The Iran-Iraq War was also part of that pet conflict, and we certainly didn’t shy away from selling them weapons then.
We’re currently playing up ISIS as “moderate rebels”, but it wasn’t all that long ago when the US and Iran coordinated to hunt down and destroy ISIS forces, as part of the Obama-Era normalization effort. Then there was a whole Saudi-Iran-Israel kumbayah that a number of Middle East Watchers were convinced would usher in a new era of diplomacy and relative peace. And then Oct 7th happened, and it all went to shit.
The Iran-Iraq War was also part of that pet conflict, and we certainly didn’t shy away from selling them weapons then.
Oh. I guess Israel is Special™. No American weapons going to Hamas that's for sure.
Then there was a whole Saudi-Iran-Israel kumbayah that a number of Middle East Watchers were convinced would usher in a new era of diplomacy and relative peace.
Being anti-Israel doesn't excuse people who claim massacres of civilians and the killings of children are 'legitimate resistance' though, and that's who this meme is oriented towards.
This is the internet. You have neonazi anti-semites who hate Jewish people and think October 7th was a false flag. You have Islamic extremists who think Hamas was justified in their attack, and don’t consider any Israelis to be “innocent.” And then you have your generic edgelords who are sitting around baiting strangers into arguments for shits and giggles while they wait for their testicles to drop.
Are you asking in good faith? Because I've argued with a lot of people who ask for proof and then immediately reject it as false or irrelevant, and tbqh I hate wasting time and effort.
Civilians in these territories are quickly and easily converted into enemy combatants, thanks to the policies and conditions of the respective states.
On the Israeli side, everyone is expected to be eligible for call-up to serve in the IDF. Its a condition of citizenship. Similarly, every exit from Gaza is manned by Israeli military personal who conceive of any effort to breach the perimeter as an act of war. Israeli Settlers are all armed and expected to assist in securing that border. And they routinely fire across the border at what they consider hostile targets within the Gaza region. If everyone living along the border is potentially a member of the military, and even the farmers and construction workers and homemakers are expected to serve as de facto border guards, does that mean Israel lacks a civilian population? shrug
Similarly, on the Gaza side, we’ve seen Israel Defense Force officers insist that children as young as six years old were enemy combatants. We’ve seen their policy of shooting through “human shields” and bombing schools, shelters, and hospitals on the grounds that they are all protecting militants or harboring tunnel networks underneath. What civilian population remains to speak of in Gaza, when every resident can be credibly identified as an insurgent and every inch of real estate justifiably bombarded on the grounds that it is part of a Hamas military installation?
Under these conditions, what civilian population exists to speak of?
Israeli Settlers are all armed and expected to assist in securing that border. And they routinely fire across the border at what they consider hostile targets within the Gaza region.
and even the farmers and construction workers and homemakers are expected to serve as de facto border guards, does that mean Israel lacks a civilian population? shrug
Wait can you provide a source for that? This is my first time seeing this.
Once they have completed their mandatory term of service, all discharged citizens remain eligible to be called up for reserve duty until the age of 40.
Everyone who is able to fight is eligible for enlistment. And after Oct 7th, tens of thousands of conscripts were recalled for service, effectively mobilizing a large chunk of the Israeli civilian workforce.
This article is only about formal conscription in the IDF.
Which, exempting a handful of ultra-orthodox religious sects (and all Arabs), includes the entire Israeli population. Nobody is a civilian. They’re all officially in the Israeli reserve defense force.
Israeli Settlers are all armed and expected to assist in securing that border. And they routinely fire across the border at what they consider hostile targets within the Gaza region.
and even the farmers and construction workers and homemakers are expected to serve as de facto border guards, does that mean Israel lacks a civilian population?
I’m anti-genocide. If Israel were to stop the genocide and prosecute the perpetrators, then I wouldn’t have a problem with Israel. I’m anti-terrorism, too. If Hamas were to lay down arms and commit to a peaceful negotiation, then I wouldn’t have a problem with them.
Neither organization is innocent, and neither citzenry deserves violence.
Honestly, I don't even give a shit about Hamas not committing to a peaceful negotiation. It's the deliberate targeting of uninvolved civilians which is my problem.
I have an issue with Israel not committing to a serious stance of peaceful negotiation, because they are quite clearly in a position to do so while maintaining reasonably firm on issues of the security of the Israeli people - and yet refuse to do so because the Israeli right-wing craves lebensraum and the Israeli left has been castrated since the 80s.
I don't have an issue with Palestinian nationalists not committing to a serious stance of peaceful negotiation, because the last attempt in the 90s fizzled out because the Israeli right decided they would just... rather not adhere to the agreements they signed. If force is what it takes to earn independence from an occupier, force it is.
That being said, I'm generally anti-Hamas for a variety of other reasons, but choosing to engage in armed struggle isn't one of them. Until Israel is willing to negotiate in good faith, the use of armed force is legitimate.
AFAIK Hamas didn't "deliberately" target civilians. That is to say, Hamas soldiers didn't get orders saying "Kill random civilians". Not denying that Hamas killed a lot of civilians of course, but we need to distinguish between individual, if rampant, action and leadership policy.
They attacked a music festival with indescriminate gunfire, taking and raping hostages. That’s not a deliberate attack against civilians? Was it exclusively an IDF/Zionist affair?
The fuck are you talking about? How do you know what their orders are?
If part of an organization is committing evil acts, the organization is evil. If taking hostages and murdering civilians wasn’t sanctioned by leadership, then they’d be released and the perpetrators made an example of.
What Hamas (and the IDF, but mostly Hamas) did at the festival was frankly horrible, no arguments there. But the festival was in fact something Hamas didn't know of in advance, so while it's very much an indictment of the average Hamas soldier (not that it needed to be said Palestinians hate Israelis) I'm not sure it reflects on the leadership.
If part of an organization is committing evil acts, the organization is evil. If taking hostages and murdering civilians wasn’t sanctioned by leadership, then they’d be released and the perpetrators made an example of.
That'd be the case in an ideal world, but I can't see a universe where they'd be actually be able to do that.
No like in the particular case of Hamas I don't think it's possible. As far as the average Palestinian (or Arab more generally) is concerned Israeli = occupier = criminal = death.
Man, militant organizations have restrained their members from retribution against much more severe crimes than "Being the wrong ethnicity". Hamas isn't some after-school sports club who can't do more than wag a finger at their members. They're an actual organization, with billions (with a B) in funding, a network of informal clientage, and formal organizational structures.
Hamas's leadership doesn't restrain or punish those in its ranks who've killed civilians because Hamas is down for it. Every Israeli civilian killed is, to them, another Jew closer to the cleansing of Palestine from the occupying power. Not only that, but every Israeli civilian killed hardens Israeli society against Hamas, and Hamas thrives on conflict - as long as there is conflict between the two, there will be Hamas - and so Hamas, like the Israeli right, is hell-bent on doing everything they can to intensify, prolong, and preserve this conflict.
so Hamas, like the Israeli right, is hell-bent on doing everything they can to intensify, prolong, and preserve this conflict.
I see this a a lot, but it seems to ignore that Hamas participated in the 2008 and 2012/2013 ceasefires in good faith until Israel proved they had no intention of reciprocating (waiting more than a year in the latter case). This is just a guess, but these seem very counterproductive to me if their aim is to intensify the conflict. Like if Israel had actually lifted the blockade Hamas's raison d'etre would've just ceased to exist right then and there.
The 2008 ceasefire unraveled from Hamas wanting (understandably) to negotiate better terms and Israel being unwilling to offer them. This does not suggest that they were ready to undertake a meaningful participation in a greater peace process. Like Israel, Hamas used the duration of the ceasefire to rebuild their capacity for operations (material for Hamas, shaping public opinion for Israel), and was ready and eager to resume hostilities - which was undone by Israel being faster 'on the draw' than Hamas in the backstab Olympics and catching them by surprise.
I honestly don't remember the 2012/2013 ceasefire.
In any case, if Israel had lifted the blockade, Hamas's reason to be wouldn't have changed at all - the purpose of Hamas is the liberation of an independent Palestine under an Islamist government (in contrast to Fatah, which was, traditionally, secular and left-wing).
The 2008 ceasefire unraveled from Hamas wanting (understandably) to negotiate better terms and Israel being unwilling to offer them. This does not suggest that they were ready to undertake a meaningful participation in a greater peace process.
That's not quite accurate. The ceasefire unraveled unraveled due to Israel not following the terms they had previously agreed to (lifting the blockade and not conducting air strikes against Gaza specifically are two big ones).
Also I think a permanent ceasefire basically just finishes the Gaza side of the conflict. Maybe it doesn't suggest they were ready to begin a greater peace process, but to be honest if the ceasefire had held there probably wouldn't have been much need for one. No airstrikes and no blockade basically solves Gaza's missile-worthy problems with Israel.
I honestly don't remember the 2012/2013 ceasefire.
It's basically the same as the 2008 one, but lasted a year so we have more stuff to point at.
the purpose of Hamas is the liberation of an independent Palestine under an Islamist government (in contrast to Fatah, which was, traditionally, secular and socialist).
That's true, but that only works in a Palestine that's at war; if peace happens they can't really do much. At worst they get the IRA treatment.
That's not quite accurate. The ceasefire unraveled unraveled due to Israel not following the terms they had previously agreed to (lifting the blockade and not conducting air strikes against Gaza).
The agreement to lift the blockade was only partial, and Israel tried to get away with like, fulfilling 2/3s of it or something along those lines. Hamas, on the other hand, greatly reduced rocket attacks, but failed to uphold what Israel claimed was their responsibility to prevent or punish unauthorized rocket attacks. The ceasefire expired when negotiations for an extension failed due to the Israelis wanting to extend it on the pre-existing agreement, while Hamas wanted greater alleviation of the siege.
Also I think a permanent ceasefire basically just finishes the Gaza side of the conflict. Maybe it doesn't suggest they were ready to begin a greater peace process, but to be honest if the ceasefire had held there probably wouldn't have been much need for one. No airstrikes and no blockade basically solves Gaza's missile-worthy problems with Israel.
Does it? Was Gaza peaceful before the airstrikes and the blockade? (No)
The issue is far deeper than 'live and let live'. The Palestinians feel, not incorrectly, that they've been reduced to second-class citizens under the occupation of another country. "They aren't bombing us right now" is a minor offense in comparison.
Any alleviation of the conflict has to be with an eye towards the long-term resolution of the situation.
That's true, but that only works in a Palestine that's at war; if peace happens they can't really do much.
Can't they? Peace would offer a great opportunity for an unrestricted Hamas to prepare for another war. Israel has offered ceasefire terms which would restrict their ability to prepare for another war, but Hamas feels, and again, not incorrectly, that such would be little more than an excuse to disarm them and then strike when some minor offence gives the Israeli government the excuse.
There is no peace without trust, there is no trust between the actors in this conflict, and honestly, they've not given each other any real reason to trust each other.
The agreement to lift the blockade was only partial,
Are you sure?
The agreement called on Israel to increase the level of goods entering Gaza by 30 percent over the pre-lull period within 72 hours and to open all border crossings and "allow the transfer of all goods that were banned and restricted to go into Gaza" within 13 days after the beginning of the ceasefire.
I found this on Wikipedia, so I think you might be misremembering. Israel tried to get away with doing 2/3 of the bare minimum, "just to get started" part. The full agreement obligated them to just lift the whole thing within 13 days.
Does it? Was Gaza peaceful before the airstrikes and the blockade? (No)
I mean before that Gaza was like the West Bank right now. It's arguable whether that's better or worse than what's happening right now, but there was still a clear injustice to fight against. Israel wasn't letting Gazans live before 2005.
The Palestinians feel, not incorrectly, that they've been reduced to second-class citizens under the occupation of another country. "They aren't bombing us right now" is a minor offense in comparison.
"They aren't bombing us right now" and "They aren't blockading us" does fulfill the major demands Hamas has been making since 2005. The Great Injustice that Gaza-based Palestinian resistance is fighting against is the blockade and Israeli airstrikes. If you take away those the rest will work out one way or another. The blockade is to Gaza what settlements are to the West Bank; it basically is the occupation.
Can't they? Peace would offer a great opportunity for an unrestricted Hamas to prepare for another war.
You can't liberate people who aren't occupied. That's why they can't do much if there's peace.
Israel has offered ceasefire terms which would restrict their ability to prepare for another war,
Did they (as in: did they agree to lift the blockade in those terms)? I'm not aware of anything like that.
Honestly a bit exhausted with this conversation, but I enjoyed the discussion. You made some good points, and I just wanted to say that I respect your intellectual rigor and honesty.
While lifting the blockade would improve Hamas's material capacity, and doubtlessly they would take advantage of that, it's no excuse to keep 2 million plus people in a state of effective siege, especially since the continuation of the siege only offers the prospect of indefinite continuation or the destruction of the besieged considering that the terms offered by Israel are unacceptable to the Palestinian people. Lifting the siege would have materially strengthened Hamas, but could have damaged their support, especially if elections were held in Gaza.
But that requires Israel to have a genuine interest in peace, which it does not.
And considering Hamas's history of targeting Israeli civilians, I'm not really sure why this is all suddenly up in the air because Hamas spokesmen now claim that they would NEVER target civilians intentionally, pinky promise. Considering that the ratio of civilians killed is comparable or in excess to Israel's current ratio, the only thing that seems to distinguish Israel and Hamas is ability to wage a sustained military effort, not any difference in willingness to slaughter innocent people.
Oh, it's that one. It says "inflict the enemy as many personnel casualties as possible". And given that one of Hamas's goals was to inflict damage against the IDF (and while Hamas soldiers' conduct was horrible it didn't quite come as far as "kill as many civilians as possible"), the logical interpretation of those papers is that it means Israeli soldiers or security personnel. That would also align more with their other goal of taking as many hostages as possible.
And considering Hamas's history of targeting Israeli civilians, I'm not really sure why this is all suddenly up in the air because Hamas spokesmen now claim that they would NEVER target civilians intentionally
It's up in the air because while Hamas does have a history firing rocket attacks into Israel, that has arguable military benefits (forcing Israel to use the iron dome and getting concessions out of them like in 2021) and isn't as personal or surefire as just pointing your gun at civilians and firing. Hamas's history of actually fighting inside Israel is AFAIK just this one time so they don't really have a track record one way or the other.
Oh, it's that one. It says "inflict the enemy as many personnel casualties as possible". And given that one of Hamas's goals was to inflict damage against the IDF (and while Hamas soldiers' conduct was horrible it didn't quite come as far as "kill as many civilians as possible"), the logical interpretation of those papers is that it means Israeli soldiers or security personnel. That would also align more with their other goal of taking as many hostages as possible.
You think they were expecting lots of IDF at the elementary schools they targeted? Hamas, again, had an equal or worse civilian casualty ratio than the IDF has right now, and the IDF has a fucking horrible civilian casualty ratio. Is Israel not going quite as far as "kill as many civilians as possible"? Because I would disagree.
It's up in the air because while Hamas does have a history firing rocket attacks into Israel, that has arguable military benefits (forcing Israel to use the iron dome) and isn't as personal or surefire as just pointing your gun at civilians and firing. Hamas's history of actually fighting inside Israel is AFAIK just this one time so they don't really have a track record one way or the other.
Hamas also has a history of using suicide bombers against civilian targets, specifically.
You think they were expecting lots of IDF at the elementary schools they targeted?
Hamas, again, had an equal or worse civilian casualty ratio than the IDF has right now,
Irrespective of whether October 7th deliberately targeted civilians or not, that's only true if you take the IDF's numbers as is, which is... questionable. AFAIK 70% of casualties are women and children. And the IDF killed their own citizens during the attack so it's not just Hamas's casualty ratio (though Hamas did likely inflict most of them).
Yeah I see what you mean now. I still think need a bit more decisive evidence, but this does make Hamas deliberately targeting civilians a lot more believable.
Irrespective of whether October 7th deliberately targeted civilians or not, that's only true if you take the IDF's numbers as is, which is... questionable. AFAIK 70% of casualties are women and children.
Hamas's numbers are at a 68% civilian casualty ratio, which is similar to the range generally accepted for the Israeli civilian casualty ratio, which is estimated from 60%-80%.
Israeli claims are a 50% civilian casualty ratio, which is not regarded as realistic.
And the IDF killed their own citizens during the attack so it's not just Hamas's casualty ratio (though Hamas did likely inflict most of them).
And I'm sure that Hamas has inflicted some of the current casualties in Gaza, but it's not likely to be a large enough percentage to be notable.
Hamas's numbers are at a 68% civilian casualty ratio,
Hamas's numbers? Where are those?
And I'm sure that Hamas has inflicted some of the current casualties in Gaza, but it's not likely to be a large enough percentage to be notable.
It's different in the case of October 7th because we know a significant number of Israeli civilian casualties was inflicted by IDF shelling or reckless fire. For example, they had orders to prevent Hamas soldiers from retreating even if they had hostages (which they did by shelling Hamas with the hostages).
It's different in the case of October 7th because we know a significant number of Israeli civilian casualties was inflicted by IDF shelling or reckless fire.
Oh, we do know that, do we? Do you have any actual numbers to back this claim up?
Oh I thought you meant Hamas released their casualty numbers. I'll just say that when you see "Israeli casualty ratio" most people will think "casualty ratio in October 7th", not "ratio of casualties inflicted by Israel", and same for "Hamas casualty ratio".
Oh, we do know that, do we? Do you have any actual numbers to back this claim up?
So while there are no concrete numbers (I think those are lost to time at this point), we do know it happened in a significant capacity.
I’m anti-terrorism, too. If Hamas were to lay down arms and commit to a peaceful negotiation, then I wouldn’t have a problem with them.
The PA did that and it didn't get them very far. For Palestine to actually see progress we need to realize there's a reason most Palestinians support Hamas and other resistance groups and almost none of them support the PA, and that's because the PA is a failure. Peaceful negotiation doesn't work with Israel and never did, because they see Palestine as their god-given right and Palestinians as a nuance at best. Not generalizing to all Israelis, but this is the position of most Jewish Israelis and the current government.
I mean if the prior ties of the Israeli government to Hamas is correct, then one implies the other (i.e anti Israeli government implies anti-hamas not pro hamas)
Add comment