't come until after that goal is achieved.
I'm going to write that again for emphasis, since you've tried to change the topic to it twice now:
--> Security considerations and guarantees for Palestine and Israel from each other don't come until after that goal is achieved. <---
As it is, you seem a bit distracted from the goal of minimizing the ongoing civilian casualties happening as we speak. Focus. We can discuss your question after, and only after, the civilian deaths stop racking up.
Maybe that is true, maybe not. Maybe the inverse is true, maybe not. Either way, you're asking about a security consideration, so I guess I must repeat this a third time:
===> Security considerations and guarantees for Palestine and Israel from each other don't come until after that goal [of stopping ongoing civilian casualties happening as we speak] is achieved. <===
For now, please take the time to read the post you just responded to, as it directly addresses that subject, and you seem to have ignored it, based on your lack of answers for the 2 questions contained within, and your 2-sentence reflexive reply to a multi-paragraph post.
How could 2 sentences contain a thoughtful response? In this case, they don't. If you read the whole post, your reply will contain 2 yes-or-no answers. If not, it won't. Please read the whole post before reflexively responding again.
===> Security considerations and guarantees for Palestine and Israel from each other don't come until after that goal [of stopping ongoing civilian casualties happening as we speak] is achieved. <===
You have no proof of that. This is also pretty much ahistorical model of the world. Wishful thinking won't bring peace.
>>How could 2 sentences contain a thoughtful response? In this case, they don't. If you read the whole post, your reply will contain 2 yes-or-no answers. If not, it won't. Please read the whole post before reflexively responding again.
Because you are dodging my question by replying with questions.
> You have no proof of that. This is also pretty much ahistorical model of the world. Wishful thinking won't bring peace.
This makes no sense. I am stating the consensus of the world. Ignoring for a moment that israel's terror bombing of palestinian civilians is even less likely to bring peace, the primary goal in the first place is not to "bring peace", it is to stop the ongoing killing of civilians happening as we speak. Your personal goal of "peace" is lower priority, and we (the world) may be willing to discuss it after the aforementioned higher-priority goal is achieved. But I see no reason to reward terror-bombing of palestinian civilians, especially while the terror-bombing of palestinian civilians is still ongoing. You are free to try to convince the world otherwise, as is israel, but thusfar, you have both failed at the task.
You can disagree, but righteousness is defined by the majority here, and the majority of the world says israel needs to stop its terror bombing campaign against palestinian civilians, regardless of any questions you or israel may have for what comes next. Indeed, whatever your answer to your question (what should israel or palestine do when attacked by the other), "continuing to terror-bomb civilians in palestine" isn't an acceptable answer, as judged by the world. You will have to come up with a new one if you wish to no longer be a villain in this story, according to the world.
>you are dodging my question by replying with questions.
In order to answer your question, I'm first asking clarifying questions which you yourself are dodging. Your dodging of clarifying questions, combined with your history of short, combative posts, illustrates that you aren't interested in clarity, or an answer, or even honest discussion, but rather just to argue. Well, you can continue arguing with yourself, frothing with rage at the fact that the world rejects israel's shallow excuses for terror-bombing palestinian civilians and executing israeli civilian hostages found in gaza. I'll no longer be a party to your bad faith attacks and arguments.
>> Your personal goal of "peace" is lower priority, and we (the world) may be willing to discuss it after the aforementioned higher-priority goal is achieved.
How gracious of you. Where did you (the world) had that meeting where you decided which goals are more important?
>> But I see no reason to reward terror-bombing of palestinian civilians, especially while the terror-bombing of palestinian civilians is still ongoing.
But indiscriminate bombing of Israeli cities is reasonable and kidnapping, raping, mutilating, torturing of Israeli civilians is fine? The moment Israel stops before Hamas is destroyed all that will immediately resume.
>> In order to answer your question, I'm first asking clarifying questions which you yourself are dodging. Your dodging of clarifying questions, combined with your history of short, combative posts, illustrates that you aren't interested in clarity, or an answer, or even honest discussion, but rather just to argue. Well, you can continue arguing with yourself, frothing with rage at the fact that the world rejects israel's shallow excuses for terror-bombing palestinian civilians and executing israeli civilian hostages found in gaza. I'll no longer be a party to your bad faith attacks and arguments.
I think if Netanyahu loses the next elections and is replaced with more moderate voices (like Ganz or former PM Lapid), and if the US/NATO/UN peace keeping forces will agree to PLO's leadership wishes to back them into taking control of the Gaza strip with Hamas as a junior partner in its government we may get there. But a lot of these things may not happen.
I really hope it plays out like this. What really pisses me off so, Hamas leadership is sitting savely in the Emirates. And the religious right in Israel, the ones promoting the settlement policies for example (their rethoric isn't something I'll repeat or even cite) is excempt from serving in the military to an extent.
It's too easy for people in America and Europe to sit at their desks and repost propaganda on social media in favor of "their side".