Aja on 20/10/2023 at 01:53

---

I saw it well put in an (https://theintercept.com/2023/10/09/israel-hamas-september-11/) Intercept article:

Starker on 20/10/2023 at 02:38

---

It's an excellent video only if you look at one side's perspective and root for it. For example, let's take the bus attack that he says started the whole modern conflict and that he sees as a rejection of the UN proposal. There's reason to believe that it wasn't just a random act of Palestinian terrorism but retaliation for the killing of a Palestinian family by a Israeli militant group: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(militant_group)). The killing of that family in turn was a retaliation for one of the members of the family informing the British about the group (they were fighting the British at the time).

So, at least as far as I'm concerned, it's not just a simple one-sided story of a bunch of evil terrorists threatening the very existence of a peaceful state, but a complex conflict with a lot of history and multiple perspectives. Let's just look at some of the arguments that are regularly put forward to justify the high civilian death count on the Palestinian side and featured in the video as well.


Palestinians voted for Hamas.

It is true that Hamas won about 44% of the vote in 2006, though a somewhat narrow victory, one might say. So yes, of the people who went to vote, slightly more people voted for Hamas. However, about 41% voted for Fatah, which had publicly renounced terrorism and was seeking a two-state solution. But for a few scant percentage points, you could claim basically the opposite. Not to mention that this vote happened 17 years ago and most of the Palestinians alive today weren't even old enough to vote for Hamas. Hell, nearly half of them weren't even alive at the time.

Israel seeks to minimise civilian casualties and people just don't understand what war is about.

Sure, compared to an outright terrorist organisation, they are far more considerate and might even seem angelic in comparison. I think a parallel was brought with US actions in Iraq in the video even. But that doesn't mean that the invasion of Iraq didn't bring a vast amount death and destruction to the civilians in Iraq and there are plenty of cases where US troops committed horrific acts of violence on the civilians, including rape and murder and torture. If you read just one case where US soldiers gangraped and murdered a child, you realise that this goes far beyond "it's just war, you don't understand": (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_rape_and_killings) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_rape_and_killings. Likewise, an invasion of Gaza will create a vast amount of suffering for the civilians there beyond what they have already been facing. In fact, it is because people understand what war is about is why platitudes such as "minimising civilian casualties" don't really work in a war. Because you can always say you could have killed more civilians than you did.

The civilian casualties are regrettable, but worth it.

Of all the justifications, this is actually one the more reasonable ones I've come across. It might seem that in face of terror and especially the barbaric attacks of Hamas, no amount of retaliation is unjustified, even if this means killing a hundred times more Palestinians. I think it's emotionally very easy to buy into and I myself was very disturbed by the reports that emerged of Hamas killings, kidnappings, rapes, beheadings of babies, etc. So, sure, going after Hamas with a vengeance makes sense. After seeing all that, I'm also, even now, "Kill the bastards, the lot of them." But let's not forget that what Hamas wants is precisely an overreaction. They want civilian deaths in Gaza. The more the better, in fact. They want settler violence in the West Bank. They want conflicts to flare up all over the world. They want Israel to invade and commit themselves. I think Beau said it best in his videos when he said this is a PR campaign with violence. So if you are finding yourself following your enemy's playbook, maybe it's best to step back and think about it. The US rushed into Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11 and what does it have to show for it? Was the mass deaths of Iraqi civilians really worth all that expenditure in US lives and resources? Was it worth it to bring all those soldiers to Afghanistan and let them sit there as targets instead of simply conducting more targeted raids/special operations into the country and putting pressure in Taliban? A lot of people now agree that US strategy was shortsighted and disastrous for all parties. (For people more interested in politology, you can watch Ian Shapiro's long lectures on the topic here, wherein Wilkerson's alternative proposal for Afghanistan is of special note... Afghanistan: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DyQEydYifs) Iraq: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiyeOcdBYnM))

Violence is the only thing that will settle this issue.

Then why have so many conflicts like the Troubles been settled politically and conflicts like Vietnam and Afghanistan failed? The idea that Israel can just bomb Palestinians into submission ignores all the history where it has failed to work. The truth is, it is quite difficult to eradicate or even do away with millions of people and the projects that succeeded or even partly succeeded we remember as some of the great evils of history. Israel can kill a lot of Palestinians, but there will always be more. Because that's how humans work. And none of the Palestinians killed will bring back Israeli dead. Violence will not teach people to respect you, it will teach people to hate you. It will not teach people to be moderate, it will teach people to be extremist. Hence it makes sense to use this tool sparingly and judiciously.

Palestinians are like Nazis -- not every German was a Nazi, but a lot of German people supported them.

That still doesn't justify wanton killing of German civilians of the raping of German women after Germany lost. In fact, allied war crimes are still war crimes, even if they were committed by the good guys. In fact, collective punishment and punishing people because of their blood or outward appearance was one of the evils Nazis became famously known for. Also, it should be noted that the solution that ended up working in the end was not keeping Germans in debt and poverty.

Israel as a state has a right to exist.

Sure, Israel has a right to exist. We can acknowledge that, but we can also criticise its policies toward Palestinians at the same time. And there are some things that Israel absolutely doesn't have the right to do, such as settling its people in occupied territories and enacting apartheid-like policies that keep Palestinian people downtrodden and without any recourse or future outlook. Also, you cannot really link to a video justifying why there are so many Palestinian casualties and then state "I stand with Israel" as if this has nothing to do with the topic, because you are in fact implying that you stand behind the video, especially when you describe it as excellent.

Starker on 20/10/2023 at 06:49

---

And nothing you said invalidated any points I made. So?

I mean, like I said in my post, the point was not to invalidate any opinions or perspectives, but to show there's more to it.

Qooper on 20/10/2023 at 12:01

---

Of course we can criticise Israel's policies toward Palestinians. You can even go to Israel and openly criticise Israel there, it's a democratic country. But if you go to Gaza and protest against Hamas, your head will end up on YouTube.



You left something out. I described it as an excellent video from the Israeli perspective, meaning from the perspective of an Israeli who lives in Israel.

The fact that I stand with Israel has nothing to do with the video. I stood by Israel before I saw it. I said it here because the video portrayed the contrast between Israel's and Hamas' values, and I wanted to make it clear that I love Israel. And Israel cares more for the Palestinian civilians than Hamas does.

Anyways, what exactly is your point, or what did you want to make my post sound like? Please be direct as I have been.

mxleader on 20/10/2023 at 15:05

---

I never said the US is a weak nation, only the current administration. I also don't believe that Trump is a contender for the next election as popular as he still is with some people. I'm not trying to fear monger anyone. I'm just being realistic base on historical evidence from my perspective. I may be biased from my own Navy experience in the Gulf with Iraq and Iran, and the middle-east in general, but I know that the US Navy and Marine Corp are always itching for action and will find any excuse they can to escalate vs. de-escalate any situation. Also, anytime you send a MEU (Pronounced M-YOU) task force filled with Marines to an area they are going to want action, and generally don't care who or what they flatten.

Also, it's generally thought that the hostage takers in Iran waited to release the hostage because of Carter's support of the Shah, also because he was a weak president. I mean he was a nice guy and all but not the best administration, but also not the worst one either. Maybe I have a thing against submariners. But also, the whole rescue operation was doomed from the beginning because of a lot of factors but primarily because the military leadership at the time, under Carter, was not the best (Sort of like right now). I vote General Mattis for president in the next election (I'll write his name in the ballot).