> people forget (or likely don’t even know) that, when Israel was not yet in a position of asymmetric power and secure statehood, Israeli paramilitaries often committed terror attacks which are indistinguishable from what we have seen Hamas do in recent decades. Deir Yassin, the King David Hotel Bombing, al-Husayniyya Safad, and so on.
Now they do not have the need for such acts, when high tech bombing and artillery barrages, international legal sanction, highly trained police, are available. Beheading children and setting off car bombs at shopping centers looks bad internationally, and there’s little reason for it when you are the one with a “legitimate” state. But Israel got to that position in part by using methods indistinguishable from Hamas.
Granted, one will say— that wasn’t Israel, it was the Irgun, or the Palmach, or some particular militia: more extremist factions of the Zionist movement. But it’s the same for Palestine. What is the great difference between the Irgun and Hamas, except in terms of success?
Israel still engages in extreme brutality, and have even abetted on the ground massacres since the 1970s, but usually in ways that extricate themselves from the same level of responsibility (whether by setting up Lebanese militias to do their dirty work, or by allowing massive Palestinian casualties to be categorized as collateral damage). I can recognize that civilians being killed by artillery in a war zone is categorically different than civilians being assaulted, tortured, raped and executed by ground forces. But the crazy thing that’s forgotten is that Israeli forces did use those same tactics, when it’s situation and power position was more desperate, and it’s reputation not yet based on maintaining the appearance of civility.
That's whataboutism; although it's true that there are no "good" sides in this conflict, the issue here is that supporting Israel is fine, but supporting Hamas is not because they have been declared a terrorist organization.
Nobody's going to get in trouble for opposing the conflict, or pointing out civilian casualties, displacement, war crimes, etc. But you WILL get on a List if you support Hamas in any way shape or form. Pick your battles, know the risk. Yeah it's not fair, just or morally correct, but this is the reality of things.
>Well, if you support Hamas after they butchered civilians
Numerically speaking the IDF have killed a lot more civilians than Hamas. As have the US for that matter, literally hundreds of thousands of civilians killed in Iraq.
And pointing out the dire straights of Palestinians is different from supporting Hamas. The same way critizing Israel as a nation not the same thing as being anti-semitic.
The whole Western media and political landscape somewhat fails to appreciate that small, but incredibly important difference lately. Heck, I am even getting Youtube propagan... I mean ads from the Israeli ministry of defence. But as the saying goes "One death is a tragedy, thousands are a statistic".
IMO, in light of that comment, this is a non-story. Though what they did was stupid: acting like a fascist towards someone like this tends to undermine whatever position you're trying to establish simply by making you look like the bad/worse guys.
Any action obviously goes to far. The situation is already bad enough as it is, a ground assault cpuld easily turn very, very ugly. And blow up thie whole powder cake that is the middle east. I just hope cooler heads prevail, but given the rather fragile political landscape in Israel, well we will see.
The numbers we have for IDF civilian deaths in Gaza come from the governmental authority in Gaza. That government authority happens to be Hamas.
- Hamas falsely attributes civilian deaths to Israel (as you can see from the "hospital strike")
- Hamas vastly inflates civilian casualty counts, somewhere between 2-5x as you can also see from the "hospital strike" which was immediately claimed by Hamas to have killed more than 500. US estimates have it between 100-300, and I think the photos of the damaged parking lot are extremely damning for Hamas's claims - yes, an explosion and fire in a crowded refugee camp could kill lots of people, but 500 is absurd.
- Hamas tells civilians in Gaza to ignore text messages from the IDF telling them to evacuate because their residence may be bombed.
- Hamas sets up road blocks to prevent civilians in Gaza from evacuating.
- Hamas sets up military installations and ammunition caches next to or in civilian installations, including kindergartens and mosques. (You can find videos of bombings resulting in massive secondary explosions as ammunition caches pop off.) They hide in refugee camps (https://thehill.com/policy/international/4260111-israel-hama...).
I think it's worth asking whether there is any way to wage a just war against a government like this, that is literally trying to maximize the number of its own civilians killed. And if not, what kinds of behavior does that incentivize?
I'm not saying that Gazan civilians deserve to suffer because they voted for Hamas. I am saying that Hamas tries to inflate the death toll for Gazan civilians (both by lying about that toll, and by taking actions with the express purpose of increasing that toll).
If you refuse to go to war with Hamas because of this fact, you incentivize that behavior.
I can't really think of a more just case for war than "the government of a neighbor just brutally, intentionally slaughtered civilians in a surprise attack in our country." It doesn't matter whether the neighboring country is a dictatorship or a democracy.
It very much sucks for the people of Palestine that Hamas chose to start a war with Israel and is using tactics that purposefully result in the death of Palestinians. I hope that they stop putting rocket launchers in and next to schools. I hope that they start allowing people to evacuate. I hope that they stop lying to their people about "psychological warfare" in an effort to get more of them killed. I wish that neighboring countries would allow Palestinians to escape the carnage, and adopt strategies that actually support the Palestinian people rather than the Palestinian cause.
But the IDF and Israel do not control that. And I'm honestly not sure what people expect from them. If you can't fight an enemy that hides behind civilians, then hiding behind civilians is an obvious winning strategy. And personally, I don't want to live in a world where the government most willing to sacrifice their own people automatically wins any conflict.
They could just give back all the stolen land and homes and stop oppressing the Palestinians. If there weren't so many people living in such a tiny strip of land, the number of Palestinian children who become collateral damage would be greatly reduced, and people would be a lot less likely to join a terrorist organization if they can lead normal lives and don't have an oppressor throwing bombs on their friends and family.
> Numerically speaking the IDF have killed a lot more civilians than Hamas. As have the US for that matter, literally hundreds of thousands of civilians killed in Iraq.
I don't know why "numerically" matters. There is a big difference morally between someone accidentally killed while persuing a legal military target, and intentionally gunning down a rave or children at a day care.
Civilian infrastructure and housing are decidedly no legitimate milotary targets. Never have been, and this makes air power such a bad choice when fighting insurgencies, it is to indiscriminate.
Whether or not it is a legit legal military target depends on if it is being used for a military purposes and how "porportional" the military benefit of targeting it is relitive to the civilian damage targeting it would cause.
The idea that if someone converts a house into an ammunition store depot it can never be targeted ever under international law is just straight up wrong.
Of course how that translates to what is being done on the ground is very complex. Which is why numerically approaches are wrong - you have to put every incident in appropriate context to judge it
You make the point about fighting insurgencies and guerilla opponents being so damn hard very well, I think. Not the least beimg, that said insurgents do not really count as an armed opponent.
Regarding the house being an ammunition depot: Sure, legitimate target. Blowing up the whole highrise, debatable. Blowing up the neighbouring highrise, even more debatable. And airstrikes are nowhere precise enough for that kind of work.
> that said insurgents do not really count as an armed opponent
Insurgents are people who are fighting their own government (with guns) so they are armed, but they're not fighting Hamas, they're fighting Israel, so they're not insurgents.
Many of them don't even wear military uniforms in combat, that makes them unlawful combatants under the Geneva Conventions and don't have rights. They almost always attack civilians, so they're terrorists.
Yeah, isurgents, partisans and whatever you wanna call them are not regular combatants. You what that means? That the rule of land warefare don't apply to them. That makes fighting them a police action, one that has to follow basic human rights (detention, fair trials, the works). Unless you are fine being the baddy, in which case go full out Soviet Uniom in Afghanistan, USA in Vietnam or SS on the Eastern Front rear areas.
You know what that doesn't mean? That those people, and everyone in their vincinity, forfeit all, every and each right they ever had. Last time I checked, the IDF had pretty decent rules of engagement around that very question. On paper, and unfortunately rather loosly respected, but still.
> Yeah, isurgents, partisans and whatever you wanna call them are not regular combatants. You what that means? That the rule of land warefare don't apply to them
??? I don't think that follows. What is your basis for this.
(not my view) What OP means is you don't bring an airforce and a navy and an army to a gang fight, unless of course you're okay with destruction of urban areas.
> There is a big difference morally between someone accidentally killed while persuing a legal military target, and intentionally gunning down a rave or children at a day care.
Not all of us agree with this. The idea of “legal military target” grows out of the idea of “just war”, which many of us reject outright.
i would think it more grows out of the distinction between first degree murder and either self-defense or involuntary manslaughter we find in ordinary laws.
A six month old baby that burns to death is in just as much pay when it is because it was doused in gasoline by a terrorist as because it was set on fire by an Israeli airstrike.
You may care about the finer legal minutia, but I doubt it matters very much to the death people and their relatives.
Well, some lives matter more than the others. No one in the west cares about Palestinians. And the way people try to do blatant war crime apologia is by saying that Israel wasn't targeting civilians specifically (as if they would admit it lol) so that's fine! Even Russia pretends that it isn't openly targeting civilians but again, Palestinian lives are basically worthless so it's just different :)
> blatant war crime apologia is by saying that Israel wasn't targeting civilians specifically (as if they would admit it lol) so that's fine!
Umm, that's literally what distinguishes whether or not it is a war crime*?
Not saying you need to take israeli claims at face value - but if one side accuses the other side of a crime, and the other side says they didn't do it, generally the burden is on the first side to provide proof. Saying it doesn't matter whether or not they actually did it isn't the right response.
* technically its more complex than that. There are times where it could still be a war crime even if civilians weren't targeted specificly. What matters more is the balance between military benefit vs civilian damage.*
Yes, but cutting off water and supplies while explicitly declaring that they will turn the city to rubble... while at the same time claiming that the attacks are targeted and proportional is a thing that only a western ally could get away with.
Russia pays complete lip service to always trying to make it look like they don't attack civilians (they do) yet are unequivocally accused of war crimes (as they should be).
It got to a point where Israeli officials had no problem publically declaring thinly veiled threats of extermination like:
>On October 10th an Israeli official told a television station: “Gaza will eventually turn into a city of tents. There will be no buildings.” Daniel Hagari, an idf spokesperson, boasted that “hundreds of tons of bombs” had been dropped on Gaza. Then, he added: “the emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy.”
Again, only a western ally could get away with this with such a massive support at all level from all western countries after such statements.
If even Palestinians (Hamas) do not care about Palestinians and are holding them hostages or using Palestinian children as human shields, why would anybody expect from the West to?
No it doesn't justify war crimes from Israel. I'm just pointing out your delusion expecting anybody to care when they don't even care about themselves. You have to love yourself first, in order to be loved.
What? What are you even talking about? I'm not saying anything about loving them, there's an insanely wide margin between loving them and not turning a blind eye on war crimes because it's your ally that is doing it. What the hell?
Maybe if nations and groups of people would just stop trying to destroy Israel as a state and kill jewish people out of pure hatred, we wouldn't be in this situation.
Has the author done that? Hamas may be the ruling party, but there aren’t elections, so the people don’t have a choice. It’s further confused by the fact that Hamas is the government, so they also provide aid, run schools and hospitals, etc.
Point being, there’s far more nuance to the whole situation than “Palestine bad.”
Hamas was elected by the whole of the West Bank and Gaza, in Palestine-wide elections. Fatah immediately launched a coup attempt. That failed in Gaza, but succeeded in the West Bank. It's Fatah (Israel's preferred "negotiating" partner) that won't allow elections; Hamas could only hold an election in Gaza, not in the West Bank. Hamas has no desire to validate the claim tht Gaza and the West Bank are distinct territories, which is the effect that holding an election in Gaza only would have.
Regardless of who won't allow new elections, or why, the people don't have a say in their current government (short of internal revolution or similar).
So, like I said, there's a lot more nuance than many Americans recognize. That was my only point. And, based on the author's tweets (now shared in this thread), he actually does support Hamas, which based on British law (also shared in this thread) could actually be illegal.
> the people don't have a say in their current government
Sure, and I get a say in my government. Every five years. We've had three prime ministers since the last time I was allowed to vote in national elections, including two certifiable crazies.
Some people seem to think that a government isn't legitimate unless it's appointed the way we appoint our government (FSVO "we"). I happen to take the view that an election isn't legitimate, however well it's run, if it's conducted while under military siege.
> I have always viscerally opposed war. I have dedicated my life to conflict resolution and reconciliation.
> But in the coming Gaza genocide, every act of armed resistance by Hamas and Hezbollah will have my support.
> If that is a crime, send me back to jail.
I think this is pretty clearly supporting Hamas. The "in the coming" bit gives him a bit of leeway, of course, since he's not actually saying he supported the October 7 massacre itself (though presumably he is saying he would support another one, if it were it to occur now?), but he certainly doesn't seem to be making the sort of "I support Palestinians, not Hamas" argument that you assume.
Personally, as an American, I've been told by Europeans here that our attitudes towards free speech are bizarre, and that government has an important role to play in, ah, curating the information ecosystem. Despite that, I still believe that people like Murray should be perfectly free to argue for their views, however much I personally find them abhorrent.
Ah, well that's a bit more clear. I don't agree with what he said. But, it also doesn't strike me as terrorism itself or outside the bounds of free speech (at least as we know it in the US, which isn't quite the same as in the UK).
[I don't have a Twitter account, and try to avoid the site since access seems to be hit-or-miss since Musk took over]
> belong to or invite support for a proscribed organisation;
> arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation; and.
> wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable
suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of the proscribed
organisation.
He didn't say that anyone else should support a proscribed organisation; he didn't even invite support for their actions. He just said that he intended to support them. And he's not a member of Hamas; so I don't see how you figure that he broke rule #1.
But the Home Secretary is now demanding that the police arrest and charge anyone carrying a Palestinian flag (note: not just a Hamas flag). In that context, the letter of the law seems a bit irrelevant.
> He didn't say that anyone else should support a proscribed organisation; he didn't even invite support for their actions. He just said that he intended to support them.
i think the problem here is the medium. he didn't say he supported the terrorists in private to a friend. he posted it on twitter for everyone to see. i guess one could make a case that it's an invitation for support?
Second, the Israeli military has killed much, much more people, including thousands of civilians, kids and mothers over a half a century.
There are countless of videos and reports of rich settlers, harassing, stealing property and straight up killing regular palestinian farmers and families just living in their houses.
And third. Israel has actively supported Hamas to destroy moderate opposition like the PLO - the good old divide and conquer strategy.
So unless you also want to detain supporters of Israel this doesn't really make sense.
And no, you shouldn't detain them either like this.
This is not support of Hamas though, it is an acknowledgement that there will understandable reactions to the ongoing carpet bombings and warcrimes done by Israel right now. I.e self defence from whatever group holds power there right now.
Man, Israel just not continuing this settlement policy would do so, so much to ease tension in the region. But taking real estate from other people by force became somewhat fashionable again.
True, let's call it Apartheid then, not much better unfortunately.
Also very important to highlight that most people living in Palestine were pretty provincial and moderate farmers before being carpet bombed by settlers which has unsurprisingly lead to extremism.
Does that justify Hamas atrocities? No, of course not. But desparate people do desparate things. And every bomb the Israelis drop is just creating more hate for the future. Anyway isn't the Hamas leadership mostly living in Qatar?
Of course leadership isn't living in the line of fire. They are not stupid, they don't blow up the place they live in. Or risk their own lives, now that they are leadership. Some things just never, ever change it seems.
Terror bombing never worked ever. What it does so, also confirmed hostorically by its biggest advocates like Sir Harris, is satisfying someones need for revenge.
Hell, this whole middle east conflict is so fucked up, I do not see any way how it will ever be resolved. And obviously, getting rid of either Israel or Palestine is absolutely no option. A shame, in a different world Israel could have become the Switzerland of the Middle East, instead religious hardliners, on both / all sides of this conflict did their utmost to prevent that.
That is exactly not how I understand OP, regardless of a harsh choice of words. I do not like Israels policy around settlements and the treatment of Palestinians, for me this is just unacceptable. The same goes for calling for the destruction of Israel as a nation. People can actually critizise both things.
And one thing should be clear: not all Palestinians are Hamas members, nor are all Israelians supporting the settlement policies or the Nethayahu government. Punishing everyone for actions of a few is not a thing I support.
What a bizarre thing to say. I wan't the jewish state destroyed? You are seeing ghosts my friend.
The fact that not carpet bombing and creating a huge concentration camp for millions that had their land annexed is now equal to wanting the Israel state destroyed is a testament to how one sided some of you people see thing conflict.
I'm pro peace, anti carpet bombing, and i see that Hamas has been supported by Israel to weaken PLO, and that settlers have stolen property and killed palestinians which has led to this extremism now, at the same time i understand the importance of an israeli state, and i understand the horrors of living in fear of rockets, though they kill a hundredfold less than the Israeli military.
