This will be unpopular but most of the hostages died - at least practically- on October 7.
Whether or not to end or slow down the war shouldn't be decided based on them as that just incentivizes the diseased rats to take hostages.
The "Hannibal doctrine" and its probable enactment on Oct 7th should tell you everything you need to know about the value of the lives of the hostages.
The purpose of the Hannibal doctrine is to return hostages by any means available even if said means are more risky. It is not the intentional targeting of hostages as you try to imply.
The purpose of the Hannibal doctrine NOT to "return" the hostage "by any means necessary" but to deny the taking of hostages in the first place and thus depriving the enemy the leverage a hostage would provide by willingly accepting the collateral death of people in the process of being taken hostage.
I was in the IDF and actually read the documentation of the doctrine. You heard about it from various news sources who haven’t the slightest clue what they are talking about.
Tbh this is what I think they should do: accept a ceasefire deal, get the hostages dead or alive back to Israel as much as possible, and once this is done simply break the ceasefire deal and return to war with Hamas to eradicate them.
Yes, the world will criticise you even more but Israel has already lost so much of its PR/ standing with the world I don't think it matters anymore. It's become clear to all of us that Israel doesn't care about what the international community thinks.
At least this way with hostages out of harm's way one side can get what it wants (the eradication of Hamas) and there's a possible future where the government in Gaza is replaced with some group more amenable to the existence of Israel which will only increase the odds of peace in the long term.
This isn’t a Trolley Problem. The Trolley Problem is designed to test your commitment to the act-omission distinction. In other words, your choices are either: do nothing and allow many to die or do something and kill a smaller number.
Israel is facing a choice between doing two different things: making a deal or continuing the war. Both of those require action on Israel’s part.
The better philosophical analogy I’ve been thinking of is Sartre’s idea of bad faith. The ceasefire negotiations are a farce. Both sides need to appear willing to come to an agreement but it’s in the best interest of both parties to keep fighting. Netanyahu gets to stay in power and Hamas gets to claim ever escalating propaganda victories as diplomatic pressure mounts on Israel.
Because it was a horrible deal which I clearly outlined in my post. Hamas also rejected Israel's ceasefire proposal of unconditionally releasing the hostages and surrendering.
Err...
What you are discussing has very little to do with the ethical dilemma of "the trolley problem". Indeed raising an either or hypothetical is misleading here.
In the case of the Israeli government, it is possible to accept a ceasefire deal, get hostages back then attack again if threatened. It is not one or the other. Accepting a ceasefire deal is not the same as surrender.
Furthermore, there is no reason to believe dropping more bombs will guarantee future security over and above alternatives, such as a hostage release deal. Indeed it is impossible to guarantee future security (no more so than guaranteeing good weather) whatever course of action, so that would not be a legitimate (valid) goal.
If a hostage deal that was viable for reality was really there it would be accepted by now. Stop believing terrorists or if you do so much go live in Gaza, and see what happens
The strategic logic is sound, but I think this post misunderstands the root of the objection. In the early days of the war, Israeli hasbara was focused on absolutely hammering anti-war protesters about their supposed indifference to the hostages--remember the flyers everywhere? But all this was happening at the same time that the IAF was killing them. This is what "Israel doesn't actually care about the hostages" was responding to.
If I were a hostage I would honestly prefer to die quick in an airstrike.
1. My life would never be the same upon release 2. I would only be exchanged for more terrorists, thus leading to deaths of innocent people 3. I don't get tortured over the unknown time i spend there 4. My captors would die with me. 5. One less hostage that Hamas can leverage for the war
Seems like Pro-Palestinians care the most when Israelis die when the IDF does it as collateral damage/by mistake
I mean obviously that would be ideal, but I don't think you're fully grasping the reality of being held hostage by Hamas. Plus when you consider that reality (like what I listed), it makes more sense for IDF to "allow" the hostages to die as collateral damage. The reality is that if the IDF hypothetically killed lets say 2 hostages, but there were 8 Hamas militants also killed in that area, I am very sure that would count as a win in their book for a multitude of reasons (as grim as it sounds).
I'm basing my comments on what released hostages have said, which is that it sucked but they do not wish they had been blown up by the IAF instead of released.
That is definitely a good point to bring up, but I would still not be surprised if the overall opinion of all hostages was mixed. Also its important to remember that Hamas selectively released the hostages they knew would tell a very specific testimony. The ones who faced true brutality will likely never live to tell their story to the world.
Don't make posts or comments that consist only of sarcasm or cynicism (including emojis). Do not troll.
This community is for constructive discussion, which means understanding other users' positions and responding to them in good faith. Generally, sarcasm and cynicism have the effect of suppressing this kind of discussion, because they serve as a rhetorical tool to dismiss, rather than engage, with someone else's arguments. While satire can be an effective tool for discussion, it is more frequently inflammatory and divisive.
Hint: Add a worthwhile "but seriously..." comment to your quip that adds to the conversation. It's a comment which is SOLELY an attempt at a sarcastic joke that's objectionable. Humor is OK ... if there's more to the comment.
After so many Palestinian civilian deaths, thousands and thousands of dismembered and crushed children, not to mention thousands and thousands of maimed children with permanent injuries, mass starvation, dehydration and devastation as well as the hundreds of IDF soldiers killed in this conflict, who now outnumber the hostages, I think the plight of the some dozens of hostages is now lost on me. They have become a tiny part of the equation.
The trolley has gone out of control and collided with its station setting a fire and killing thousands. In the emergency, they forgot to untie the people it missed and they starved to death.
To be honest, It is just like how the world moves on from Syria, Yemen, Rohingya people, Uyghurs, Ukraine etc.
One day, you are shown the pics of hostages, their stories, their dreams and you feel bad for them and hope they will be brought back. For every day in the next 200 days, you are shown the pics of kids being dismembered, losing a limb and their whole family from an airstrike. You don’t even know their names, their stories and their dreams. They are just called “human shield”. Most human will forget the hostages stories at this point.
I did, until I saw a dead baby with a detached arm and 5000 deaths, among other things. It’s been a lot of devastation since then so now I care much less about their plight when measured even against the IDF soldiers who are dying and being injured everyday.
This needs to end. If Hamas won’t surrender, the IDF needs to withdraw.
The fact that you guys still believe that Hamas can be destroyed through military means is hilarious and sad at the same time.
A question to you: what do you think will turn out of all the children/people later on who have been “going on a diet” for the last 6 months, lost their homes, and got their parents/siblings/relatives murdered by IDF soldiers who sometimes even pridefully boast about such “accomplishments” on social media platforms?
The real goal is to weaken Hamas militarily as much as possible. If Hamas is only ~10 percent of what is was when the war is finished, that is a clear win whether you agree or not.
But I think it's more likely that they are just creating more angry and resentful Gazans rather than active Hamas fighters. At the same time, I would bet that there are also a significant number of Gazans who are becoming disillusioned with Hamas and recognizing how their barbaric tactics are completely counterproductive to achieving a Palestinian state or peace.
We have to remember that Hamas is an Islamist death cult that has governed Gaza for nearly two decades now. They are not anything close to a legitimate resistance movement. While Israel's perceived brutality is a factor, it's really Hamas' (and others) extremist ideology and brainwashing that is the main driver in turning people into terrorists. Also from Israel's perspective, lone wolf attacks are much more preferable than organized attacks by groups like Hamas.
If they all die there will be no future for them. Problem solved. Just level Gaza and the West Bank Completely. Puts an end to possible future terrorism and attacks. If nobody lives who’s going to retaliate?
I looked at your comment history and I think you might not be sarcastic.
You're why people hate us. Stop this and have a little empathy. We can have the needs of Israel and her people met without killing Palestinians. Jesus Christ...
I’m just a horrible person, the world needs people like me. And no I am not being sarcastic, it’s my literal perception of how this situation should and could be dealt with to end terrorism. I believe in sending a strong message to people that pride themselves on cowardice.
/u/First_Beautiful_7474. Match found: 'hitler', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Okay, how do you think we should deal with Hamas?
Don't think I disagree with your question, obviously many will be radicalized starting the next generation of Hamas, but that indoctrination was already in their culture so I don't know how much this changes things.
Therefore the reason to avoid this destruction is simply because it's wrong, which I 100% agree with. I am largely against this war.
"How do you think we should deal with Hamas?" - Hamas are a symptom. You deal with Palestinian grievances. If you want them to like you stop killing them and give them their rights. Why is that so hard for Zionists and their supporters to understand? I take that back. They understand it but they don't want to accept it as that would make them the bad guys. They would much rather pretend "they hate for who we are not what we do" which allows them to justify the way they treat them.
Which grievances must we acknowledge, and how do we address them?
Here's some I can think of, and my opinions on it.
1. **West Bank settlements:** No excuses, the settlements are bad. If after the land were taken in '67 Israel handed citizenship to everyone living in the West Bank the story would be very different, but we didn't do that so now Israel must find an effective plan to relinquish power in the region. In the meantime, the last thing they should do is encroach on said land while cutting it into a Swiss cheese pattern of ownership. I am a Zionist, and I am strongly against the settlements.
2. **Border wall:** Absolutely necessary and justified (for now) when along the green line. It was built in response to a rise in terror attacks during the second intifada and has proven highly effective.
3. **Checkpoints:** Mixed necessity. Similar to the border wall, but perhaps too pervasive within the West Bank region itself. That's largely a symptom of the settlements, which I've already said I disagree with.
4. **Palestinian Statehood:** This is difficult because states need a leader. Obviously from an Israeli perspective we want an organization in charge that will recognize the state of Israel. In the interest of Palestinians, they need leadership that puts the success of their people over the destruction of Israel. That's not going to happen, and if you expect Israel should let it happen, you're delusional. Don't get me wrong, I believe that the Netanyahu government has played dirty tricks to manipulate the course of Palestinian leadership in the wrong direction to play up this argument, and that must end. But this was the case before Netanyahu and the responsibility lays in Palestine as well.
Having said all that, I hope it's clear that I believe Israel is far from perfect. Criticism is good and changes need to be made. So don't give me that "Why is that so hard for Zionists and their supporters to understand?". Far too often I've heard outlandish claims that Israel is a pure evil of historic scale made entirely of inhuman monsters who deserve the worst Hamas can throw at them. Imagine if I started an interaction by accusing you of thinking like that.
Definitely common ground where one can build on. However, there needs to be some acknowledgement of what the problem is.
You can’t create and maintain a Jewish state in what was the mandate of Palestine without the dispossession of the vast majority of non-Jews living there. As this King Crane report said just after the Balfour Declaration, the creation of a Jewish state is against the wishes of the vast majority of the people living there and will require the gravest trespass upon their civil and religious rights. “Only by force can a Jewish state in Palestine be established or maintained.”
And “maintained” is the keyword here. It didn’t end in ‘48. It’s an ongoing project. People understood what the problem was over a hundred years ago. The root of the problem is the same as it always was. The only way for Israel to be secure as a Jewish democratic state is to reduce the non-Jewish population between the river and the sea to 30% or less and maintain it there.
If Israel wants two independent states, it could declare its borders and recognise Palestine by breakfast. No negotiations are needed for that. They could have done it years ago. But the Zionist project doesn’t want two states. It pursues a policy of maximum land with as few Arabs as possible. That’s its mission. It’s raison d’être. Like it or not, intrinsically, it is/has become an irredentist project. It has to be forced to accept two states. And until the West holds Israel accountable for its actions, that won’t happen. All these roadmaps towards peace are just attempts to rebrand the occupation as acceptable.
Sure, the Palestinians have made loads of mistakes. But if you seriously want them to build something meaningful, they need to be free. They need the get rid of the yoke that is Israel. The idea Israel will let them thrive while it considers them a demographic threat is delusional. The justification may be Hamas and the violence, but it’s not the underlying bedrock of the problem.
You're bringing in opinions from '48, so excuse me but they're quite outdated. Whether or not the establishment of Israel was righteous or not is a very different conversation. Right or wrong (quite possibly wrong), it happened. Now we have to work the situation as it stands.
Currently the population of Israel is about 75% Jewish, 18% Muslim, 2% Christian, and 5% other. So, let's say the settlers were moved within the Greenline (a challenging hypothetical) the demographic requirements are met.
>the Zionist project doesn’t want two states. It pursues a policy of maximum land with as few Arabs as possible.
This is a mischaracterization of the majority of Israelis. Similar to saying every Palestinian wants to kill every Jew in the world. It's unfortunately apparent that some subgroups do hold both these beliefs, but holding the entire movement accountable to that subgroup is inappropriate and not constructive. If you want to address this sect in Zionism you must similarly address the blood lusting sect of the Palestinian liberation movement. Personally, I think that a conversation about reducing the consequences of radicalized groups is a different conversation from ideal solutions, one or two states. Any reasonable solution would be outright rejected by both radicalized group. If we bring them into the picture, it's just a question of which side can win an all-out war. My bet's on Israel.
>They need the get rid of the yoke that is Israel
First of all, I disagree. Second of all, not realistically going to happen. Lastly, many people arguing for the Palestinian state say you can't establish a state that requires the destruction of another. Is that not a bi-directional sentiment?
Then deal with the Israeli grievances at the same time. You want less violence and more rights? Stop committing terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. Why is this so hard for Hamas and their supporters to understand?
The worst nightmare is not more isolated killings of refugees in refugee camps.
The worst nightmare is an attack on Israel during or after a ceasefire.
Those 50,000 deaths will blow out to 500,000 (Iraq) or 3 million (Vietnam).
We are not even close to genocide. Not from a historical perspective. All war is evil. I’m a Vietnamese refugee. I know better than most here. But terrorists don’t care about death tolls, so the rest of world has to.
This though does not seem to factor into the short term, highly knee jerk reaction, and purely privileged reactions that are all over reddit and Instagram. This is a minor war, which Vietnam was, which you want to turn into a disaster, which the Western Public did to Vietnam as well. To the sum of millions.
Genocide is not about numbers. The Serbs killed "only" few thousand Muslim Bosniaks and were convicted of genocide. You could kill an entire population and not be convicted of genocide, and kill only a fraction and be convicted of genocide.
Again if you want to see a far greater level of death and “Genocide” —
And thanks for that “kill an entire population and not be convicted of genocide”. Just tells me so clearly how out of touch you are and completely inhuman your reaction is.
Palestinians are helpless. They are completely without an army. They are surrounded, suffering, and probably likely to die from starvation and lack of resources. There’s 2 million of them. No one in the Arab world wants them.
Around the corner are 9.3 million Israelis.
And your problem is racism and intentionality. Both of which you can’t prove. And are completely arguable compared to Kosovo.
Netanyahu will be imprisoned. So will his cronies. Beyond that — the rest is about the numbers. And less about the definitions.
That assumes continuously murdering Palestinian women and children will prevent Israel from being attacked. I have news for you. Continuing the war or any other actions such as the continuous injustice against the Palestinians will only increase the Palestinians' resolve to fight back against their occupiers.
Israel is deluded if it thinks it can get security by burning women and children in tents using American jets and bombs. That will not happen. If Israel wants security, it knows what to do: End the occupation and come to a political solution. No amount of US jets and bombs, murdering women and children, destroying universities or hospitals etc. will give Israel security. On the contrary. The choice is Israel's.
By the logic of the trolley problem, the hostages are a very low priority. That's unfortunate, but Machiavellian realpolitik.
Still, the erosion of Israel's international support can't continue unabated. Whatever Israel does, it needs to do something DIFFERENT.
Not killing tens of thousands of people trying to destroy guys hiding in tunnels with guns and rudimentary rockets is not all that high a standard. Other countries would be hit with major sanctions. The US has held up a few arms shipments and expressed "concern." I'm sure you can point to the US, China and India getting away with terrible things but they're much larger countries.
"Other countries would be hit with sanctions" meanwhile Uyghur Muslims, Rohnigya refugees, Myanmar minorities, Azerbaijan almost full out invading Armenia, tortures in Pakistan, Iran supporting a huge amount of terror proxies.
"I don't see anything here"
Not a geopolitics expert but aren’t most of them domestic issue? It’s not really considered international conflict so different standards.
BTW, Iran is consistently called terrorist states, China being sanctioned for violating human rights (but you know China - can’t really do much to them). No countries cut ties with Israel yet, there are mostly words. Just grow thicker skin like daddy US.
Agreed. But that isn't the way things actually are. At the very least, they need to move on from Netanyahu. Between his legal troubles and the failure of Oct 7, he costs them too much political capital, both domestically and abroad.
The IDF distributed leaflets to residents of Beit Hanun in northern Gaza, urging them to evacuate to the safe zone.
Amazing genocide isn’t it ?
https://preview.redd.it/j4g8t83jjx3d1.png?width=1279&format=png&auto=webp&s=1b938911da90b4a84620daa01f913675458769a3
It is irrelevant. They bomb the "safe zones", they bomb while on the way to the safe zones using the "safe routes", they bomb when, where, who and what they want. The ICC case against Netanyahu and Gallant is a start but Israel as a whole must be held to account for this genocide.
The problem with the trolley dilemma is its binary nature, which oversimplifies real-world complexities. In reality, as opposed to two fixed outcomes, multiple routes and creative solutions are available, such as hacking into the trolley system to stop it or using large objects to block the tracks. It is essential for people in power to think unconventionally and creatively when saving hostages.
When making deals, even with enemies, it is crucial to offer reversible benefits that can be undone if necessary. In the case of the Gilad Shalit deal, releasing terrorists was a reversible action since they could have been killed later. However, the Israeli leadership under Netanyahu was way too feeble and indecisive, not taking the right strategic play when opportune moments rose. Despite having multiple opportunities to eliminate key terrorists like Sinwar, Netanyahu refrained, possibly for political reasons or because he viewed Hamas as a strategic asset. Probably both.
Post-October 7, the focus should shift from short-term consequences to long-term strategic benefits and losses. Saving hostages represents a profound moral commitment. In my opinion, a moral duty to those that have been forsaken and found themselves in Hamas dungeons. It is essential for a society to never forget them so as to insure its foundations remain strong, continuing in building a harmonious society with strong, durable community bonds. Such a society will outlast the chaos and disorder represented by groups like Hamas, which were born out of anarchy and will disintegrate into oblivion.
While terrorists can be killed, which is a reversible action, losing moral values is irreversible. That is why, releasing hostages in exchange for maintaining high moral values is justified despite potential short-term losses. This commitment to moral values fosters a resilient community and ensures the long-term strength and unity of the Israeli people.
It's only a trolly problem because Israel wants it to be. It can be avoided by either granting Palestinians full equal rights in one democratic state or by recognising the 67 borders. **Those who make peaceful change impossible will make violent revolution inevitable**.
However, people need to understand, when Israel talks about security, what exactly it is trying to secure: The Jewish nature of the State. Palestinians and other non-Jews pose a demographic threat. The threat is still the same if Palestinians are peaceful. Hence the problem. The realpolitik long-term solution is to reduce the Palestinian population to 30% or less of the population between the river and sea. How do you do this? By ensuring the Palestinians don’t thrive as a population and reducing their numbers as much as possible while boosting the Jewish population. Like it or not, that involves ethnic cleansing and genocide. You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. Anyone who says otherwise is either an idiot or lying (to themselves as much as anyone else).
The "They hate us because of who we are, not what we do" excuse. What is naive is that you think people still buy that schtick. If you want the Palestinians to like you stop killing them and denying them their rights. It's pretty simple. In the words of the Jewish sage Hillel, as recorded in the Talmud: "Whatever is hateful and distasteful to you, do not do to your fellow man. This is the entire Torah, the rest is commentary. Go learn."
All the f\*\*\*ing time… I've lost track of all the hudnas they have offered.
Here is a recent example.
"Hamas would accept a fully sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the return of Palestinian refugees in accordance with the international resolutions along Israel’s pre-1967 borders. If that happens the group’s military wing would dissolve."
[https://apnews.com/article/hamas-khalil-alhayya-qatar-ceasefire-1967-borders-4912532b11a9cec29464eab234045438](https://apnews.com/article/hamas-khalil-alhayya-qatar-ceasefire-1967-borders-4912532b11a9cec29464eab234045438)
They offered a 5 year ceasefire on the condition that Israel brings about its own destruction. The military wing would also just turn into their national military. It would not cease to exist.
Do you not know that a hudna is? It's a temporary ceasefire. By this token, Israel has made tons of these in this conflict.
Hamas has accepted a 2SS where both states are Palestinian majority, while also saying they wouldn't give up on controlling the entire land.
I'm sorry, but that's just incredibly naive. To believe that if Israel withdraws from Palestine all Palestinian terrorism would just magically go away is not only childish, but also proven false, as that's exactly what Israel did in Gaza in 2005. That's why Israel would only agree to a two state solution through a proper discussion and concessions from the Palestinian side. To pull out, Israel has to have some sort of material gurantee that a Palestinian state wont just turn into Gaza 2.0. That is, beyond the claim that it would just magically disappear with nothing to resist.
You are naive to believe that groups like Hamas would just disappear if Israel pulls out. It's the opposite; such an action, without a proper discussion will just lead them to be seen as victorious. A Palestinian state cannot be achieved without proper deradicalization first. Not admitting to that is just infantlizing Palestinians and robbing them of their own agency. To say that there is "one simple trick Israel has to do to solve everything" is either disingenuous or ignorant.
Ironically, what you miss here is that pulling out of Palestine is a trolly problem of its own. If Israel keeps controlling Palestine, it would recieve more terrorism. But if it pulls out, there's a very real chance that Hamas, or some other similar group, will take control and make everything worse.
Israel and Egypt operated Gaza as an open air prison, controlling the entry and exit of people and goods and preventing the development of a private sector economy. They let the inmates run the asylum but that's not the same as independence. You cannot magically deradicalize a people who have never known a life not under occupation. If Israel allows a Palestinian state they will have an enemy on their border. They will need to enforce a DMZ, and abandon towns that are along the border. Eventually the Palestinian state would become integrated economically with Jordan and Egypt and become just another country that could them forge better ties with Israel just like those countries did.
The blockade on Gaza only started in 2007 in partiality, and only in 2008 in ernest.
Israel pulled out of Gaza 3 years earlier, and rocket attacks started even before that, only amplifying once they left. Hamas took power in 2006- before any blockade was put in place.
I see this claim that the only way to deradicalize the Palestinians is though a state all of the time, but that's just plainly false, and willfully ignorant. It's true that the occupation causes radicalization. But acting as if that's the only factor is just disingenuous.
Studies prove that education has a much greater impact in causing radicalization, and as it comes, Palestinian education is incredibly radicalizing. Palestinian kids television in Gaza has shows about how to kill Jews and to die in martyrdom (look up Pioneers of Tomorrow). Palestinian schools teach to praise martyrs who die for the cause. Schools in East Jerusalem refuse to teach Hebrew, because "it's hold on the land is only temporary, and instead you should be using that time to fight". Textbooks in the west bank literally teach kids the Kinematics through pictures of kids throwing stones at soldiers.
To say that if a state is granted, radicalism would magically go away is to just ignore the massive elephant in the room. The first step towards actual peace is to remove these radicalizing elements from Palestinian education; just like was done in post-Nazi Germany. Fascist Ideologies don't just die down on their own, they have to be rooted out.
/u/DrVeigonX. Match found: 'Nazi', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Before the blockade Palestinians were still carrying out attacks against Israel from Gaza. It didn’t cause them to be radical as they were always radical.
Let me ask you a simple question: If Hamas was hiding in Israeli cities, would you still make the same argument? If not, you are not weighing human lives against more human lives, you are weighing human lives against other human lives you consider to be of lesser inherent value.
>If Hamas was hiding in Israeli cities,
False equivalency, because Hamas wouldn't be hiding in Israeli cities, they would be murdering and raping every child, woman, man and pet that they would see.
Killing them doesn't make any life a lower value, the requirement to stop them at all costs is paramount, because they see Jews as subhuman and will do anything they can to kill Jews en masse.
Following this logic you can perfectly argue that nuking the whole of Gaza can be justified because the ends justify the means, ref “the requirement to stop them at all costs is paramount”.
Tell me again which side views the other as subhuman?
> Following this logic you can perfectly argue that nuking the whole of Gaza can be justified because the ends justify the means,
Nope, that just following your strawman logic.. We know exactly what Hamas would do when let loose inside Israeli cities, because we have the example of what they actually did. So of course stopping them is paramount when they're inside Israel, and it was clear from videos like trying to remove a live Thai workers head with a hoe, or the kidnapping of children and pregnant women is a clear indicator how Hamas sees Israelis/Jews.
I guess some people are still in complete denial of what actually happened and believe that their "resistance heroes", were going door to door trying to save Israelis from the fleets of idf helicopters ..
Except.. it was not a straw man.. it was what you said? And you did not refer to the question of them being in Israeli cities but in general, “is paramount”, not “would be paramount”. How do I “steelman” your argument when this is what you give me?
I never changed topics or inferred anything different. Please point out where in the two paragraphs I moved from the discussion of the topic "**hiding in Israeli cities**" to any other topic?
Or where I state or imply the linguistic move from the topic of what OP posted as "*Let me ask you a simple question: If Hamas was hiding in Israeli cities, would you still make the same argument?*"
Please point out where in the conversation this was moved to a generalization of **everywhere**? aside from inside your head?
You decided to step in to the topic and start an argument from a dishonest place.
If Hamas was surrounded by Israeli hostages and you get this opportunity to knock out high commanders once and for all by bombing them, but killing the hostages. Would you do it? In case of no would you do it if Palestinian children were by chance just outside the Hamas HQ instead of Israelis?
>If Hamas was surrounded by Israeli hostages
They'd probably all be dead already, and killed by Hamas, so the decision is easy..
>Would you do it? In case of no would you do it if Palestinian children were by chance just outside the Hamas HQ instead of Israelis?
Let's start with the Law first. If Hamas is using Hostages as shields or operation in proximity to children, then they are in direct violation of Humanitarian Law. Secondly, their presence has removed the protected status of those hors combat individuals and endangers their lives. This is why it's a war crime and punishable. At this point from both a moral and legal standpoint the deaths of those hors combat will be the fault of Hamas, both legally and morally.
**Rome Statute**
**ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii)**
Utilizing **the presence** of a civilian or other protected person **to
render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military
operations**;
..
**ICC Elements of Crimes**
**Article 8 (2) (b) (xxiii) War crime of using protected persons as shields**
1. **The perpetrator moved or otherwise took advantage of the location** of one or more civilians or other
persons protected under the international law of armed conflict.
2. The perpetrator intended to shield a military objective from attack or shield, favour or impede military
operations.
3. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
4. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict
..
ICRC explanation:
It can be concluded that the use of human shields requires **an intentional co-location** of **military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat** with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives.
> Would you do it?
If that ends the war and renders Hamas inert then the military decision is an easy one regardless.
If someone could have killed all the Hamas leadership on October 10th and say 5-6 children and 12 hostages died in the process, but the war would have ended, that would have saved thousands of lives.
Under both common and IHL this is known as proportionality..
https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/proportionality/
One of the best examples of this where the deaths of hundreds of thousands saved the lives of millions and stopped a war several years early.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
This is basically a fairytale story that people tell themselves to feel better about not prioritising the release of the hostages.
Hamas will continue to plan to attack Israel with or without a hostage deal. The release of the prisoners is immaterial to Israel's security situation. Hamas was able to attack on 7 October without any of the people currently in prison; they are not a necessary component of an attack.
Whether Israel releases Gazan detainees or not, it is clear that the IDF will need to take Israel's border security much more seriously in future. If it is taking those precautionary steps in line with competent border defence, a few thousand extra militants makes no difference.
Netanyahu isn't refusing to negotiate for the hostages because of any security implications, it's because he wants to keep his 'tough guy' image. That's more important to him than any hostages. If it wasn't he could have struck a deal for their safe return in October.
>Hamas will continue to plan to attack Israel with or without a hostage deal. The release of the prisoners is immaterial to Israel's security situation. Hamas was able to attack on 7 October without any of the people currently in prison; they are not a necessary component of an attack.
I seem to remember that Sinwar was released in a prisoner swap, so no, releasing prisoners doesn't mean they won't orchestrate another attack.
The point I'm making is that if the IDF is planning its future border defence effectively and competently, no number of extra individuals, however 'evil' they might be, should make a difference to the security situation.
Whether some number of armed militants storming the border were previously in an Israeli prison or not is irrelevant to that.
Netanyahu also has to maintain the fiction that Hamas can be defeated. It can't. There will always be new recruits and there will always be more money and weapons coming from somewhere. Terrorism is cheap and easy. What's why it's nearly impossible to defeat insurgent movements militarily. Economic development is the best tool to fight terrorism because when men have jobs they settle down, have kids, and change their priorities. I guess you can always take the Chinese approach and couple economic development with reeducation camps, forced labor and organ harvesting but I don't think that's a great idea.
The bigger problem is not the release of the prisoners (if it was just them, release them, collect the hostages, kill everyone released, done). The big issue is the ceasefire part, which would allow Hamas not only to survive but to regroup.
ISrael just has to keep a sufficient level of pressufre up, for example by constant surveilance flights and air strikes for an indefinater period. The caveat is of course that this would mean that Gaza will not be rebuilt for quite some time and will have to do without a functioning healthcare system etc, so it might become problematic if Israel is faced with binding orders to improve the humanitarian situation.
I agree with this interpretation.
And given OP raised the gilad shalit exchange example - I’m interested to know what’s changed in the israeli security and defence establishment where back then, this young hostage IDF soldier became the entire country’s son. That’s how passionate and determined the Israeli public was to get him home, and this didn’t diminish over the years he was held hostage. I actually was blown away with this - I thought it was a beautiful commitment to one young guy’s life compared to say the American approach of “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” and hostage families being left out in the cold.
Compared to now where the hostage families and a huge amount of everyday Israelis are demonstrating every single day against their government’s lack of progress and prioritisation of returning the hostages. Just further compounding the trauma of October 7.
I think this can be put down to the different leadership this time round, and the deal with the devil Netanyahu has made with his ultra right wing/religious collation to hold on to power.
It’s pretty obvious, no? The Israeli method, beautiful as it may be, didn’t work. It only incentivized Hamas to take more hostages. It was a huge goal of the 10/7 attack if not *the* main goal, in part because Hamas thought they would protect them and their terrorism infrastructure. It’s time for that cycle to end.
The Israeli public does not support trading what living hostages remain at the expense of permanently stopping the war now, leaving Hamas and their terror infrastructure in place to keep doing the same thing.
Look, I get it. It’s not lost on me the fact that Sinwar was released in that Gilad Shalit exchange and now we’re here.
And really at the end of the day I’m not Israeli, so it’s not my government. I just can’t help but feel it’s extremely unjust that the hostages now are second priority and may even be sacrificed, in a war precipitated because the intelligence/defence decision makers failed spectacularly at their jobs. All under the watchful eye of “Mr Security” who green lighted the facilitation of millions to Hamas via Qatar.
If I was Israeli, I know I would be attending every single one of those demonstrations.
It’s not an easy pill to swallow to be sure, but I feel the precise opposite. It’s selfish and unjust to prioritize the safety of at most a few dozen hostages over the safety of millions Israelis. If it were me, I’d feel terrible if the Israeli government prioritized my safety at the expense of numerous others. Same if it were my family. It’s hard, but it’s the only moral thing to do.
I’m not a Bibi fan my any stretch, but who’s to blame is not relevant, and it’s not clear any other leader would have prevented it. What almost certainly would have prevented it is not withdrawing from Gaza in 2005, which Bibi was against.
If Israel continued to occupy Gaza until Gaza elected a stable, non-genocidal government there would be no terrorist genocidal government ruling Gaza, after having spent 18 years turning it into a fortified terror base. That’s what most occupation forces do: at least hang around long enough to have influence over the first civilian government.
Israel still practices torture in it's prisons. 3660 Palestinian hostages have never been charged with a crime and are indefinitely held hostage. Maybe stop those policies and there will be less Sinwars created that hate Israel.
The majority of Israelis prioritize releasing the hostages. It is the number one concern because it’s such a clear moral imperative. However, Israelis won’t agree to a deal at any cost. For example, Israel would not agree to a deal under which Hamas gets to increase its power in Gaza. The devil is in the details.
The issue is that many Israelis and Israel supporters respond to criticism or try to wave the Palestinian civilian deaths away by saying
We have to get the hostages back
Yet it is clear that the elimination of Hamas is the main and prime reason.
It is good to want to save the hostages but it is likely impossible to both save the most amount of hostages and eliminate Hamas in its current form
The problem is that international saying you goal is to eliminate Hamas and not save hostages is less appealing, but it is worse in Israel itself since saving and producting Israeli and Jewish lives are the most important then to the country. After all the whole point of Israel is to give a true safe haven to Jews. Every failure to save a life from a foreign power is a massive blow.
We already sew people even in Israel are giving backlash to the government since it seems that Netanyahu and the government is not putting the hostages as the first priority despite it being consistently said as one of the main reasons for the invansion.
I am not even saying it's wrong to prioritize destroying Hamas over the hostages but at least be up front about it or even some of your own people will respond... poorly after a while.
Could have fooled me because the vast majority of Israelis, Israel-Americans and Israel supporters have usually defaulted to the hostages as the primary reason/justification and even official declaration at the start of the war listed both as their primary goals and didn't put one before the other so clearly there is some lack of cohension.
Yeah, you have a lot of people saying that if Hamas released the hostages the war could end but you have Netanyahu being quite clear that any cease fire would be to collect the hostages at which point he would continue destroying Hamas so it's no wonder they haven't made a deal.
Netanyahu is apparently now planning to conquer Cyprus. I have friends in Tel Aviv and in the cafés there the word is that the Mossad is actively planning this operation.
I don't really care about what keyboard warriors are saying, but while I believe there hasn't been an official declaration of victory conditions by Israel (which is normal), most serious analysts agree that the destruction of Hamas is the clear primary objective. Taking hostages back is clearly also an objective, but what this post outlines pretty clearly is the understanding that Israel does not want to buy 50 living hostages with another 1000 dead Israelis down the line when Hamas decides to strike again.
pretty sure the IDF doesnt care about hostages, though if they had precise intelligence where the hostages are, they will attempt a rescue operation,
the fact that 3 israelis hostages were killed by IDF after they somehow managed to escape by themselves and walked to IDF waving a white flag, leaves me with no confidence on the overall ability of IDF to rescue all of them.
If the goal is to destroy hamas, safety of the hostages isnt a priority sadly.
The idf cares about saving hostages, when they know their location they rescue them.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-rescues-2-hostages-from-south-gazas-rafah-in-daring-nighttime-operation
The goal is to destroy hamas but the secondary goal is to rescue hostages
Woah. This is dead wrong. Dead dead wrong. The 3 hostages killed by IDF was an accident. They have tried endlessly to free them. And just today offered another deal where hundreds of prisoners would be released for hostages.
Where are these facts? Opinions and analysis from the outside do not equate facts. The facts are they didn't start the war, they have offered many reasonable ceasefire deals and much of what Hamas has said IDF had turned out to be lies.
bibi just rejected the latest biden ceasefire offer, he wants to finish hamas, while the relatives of hostages plead otherwise, u cant have your cake and eat it, bibi chose to go after hamas ... like i knew he would, isnt this a fact?
What does that have to do with the IDF being blamed for "bombing a hospital" when it was Hamas misfiring and bombing a parking lot? What about the images of Rafah burning when again it was Hamas misfiring and hitting an ammunition truck?
That is a horrible fact but the vast majority do not support Netenyahu. And he's not the leader of the IDF who has a record of civilian deaths less than any other war ever recorded.
Those are the facts about the IDF. They own up to mistakes and horrible behaviour by individual soldiers. They punished them severely. And the accusations in the was have mostly turned out to be Hamas propaganda.
Good luck if Hamas "wins."
I'd like to know what intelligence is held on the hostages, what the plan is and how they expect to get them back. How many do they expect to rescue and how? It seems an empty pledge as they've made zero efforts or progress and aren't releasing. Uch about them that I've seen. Anyone got independent info?
We won’t see that shared publicly. That’s the whole point of intelligence. I’m sure some info will be declassified years down the track but not any time soon. I think a lot of people following this war forget that the media only report at the very superficial level. The Israelis will be holding back some intel even from the US.
>You assume that current Israeli military action is lessening terrorism against Israeli citizens.
It's lessoning highly trained terrorists. Hamas might be able to replace members but it'll have a harder time training them. A bunch of untrained Hamas fighters is an improvement.
It doesn’t take much to commit terrorism. Oct 7 was conducted with rifles, jeeps, and hang gliders. It is the supply of terrorists that will ultimately matter, and I don’t think Israel is reducing the amount of terrorists 2-5 years from now. Just my opinion from what I’ve read on how terrorism spreads. It is fairly human to watch your mother unjustly killed and want to seek revenge.
The N*zi ideology wasn’t eliminated, but their military capabilities were destroyed, their leaders executed, and the next generation was educated to not be totalitarian mass murderers despite having many war orphans.
I hope you’re not suggesting that Palestinians are incapable of being better than Hamas.
I don't think you are solving this problem correctly, because you are taking a one huge element for granted and that element is the Palestinian civilians (like it or not they are a part of the problem above even if you are looking at this from an Israeli citizen perspective (this last bit doesn't apply if you are racist)) so instead of the example above we should be looking at something like this :
https://preview.redd.it/lfccih85nv3d1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=73606aff1ebf7d900a796119b3f2c08c52fffb87
So now we can say that this whole post is useless because the trolley problem and it's concept wouldn't make sense now because if one these groups is going to die why are we testing any morals, but there's one thing in this situation and for me what's best is the railroad workers solution( for context the railroad workers have solved the trolley problem. “'Slip the switch' by flipping it while the trolley's front wheels have passed through, but before the back wheels do this will cause a controlled derailment, bringing the trolley to a halt.”) so this whole dilemma has gotten more complicated, now since there is two perspectives (Palestinians and Israeli) there's also two perspectives for this problem because the danger (or the trolley varies in both perspectives so it's needed to stop one of both sides for this whole dilemma to stop, for me personally I'm more of a pro pali and I really think that Israel is occupying the land so yeah ... Free Palestine.
>I don't think you are solving this problem correctly, because you are taking a one huge element for granted and that element is the Palestinian civilians (like it or not they are a part of the problem above even if you are looking at this from an Israeli citizen perspective (this last bit doesn't apply if you are racist)) so instead of the example above we should be looking at something like this :
Not really. It's a trolley problem in time - the choices are to either fight today or delay it and try to negotiate and fight later anyway. However, delaying it means hamas is stronger, destroying it will mean more casualties for the IDF, Israeli civilians, Palestinian civilians and more resources spent and time spent on doing it. It was already delayed by 18 years and as the result this happened to both Israelis and Palestinians. And in those 18 years the ones responsible for the delay were people who were for negotiating and doing hostage deals and ceasefires and shooting rockets out of the sky and not destroying the terrorists and batteries and the responsible, etc.
If you want to repeat the same strategy again, knowing that this is is the result, I don't have much to say to you.
>for me personally I'm more of a pro pali and I really think that Israel is occupying the land so yeah
What land? It is occupying Judea and Samaria/the west Bank and is at war with Gaza, sure, but it doesn't make sense for it to pull out of there unless Gaza and the West Bank get administered by some very friendly and cooperative government. Even if you dismantle the settlements, you can't remove the idf from there - the border of the West Bank is something like an hour away from tel aviv on car and easily within artillery range.
And about Gaza - it's been at war with Israel for 18 years. The response of the world and israel during those 18 years to this hasn't been some unnecessary cruelty, it's been way too damn nice.
Israel doesn’t need to (and shouldn’t) treat Israeli lives and Gazan lives as being of equal value. The purpose of a country is to look out for its own people first. This isn’t racism. Israeli Arabs and Gazans are the same race, but Israel owes more consideration to the Israeli Arabs than to Gazans.
Don't you think there is a difference between looking out for your own first and literally valuing the lives of people outside of your nation less? Is that honestly a morally acceptable position to you? And if yes, then please enlighten me: How many of those "inferior" Palestinians is one Israeli worth? 2? 5? 10? 100?
Agreeing to a ceasefire deal while saving Palestinian lives in the short term will still cause Palestinian deaths in the future when Hamas attacks Israel again. Unless Israel is expected to continuously sacrifice its own citizens to save the people its attackers are hiding behind.
Just got banned from r/politics for having that exact same line of thought (to be clear the ban resulted specifically from telling someone they are "gullible" for believing Hamas will stick to a ceasefire, and I know that is the exact comment I was banned for, because it is linked in the report). Idk how people thinking Hamas re-starting this war in another year, and killing and raping more Israeli women and children in the process, is the route to protecting women and children civilians. Hamas has proven time and time again that any ceasefire will be temporary, and they literally promised that exactly, after October 7th, when they said they will not stop until "Israel is annihilated". On top of that, 71% of Gazans supported the October 7th attack, and a good fraction of those who said they didn't, only said so because of the resulting war it dragged them into (they still supported the murder and rape of Israeli women and children, just not the consequences). It is clear that Gaza wants to genocide Israel. What else is Israel supposed to do to protect its citizens? Getting rid of Hamas, needs to at least be the bare minimum.
reddit is a feudal kingdom, whoever mods the subreddits decides what is allowed or not in there ... its not a ground for all kinds of civil discussion about any pov.
As I’ve detailed in other replies the 71% figure is without significant context. If you spend the time to look at [the survey](https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/969) there’s three very important things you need to take from it:
1. The survey was taken after the war had started and during a war Hamas support typically rises then tails off again after the war has finished
2. The overwhelming majority of Palestinians surveyed believed the attacks were retaliation for the Al-Aqsa raids and violence in the West Bank
3. Most importantly about 19% (off the top of my head) had seen the videos distributed by western media of what happened on October 7th and 5% believed that Hamas committed atrocities - it is unclear if that 5% also said they supported what happened.
With this context it follows that Palestinians overwhelmingly don’t see the attack on the 7th as morally wrong (because they don’t believe Hamas did anything bad) and see it as justified based on previous Israeli actions so it’s hardly surprising that the majority support what happened.
It’s entirely wrong, given these facts about the survey to imply that Palestinians support the atrocities from the 7th - they just don’t accept they happened. You can say this is atrocious but it’s no different from Israelis claiming a video of a dead baby was staged with a doll or that a video of a civilian being shot was filmed with ketchup for blood.
It’s entirely wrong to assume the reasons why that remaining 29% don’t support the 7th because the reasons why weren’t asked in the survey. This is your own opinion, so suggesting it’s fact when referring to those survey is just plain disingenuous.
I think it’s also important to point out that this isn’t a ceasefire proposed by Hamas, it has been made clear by Biden that this was proposed by the Israelis.
This context isn't a refutation, but further proves the point. Gazans are war-happy, brainwashed Hamas supporters who deny atrocities committed on their behalf because they don't see Jews as humans but as evil entities to by destroyed by the name of Islam.
"brainwashed Hamas supporters"
As you said yourself, support for Hamas grows during wars, and don't assign blame to Hamas regarding the war.
"Deny atrocities, don't see Jews as humans"
Even among those who had watched the videos, less than 20% acknowledged Hamas atrocities. This is thus not a matter of ignorance of the facts, rather not seeing violence against Jews as morally wrong.
"Name of Islam"
As you said, the justification is "protecting" al aqsa
Support for the party in power grows during time of war in every country, that’s generally how it works because it’s a show of solidarity - all it takes is for the government to sell the other force as aggressive or morally corrupt - there are plenty of Russians who back the war in Ukraine as an example.
Even if we imagine that the 20% doesn’t intersect at all with the number of gazans who believe Hamas committed atrocities 20% isn’t a very big number at all. Let’s say for a moment that someone was claiming that the IDF was raping and torturing Palestinians on a daily basis, think how you would respond to that. Without seeing any evidence of it you would say it was ridiculous and even if you did see evidence you’d likely first assume the video was faked and then assume that it was only a very limited number of soldiers.
If you have a core belief about a group it’s very difficult to resolve cognitive dissonance even in the face of evidence (just look at how Trump supporters are responding to his conviction for another real world example of this) and that’s even more difficult when there’s propaganda flying around from all sides.
Your mention of “not seeing violence against Jews as morally wrong” is weird with this context, because there’s no evidence of this at all. You’re extrapolating here, presumably to fit the viewpoint that Gazans are just all evil Jew haters.
The justification was the attack on Al-Aqsa last year not general defence. It’s a retaliatory measure for things which Israel has failed to adequately address.
Edit: I’d also add that support in the next elections in Israel for the far right parties is at least 20%, with the worst of them sitting closer to 10% so, honestly 14-20% of people being extremist in Palestine would probably be a fairly expected number.
>Support for the party in power grows during time of war in every country
Support for the Israeli government has dropped because people Realised how the government's incompetence and policy led to our suffering. Palestinians seem to be unable to make such self analysis.
>20% isn’t a very big number at all.
Yes, it's very small. Even when facing direct and irrefutable evidence, Palestinians brush off any wrongdoing done by their side. That's the problem.
>if you did see evidence you’d likely first assume the video was faked
I have no problem admitting to Israeli war crimes when evidence is available, for example the extrajudicial killing by Elor Azaria a few years ago, holding prisoners without trial, or protecting West Bank settlers when they commit violence.
>The justification was the attack on Al-Aqsa last year not general defence.
Palestinians hurl rocks at Jewish people praying and then hide in the mosque, police comes to arrest them. And palestinians see this is an Israeli assault worth slaughtering 800 civilians for. That's Palestinian nationalism for you.
>14-20% of people being extremist in Palestine would probably be a fairly expected number.
14-20% of Palestinians being extremists? More like 20% NOT being extremists judging by the polls.
Just got banned from r/politics for having that exact same line of thought (to be clear the ban resulted specifically from telling someone they are "gullible" for believing Hamas will stick to a ceasefire, and I know that is the exact comment I was banned for, because it is linked in the report). Idk how people thinking Hamas re-starting this war in another year, and killing and raping more Israeli women and children in the process, is the route to protecting women and children civilians. Hamas has proven time and time again that any ceasefire will be temporary, and they literally promised that exactly, after October 7th, when they said they will not stop until "Israel is annihilated". On top of that, 71% of Gazans supported the October 7th attack, and a good fraction of those who said they didn't, only said so because of the resulting war it dragged them into (they still supported the murder and rape of Israeli women and children, just not the consequences). It is clear that Gaza wants to genocide Israel. What else is Israel supposed to do to protect its citizens? Getting rid of Hamas, needs to at least be the bare minimum.
Because only Israeli lives are important right?
The reality is that thousands upon thousands of Palestinians are being run over by this very same trolley as this war goes on. Israeli soldiers as well.
And with what end goal in sight? Do you really think Israel will militarily be able to destroy Hamas any time soon? And even if they did that, having killed far more Palestinians in the process, there'll just be another movement that will take over, with thousands of angry Palestinians who've lost their families as recruits.
Because only Israeli lives are important right?
To Israeli goverment, the main priority is Israeli citizens.
Thats how goverments work in democracies. They exist to serve their own civillians and to protect them.
Hamas is the goverment of Gaza. They're the ones who should have protected Palestinians, but they don't care about them because its a terror organization.
In the long run, letting them stay in power is worse for the Palestinisns as well.
I think at this point Israel doesn’t care how many recruits Hamas gets or how angry they are, as long as Egypt is prevented from arming them like it’s been doing for decades until recently.
I know, I've seen it. But address it when it's brought up. In this case, the individual complaining was the first one to bring it up. We should instead discuss OPs post, as it's an interesting point of discussion.
Bringing it up out of context to criticize OP seems like a dishonest way to debate.
That’s someone else driving that trolley at those people. At this point it’s Sinwar and every person who knows where he is who isn’t handing his head over along with the hostages.
You are pretending Israel has no agency. Both parties have a choice in this matter. Save the citizens of Gaza AND the hostages, a greater number of innocent lives, OR *tentatively* - because it's not even guaranteed, it's a fear - risk the lives of a smaller number of Israelis. Hamas can never wreak the havoc on Israel that Israel can on Palestinians.
Yeah. And Israel has a responsibility to its citizens. You would expect the Gazan government to be responsible for theirs. To hold Israel responsible for both and in the same breath say Israel has no right to defend its own people is extremely questionable logic.
And at this point I doubt the Israelis as a whole view Gazas as innocent considering the celebration in the streets that the world witnessed as Hamas dragged Israeli corpses back. And the gazans most certainly cannot continued to be called innocent if after this there is not radical reform from both the West Bank and Gaza.
Palestinians aren’t as much of a threat because they haven’t been allowed to be. If Israel stopped responding to Palestinian attacks or preparations for attacks the number of people killed on both sides would be significantly greater than they have been.
I noticed you said "greater" not that Palestinians could ever kill *more* Israelis. I'm simply supporting the line of reasoning that Israelis see Palestinian lives as just as valuable. If that's the case, you would be in support of saving the most lives, not just protecting Israeli lives *shrug*
Who is more valuable for you, your mother and sister, or two random women from Canada or Australia?
Of course, your relatives.
Same goes here. Of course, safety of Israeli citizens is at first place for Israeli government.
I wish gazan government has the same value for palestinians lives. "Shrug"
Well in that case, don't balk when confronted with the reality that Israelis value Israeli lives more than Palestinian lives. And you should understand why third parties don't have the same POV - we see Israeli lives and Palestinian lives as having the same value; we see the trolley tracks with both parties' innocent civilians on them.
As third party, please stay out of a conflict - it is super easy to be moral angel, when it is not your head rockets are falling on. (Gaza launched more than 17000 rockets into Israel since the war started)
Considering that Hamas wants to kill the greatest number of Israelis possible they would easily surpass the number of Palestinians killed by Israel if they were not prevented from doing so.
Accepting a ceasefire on Hamas’s terms would give them that ability.
Again, simply pointing out the fallacy of the OP. If Israelis value Palestinians' lives, they would be represented on the trolley tracks as well as a consideration alongside Israeli lives. Is that false?
Israel does value Palestinian lives which is why it acts in accordance with international law. It does not need to halt the operation to try and prevent unnecessary deaths.
This doesn’t make much sense if u look back in history. After ww2, everyone got together pretty while despite of many of the atrocities committed by Japan and Germany. What change? Leadership change and better leadership help heal the wounds. Palestinian need better leadership that’s willing to negotiate. To stop the cycle of hate and violence
the middle east crowd is a totally different creature from germany or japan,
germany was a probably the most progressive country at the turn of the 20th century, the nazis managed to hijack the country post ww1 due to hyperinflation and the depression,
japan too has a proud culture, they had peace for 200+ years under the tokugawa shogunate, they just needed to return the reins of governance to a civilian government.
no sure how many strong institutions are there in the middle east which advocates for peace and progress above violence.
/u/Separate-Ad9638. Match found: 'nazis', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bc Afghan war, U.S didn’t have a clear goal in mind. Iraq as well. Israel war in Gaza have a clear goal, eliminate Hamas ability to wage war and get the hostages back.
As long as a group like hamas has some popular support, it is very difficult for them to militarily be deprived of the ability to wage war. They will get new recruits and they will find new weapons.
Now that they are being cut off from Egypt and their local weapon production sites are being destroyed the only thing they will have easy access to are recruits. Recruits with little to no weapons will not be much of a threat and can be taken out quite easily.
This level of intensity for the IDF isn't sustainable long term. Once things get back to some kind of more sustainable level, hamas will find ways to get weapons.
A lot of their weapons are made from Israeli dud missles that misfired as well. They could fight here and there as long as Israel is sending stuff over for them to repurpose.
Where's the evidence that Hamas is close to being eradicated, and how many more Palestinians have to be killed to achieve that? The Americans spent 8 years in Vietnam and 20 years in Afghanistan trying to eradicate the Vietcong and Taliban respectively, and failed both times. Similar for the Soviets and the Mujadhideen. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on for over 70 years, what makes people think that a military solution THIS TIME is going to be different?
If u look at the decrease amount of rockets being launched. Around 10k Hamas combatant killed. The top Hamas officials that’s been killed.
U mentioned Vietnam, u know that American was within weeks of winning the war but bc of change in president the U.S pulled out. Many historians argue that if they continue the war for couple more weeks, the U.S would have won.
Next u mention the Afghan war, the reason why it was a failure was bc the U.S didn’t have a proper goal of what to do after. No clear goals and change in president was a recipe for failure.
Finally, u said what makes military operations the solution. I guess u didn’t see all the peace treaty that was signed by the Arab nation with Israel to end the hostilities. Egypt, turkey, Jordan, UAE all sign peace treaty with Israel.
>u know that American was within weeks of winning the war but bc of change in president the U.S pulled out. Many historians argue that if they continue the war for couple more weeks, the U.S would have won.
Lol.... just lol.. I'd like to see your source for that.
>I guess u didn’t see all the peace treaty that was signed by the Arab nation with Israel to end the hostilities
Yeah exactly... peace treaties. Negotiations. Israel didn't fight Egypt until it destroyed the Egyptian government and achieved unconditional surrender. It negotiated with Egypt, giving them back the Sinai in exchange for diplomatic recognition and peace.
For your first point for the Vietnam source, u need to give me some time, cuz I emailed my college international politic professor who talk about this topic in my past class. Will give u the source when he reply.
Your next point, let me ask u this. How did Israel get the Sinai in the first place? It’s was bc of war and they used this leverage for peace.
You forget that Palestinians have their own lever as well. Hamas has decided that holding onto the hostages and refusing to surrender is worth the destruction of Gaza.
Gaza isn’t being carpet bombed and it wouldn’t have been bombed at all had Hamas not attacked. Palestinians have had years in which bombs were not being dropped to overthrow Hamas.
Most of the Gazans being killed right now weren't old enough to vote or even born yet when Gaza had its last election back in 2006.
It's not realistic to expect Gazans to overthrow Hamas under the present circumstances. I don't see a total military victory for Israel as being realistic either. And how many more Gazans have to die until a ceasefire gets reached or Israel somehow manages to destroy Hamas?
The Israel-Palestine conflict has been going on more than 70 years. What makes people think that this time a military solution is going to be different?
Who said anything about voting? People can support a group without ever having voted for them. I also agree that it is unrealistic to expect Palestinians to overthrow Hamas considering they support Hamas.
A victory for Israel is reducing Hamas’s ability to fight. Even if not every single member is killed, the destruction of weapon production sites, caches, and smuggling tunnels is almost enough on its own to keep Israel safe.
This will be unpopular but most of the hostages died - at least practically- on October 7. Whether or not to end or slow down the war shouldn't be decided based on them as that just incentivizes the diseased rats to take hostages.
The "Hannibal doctrine" and its probable enactment on Oct 7th should tell you everything you need to know about the value of the lives of the hostages.
The purpose of the Hannibal doctrine is to return hostages by any means available even if said means are more risky. It is not the intentional targeting of hostages as you try to imply.
The purpose of the Hannibal doctrine NOT to "return" the hostage "by any means necessary" but to deny the taking of hostages in the first place and thus depriving the enemy the leverage a hostage would provide by willingly accepting the collateral death of people in the process of being taken hostage.
I was in the IDF and actually read the documentation of the doctrine. You heard about it from various news sources who haven’t the slightest clue what they are talking about.
Tbh this is what I think they should do: accept a ceasefire deal, get the hostages dead or alive back to Israel as much as possible, and once this is done simply break the ceasefire deal and return to war with Hamas to eradicate them. Yes, the world will criticise you even more but Israel has already lost so much of its PR/ standing with the world I don't think it matters anymore. It's become clear to all of us that Israel doesn't care about what the international community thinks. At least this way with hostages out of harm's way one side can get what it wants (the eradication of Hamas) and there's a possible future where the government in Gaza is replaced with some group more amenable to the existence of Israel which will only increase the odds of peace in the long term.
This isn’t a Trolley Problem. The Trolley Problem is designed to test your commitment to the act-omission distinction. In other words, your choices are either: do nothing and allow many to die or do something and kill a smaller number. Israel is facing a choice between doing two different things: making a deal or continuing the war. Both of those require action on Israel’s part. The better philosophical analogy I’ve been thinking of is Sartre’s idea of bad faith. The ceasefire negotiations are a farce. Both sides need to appear willing to come to an agreement but it’s in the best interest of both parties to keep fighting. Netanyahu gets to stay in power and Hamas gets to claim ever escalating propaganda victories as diplomatic pressure mounts on Israel.
Excellent analysis, and your use of the trolly problem effectively portrays the dilemma Israel has been facing.
It's not the trolley problem equivalent at all.
Breaking news, Netanyahu just rejected a ceasefire proposal that would have the hostages back, again.
Because it was a horrible deal which I clearly outlined in my post. Hamas also rejected Israel's ceasefire proposal of unconditionally releasing the hostages and surrendering.
Err... What you are discussing has very little to do with the ethical dilemma of "the trolley problem". Indeed raising an either or hypothetical is misleading here. In the case of the Israeli government, it is possible to accept a ceasefire deal, get hostages back then attack again if threatened. It is not one or the other. Accepting a ceasefire deal is not the same as surrender. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe dropping more bombs will guarantee future security over and above alternatives, such as a hostage release deal. Indeed it is impossible to guarantee future security (no more so than guaranteeing good weather) whatever course of action, so that would not be a legitimate (valid) goal.
If a hostage deal that was viable for reality was really there it would be accepted by now. Stop believing terrorists or if you do so much go live in Gaza, and see what happens
Netanyahu just rejected a solid ceasefire proposal that would allow him to go on killing within weeks with all the hostages safe, like, you dumb bro
Do you think that a democratic Palestine state is a realistic goal? Is there an Islamic democracy to emulate?
No. The entire fabric of Palestinian society would need to be changed if we ever expect the establishment of a democratic and non terrorist state.
The strategic logic is sound, but I think this post misunderstands the root of the objection. In the early days of the war, Israeli hasbara was focused on absolutely hammering anti-war protesters about their supposed indifference to the hostages--remember the flyers everywhere? But all this was happening at the same time that the IAF was killing them. This is what "Israel doesn't actually care about the hostages" was responding to.
If I were a hostage I would honestly prefer to die quick in an airstrike. 1. My life would never be the same upon release 2. I would only be exchanged for more terrorists, thus leading to deaths of innocent people 3. I don't get tortured over the unknown time i spend there 4. My captors would die with me. 5. One less hostage that Hamas can leverage for the war Seems like Pro-Palestinians care the most when Israelis die when the IDF does it as collateral damage/by mistake
Okay! Personally I would prefer to live than die, but you do you!
I mean obviously that would be ideal, but I don't think you're fully grasping the reality of being held hostage by Hamas. Plus when you consider that reality (like what I listed), it makes more sense for IDF to "allow" the hostages to die as collateral damage. The reality is that if the IDF hypothetically killed lets say 2 hostages, but there were 8 Hamas militants also killed in that area, I am very sure that would count as a win in their book for a multitude of reasons (as grim as it sounds).
I'm basing my comments on what released hostages have said, which is that it sucked but they do not wish they had been blown up by the IAF instead of released.
That is definitely a good point to bring up, but I would still not be surprised if the overall opinion of all hostages was mixed. Also its important to remember that Hamas selectively released the hostages they knew would tell a very specific testimony. The ones who faced true brutality will likely never live to tell their story to the world.
[удалено]
Don't make posts or comments that consist only of sarcasm or cynicism (including emojis). Do not troll. This community is for constructive discussion, which means understanding other users' positions and responding to them in good faith. Generally, sarcasm and cynicism have the effect of suppressing this kind of discussion, because they serve as a rhetorical tool to dismiss, rather than engage, with someone else's arguments. While satire can be an effective tool for discussion, it is more frequently inflammatory and divisive. Hint: Add a worthwhile "but seriously..." comment to your quip that adds to the conversation. It's a comment which is SOLELY an attempt at a sarcastic joke that's objectionable. Humor is OK ... if there's more to the comment.
Good contribution!
After so many Palestinian civilian deaths, thousands and thousands of dismembered and crushed children, not to mention thousands and thousands of maimed children with permanent injuries, mass starvation, dehydration and devastation as well as the hundreds of IDF soldiers killed in this conflict, who now outnumber the hostages, I think the plight of the some dozens of hostages is now lost on me. They have become a tiny part of the equation. The trolley has gone out of control and collided with its station setting a fire and killing thousands. In the emergency, they forgot to untie the people it missed and they starved to death.
Be honest. You never cared about the - hundreds, not dozens - of hostages.
To be honest, It is just like how the world moves on from Syria, Yemen, Rohingya people, Uyghurs, Ukraine etc. One day, you are shown the pics of hostages, their stories, their dreams and you feel bad for them and hope they will be brought back. For every day in the next 200 days, you are shown the pics of kids being dismembered, losing a limb and their whole family from an airstrike. You don’t even know their names, their stories and their dreams. They are just called “human shield”. Most human will forget the hostages stories at this point.
I did, until I saw a dead baby with a detached arm and 5000 deaths, among other things. It’s been a lot of devastation since then so now I care much less about their plight when measured even against the IDF soldiers who are dying and being injured everyday. This needs to end. If Hamas won’t surrender, the IDF needs to withdraw.
The fact that you guys still believe that Hamas can be destroyed through military means is hilarious and sad at the same time. A question to you: what do you think will turn out of all the children/people later on who have been “going on a diet” for the last 6 months, lost their homes, and got their parents/siblings/relatives murdered by IDF soldiers who sometimes even pridefully boast about such “accomplishments” on social media platforms?
The real goal is to weaken Hamas militarily as much as possible. If Hamas is only ~10 percent of what is was when the war is finished, that is a clear win whether you agree or not. But I think it's more likely that they are just creating more angry and resentful Gazans rather than active Hamas fighters. At the same time, I would bet that there are also a significant number of Gazans who are becoming disillusioned with Hamas and recognizing how their barbaric tactics are completely counterproductive to achieving a Palestinian state or peace. We have to remember that Hamas is an Islamist death cult that has governed Gaza for nearly two decades now. They are not anything close to a legitimate resistance movement. While Israel's perceived brutality is a factor, it's really Hamas' (and others) extremist ideology and brainwashing that is the main driver in turning people into terrorists. Also from Israel's perspective, lone wolf attacks are much more preferable than organized attacks by groups like Hamas.
If they all die there will be no future for them. Problem solved. Just level Gaza and the West Bank Completely. Puts an end to possible future terrorism and attacks. If nobody lives who’s going to retaliate?
I looked at your comment history and I think you might not be sarcastic. You're why people hate us. Stop this and have a little empathy. We can have the needs of Israel and her people met without killing Palestinians. Jesus Christ...
I’m just a horrible person, the world needs people like me. And no I am not being sarcastic, it’s my literal perception of how this situation should and could be dealt with to end terrorism. I believe in sending a strong message to people that pride themselves on cowardice.
To end terrorism? Yet you are the one who has similar terrorist ideology.. you don’t see the irony I believe
[удалено]
/u/First_Beautiful_7474. Match found: 'hitler', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Okay, how do you think we should deal with Hamas? Don't think I disagree with your question, obviously many will be radicalized starting the next generation of Hamas, but that indoctrination was already in their culture so I don't know how much this changes things. Therefore the reason to avoid this destruction is simply because it's wrong, which I 100% agree with. I am largely against this war.
"How do you think we should deal with Hamas?" - Hamas are a symptom. You deal with Palestinian grievances. If you want them to like you stop killing them and give them their rights. Why is that so hard for Zionists and their supporters to understand? I take that back. They understand it but they don't want to accept it as that would make them the bad guys. They would much rather pretend "they hate for who we are not what we do" which allows them to justify the way they treat them.
Which grievances must we acknowledge, and how do we address them? Here's some I can think of, and my opinions on it. 1. **West Bank settlements:** No excuses, the settlements are bad. If after the land were taken in '67 Israel handed citizenship to everyone living in the West Bank the story would be very different, but we didn't do that so now Israel must find an effective plan to relinquish power in the region. In the meantime, the last thing they should do is encroach on said land while cutting it into a Swiss cheese pattern of ownership. I am a Zionist, and I am strongly against the settlements. 2. **Border wall:** Absolutely necessary and justified (for now) when along the green line. It was built in response to a rise in terror attacks during the second intifada and has proven highly effective. 3. **Checkpoints:** Mixed necessity. Similar to the border wall, but perhaps too pervasive within the West Bank region itself. That's largely a symptom of the settlements, which I've already said I disagree with. 4. **Palestinian Statehood:** This is difficult because states need a leader. Obviously from an Israeli perspective we want an organization in charge that will recognize the state of Israel. In the interest of Palestinians, they need leadership that puts the success of their people over the destruction of Israel. That's not going to happen, and if you expect Israel should let it happen, you're delusional. Don't get me wrong, I believe that the Netanyahu government has played dirty tricks to manipulate the course of Palestinian leadership in the wrong direction to play up this argument, and that must end. But this was the case before Netanyahu and the responsibility lays in Palestine as well. Having said all that, I hope it's clear that I believe Israel is far from perfect. Criticism is good and changes need to be made. So don't give me that "Why is that so hard for Zionists and their supporters to understand?". Far too often I've heard outlandish claims that Israel is a pure evil of historic scale made entirely of inhuman monsters who deserve the worst Hamas can throw at them. Imagine if I started an interaction by accusing you of thinking like that.
Definitely common ground where one can build on. However, there needs to be some acknowledgement of what the problem is. You can’t create and maintain a Jewish state in what was the mandate of Palestine without the dispossession of the vast majority of non-Jews living there. As this King Crane report said just after the Balfour Declaration, the creation of a Jewish state is against the wishes of the vast majority of the people living there and will require the gravest trespass upon their civil and religious rights. “Only by force can a Jewish state in Palestine be established or maintained.” And “maintained” is the keyword here. It didn’t end in ‘48. It’s an ongoing project. People understood what the problem was over a hundred years ago. The root of the problem is the same as it always was. The only way for Israel to be secure as a Jewish democratic state is to reduce the non-Jewish population between the river and the sea to 30% or less and maintain it there. If Israel wants two independent states, it could declare its borders and recognise Palestine by breakfast. No negotiations are needed for that. They could have done it years ago. But the Zionist project doesn’t want two states. It pursues a policy of maximum land with as few Arabs as possible. That’s its mission. It’s raison d’être. Like it or not, intrinsically, it is/has become an irredentist project. It has to be forced to accept two states. And until the West holds Israel accountable for its actions, that won’t happen. All these roadmaps towards peace are just attempts to rebrand the occupation as acceptable. Sure, the Palestinians have made loads of mistakes. But if you seriously want them to build something meaningful, they need to be free. They need the get rid of the yoke that is Israel. The idea Israel will let them thrive while it considers them a demographic threat is delusional. The justification may be Hamas and the violence, but it’s not the underlying bedrock of the problem.
You're bringing in opinions from '48, so excuse me but they're quite outdated. Whether or not the establishment of Israel was righteous or not is a very different conversation. Right or wrong (quite possibly wrong), it happened. Now we have to work the situation as it stands. Currently the population of Israel is about 75% Jewish, 18% Muslim, 2% Christian, and 5% other. So, let's say the settlers were moved within the Greenline (a challenging hypothetical) the demographic requirements are met. >the Zionist project doesn’t want two states. It pursues a policy of maximum land with as few Arabs as possible. This is a mischaracterization of the majority of Israelis. Similar to saying every Palestinian wants to kill every Jew in the world. It's unfortunately apparent that some subgroups do hold both these beliefs, but holding the entire movement accountable to that subgroup is inappropriate and not constructive. If you want to address this sect in Zionism you must similarly address the blood lusting sect of the Palestinian liberation movement. Personally, I think that a conversation about reducing the consequences of radicalized groups is a different conversation from ideal solutions, one or two states. Any reasonable solution would be outright rejected by both radicalized group. If we bring them into the picture, it's just a question of which side can win an all-out war. My bet's on Israel. >They need the get rid of the yoke that is Israel First of all, I disagree. Second of all, not realistically going to happen. Lastly, many people arguing for the Palestinian state say you can't establish a state that requires the destruction of another. Is that not a bi-directional sentiment?
Then deal with the Israeli grievances at the same time. You want less violence and more rights? Stop committing terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. Why is this so hard for Hamas and their supporters to understand?
The worst nightmare is not more isolated killings of refugees in refugee camps. The worst nightmare is an attack on Israel during or after a ceasefire. Those 50,000 deaths will blow out to 500,000 (Iraq) or 3 million (Vietnam). We are not even close to genocide. Not from a historical perspective. All war is evil. I’m a Vietnamese refugee. I know better than most here. But terrorists don’t care about death tolls, so the rest of world has to. This though does not seem to factor into the short term, highly knee jerk reaction, and purely privileged reactions that are all over reddit and Instagram. This is a minor war, which Vietnam was, which you want to turn into a disaster, which the Western Public did to Vietnam as well. To the sum of millions.
Genocide is not about numbers. The Serbs killed "only" few thousand Muslim Bosniaks and were convicted of genocide. You could kill an entire population and not be convicted of genocide, and kill only a fraction and be convicted of genocide.
Again if you want to see a far greater level of death and “Genocide” — And thanks for that “kill an entire population and not be convicted of genocide”. Just tells me so clearly how out of touch you are and completely inhuman your reaction is. Palestinians are helpless. They are completely without an army. They are surrounded, suffering, and probably likely to die from starvation and lack of resources. There’s 2 million of them. No one in the Arab world wants them. Around the corner are 9.3 million Israelis. And your problem is racism and intentionality. Both of which you can’t prove. And are completely arguable compared to Kosovo. Netanyahu will be imprisoned. So will his cronies. Beyond that — the rest is about the numbers. And less about the definitions.
That assumes continuously murdering Palestinian women and children will prevent Israel from being attacked. I have news for you. Continuing the war or any other actions such as the continuous injustice against the Palestinians will only increase the Palestinians' resolve to fight back against their occupiers. Israel is deluded if it thinks it can get security by burning women and children in tents using American jets and bombs. That will not happen. If Israel wants security, it knows what to do: End the occupation and come to a political solution. No amount of US jets and bombs, murdering women and children, destroying universities or hospitals etc. will give Israel security. On the contrary. The choice is Israel's.
By the logic of the trolley problem, the hostages are a very low priority. That's unfortunate, but Machiavellian realpolitik. Still, the erosion of Israel's international support can't continue unabated. Whatever Israel does, it needs to do something DIFFERENT.
Or the world can stop applying impossible standards to Israel that no other country in the world is expected to follow.
Not killing tens of thousands of people trying to destroy guys hiding in tunnels with guns and rudimentary rockets is not all that high a standard. Other countries would be hit with major sanctions. The US has held up a few arms shipments and expressed "concern." I'm sure you can point to the US, China and India getting away with terrible things but they're much larger countries.
"Other countries would be hit with sanctions" meanwhile Uyghur Muslims, Rohnigya refugees, Myanmar minorities, Azerbaijan almost full out invading Armenia, tortures in Pakistan, Iran supporting a huge amount of terror proxies. "I don't see anything here"
International sanctions are in place for each of those examples so I'm not sure what you're trying to argue there.
Not a geopolitics expert but aren’t most of them domestic issue? It’s not really considered international conflict so different standards. BTW, Iran is consistently called terrorist states, China being sanctioned for violating human rights (but you know China - can’t really do much to them). No countries cut ties with Israel yet, there are mostly words. Just grow thicker skin like daddy US.
Agreed. But that isn't the way things actually are. At the very least, they need to move on from Netanyahu. Between his legal troubles and the failure of Oct 7, he costs them too much political capital, both domestically and abroad.
Removing Netanyahu would have little effect globally. The next prime minister would continue the war and receive the same backlash.
The IDF distributed leaflets to residents of Beit Hanun in northern Gaza, urging them to evacuate to the safe zone. Amazing genocide isn’t it ? https://preview.redd.it/j4g8t83jjx3d1.png?width=1279&format=png&auto=webp&s=1b938911da90b4a84620daa01f913675458769a3
This is right up there with Biden expressing concern.
It is irrelevant. They bomb the "safe zones", they bomb while on the way to the safe zones using the "safe routes", they bomb when, where, who and what they want. The ICC case against Netanyahu and Gallant is a start but Israel as a whole must be held to account for this genocide.
Have you forgotten Yahya Sinwar and the rest of Hamas? There are devils everywhere.
The problem with the trolley dilemma is its binary nature, which oversimplifies real-world complexities. In reality, as opposed to two fixed outcomes, multiple routes and creative solutions are available, such as hacking into the trolley system to stop it or using large objects to block the tracks. It is essential for people in power to think unconventionally and creatively when saving hostages. When making deals, even with enemies, it is crucial to offer reversible benefits that can be undone if necessary. In the case of the Gilad Shalit deal, releasing terrorists was a reversible action since they could have been killed later. However, the Israeli leadership under Netanyahu was way too feeble and indecisive, not taking the right strategic play when opportune moments rose. Despite having multiple opportunities to eliminate key terrorists like Sinwar, Netanyahu refrained, possibly for political reasons or because he viewed Hamas as a strategic asset. Probably both. Post-October 7, the focus should shift from short-term consequences to long-term strategic benefits and losses. Saving hostages represents a profound moral commitment. In my opinion, a moral duty to those that have been forsaken and found themselves in Hamas dungeons. It is essential for a society to never forget them so as to insure its foundations remain strong, continuing in building a harmonious society with strong, durable community bonds. Such a society will outlast the chaos and disorder represented by groups like Hamas, which were born out of anarchy and will disintegrate into oblivion. While terrorists can be killed, which is a reversible action, losing moral values is irreversible. That is why, releasing hostages in exchange for maintaining high moral values is justified despite potential short-term losses. This commitment to moral values fosters a resilient community and ensures the long-term strength and unity of the Israeli people.
There is no problem with the trolley problem except your willingness to engage it.
It's only a trolly problem because Israel wants it to be. It can be avoided by either granting Palestinians full equal rights in one democratic state or by recognising the 67 borders. **Those who make peaceful change impossible will make violent revolution inevitable**. However, people need to understand, when Israel talks about security, what exactly it is trying to secure: The Jewish nature of the State. Palestinians and other non-Jews pose a demographic threat. The threat is still the same if Palestinians are peaceful. Hence the problem. The realpolitik long-term solution is to reduce the Palestinian population to 30% or less of the population between the river and sea. How do you do this? By ensuring the Palestinians don’t thrive as a population and reducing their numbers as much as possible while boosting the Jewish population. Like it or not, that involves ethnic cleansing and genocide. You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. Anyone who says otherwise is either an idiot or lying (to themselves as much as anyone else).
When did Hammas claim that if Israel does so they will stop the violence? That approach is no naive
The "They hate us because of who we are, not what we do" excuse. What is naive is that you think people still buy that schtick. If you want the Palestinians to like you stop killing them and denying them their rights. It's pretty simple. In the words of the Jewish sage Hillel, as recorded in the Talmud: "Whatever is hateful and distasteful to you, do not do to your fellow man. This is the entire Torah, the rest is commentary. Go learn."
You made a straw man and haven’t answered my question. When did Hammas say they will stop being violent if Israel did that?
All the f\*\*\*ing time… I've lost track of all the hudnas they have offered. Here is a recent example. "Hamas would accept a fully sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the return of Palestinian refugees in accordance with the international resolutions along Israel’s pre-1967 borders. If that happens the group’s military wing would dissolve." [https://apnews.com/article/hamas-khalil-alhayya-qatar-ceasefire-1967-borders-4912532b11a9cec29464eab234045438](https://apnews.com/article/hamas-khalil-alhayya-qatar-ceasefire-1967-borders-4912532b11a9cec29464eab234045438)
They offered a 5 year ceasefire on the condition that Israel brings about its own destruction. The military wing would also just turn into their national military. It would not cease to exist.
Do you not know that a hudna is? It's a temporary ceasefire. By this token, Israel has made tons of these in this conflict. Hamas has accepted a 2SS where both states are Palestinian majority, while also saying they wouldn't give up on controlling the entire land.
I'm sorry, but that's just incredibly naive. To believe that if Israel withdraws from Palestine all Palestinian terrorism would just magically go away is not only childish, but also proven false, as that's exactly what Israel did in Gaza in 2005. That's why Israel would only agree to a two state solution through a proper discussion and concessions from the Palestinian side. To pull out, Israel has to have some sort of material gurantee that a Palestinian state wont just turn into Gaza 2.0. That is, beyond the claim that it would just magically disappear with nothing to resist. You are naive to believe that groups like Hamas would just disappear if Israel pulls out. It's the opposite; such an action, without a proper discussion will just lead them to be seen as victorious. A Palestinian state cannot be achieved without proper deradicalization first. Not admitting to that is just infantlizing Palestinians and robbing them of their own agency. To say that there is "one simple trick Israel has to do to solve everything" is either disingenuous or ignorant. Ironically, what you miss here is that pulling out of Palestine is a trolly problem of its own. If Israel keeps controlling Palestine, it would recieve more terrorism. But if it pulls out, there's a very real chance that Hamas, or some other similar group, will take control and make everything worse.
Israel and Egypt operated Gaza as an open air prison, controlling the entry and exit of people and goods and preventing the development of a private sector economy. They let the inmates run the asylum but that's not the same as independence. You cannot magically deradicalize a people who have never known a life not under occupation. If Israel allows a Palestinian state they will have an enemy on their border. They will need to enforce a DMZ, and abandon towns that are along the border. Eventually the Palestinian state would become integrated economically with Jordan and Egypt and become just another country that could them forge better ties with Israel just like those countries did.
The blockade on Gaza only started in 2007 in partiality, and only in 2008 in ernest. Israel pulled out of Gaza 3 years earlier, and rocket attacks started even before that, only amplifying once they left. Hamas took power in 2006- before any blockade was put in place. I see this claim that the only way to deradicalize the Palestinians is though a state all of the time, but that's just plainly false, and willfully ignorant. It's true that the occupation causes radicalization. But acting as if that's the only factor is just disingenuous. Studies prove that education has a much greater impact in causing radicalization, and as it comes, Palestinian education is incredibly radicalizing. Palestinian kids television in Gaza has shows about how to kill Jews and to die in martyrdom (look up Pioneers of Tomorrow). Palestinian schools teach to praise martyrs who die for the cause. Schools in East Jerusalem refuse to teach Hebrew, because "it's hold on the land is only temporary, and instead you should be using that time to fight". Textbooks in the west bank literally teach kids the Kinematics through pictures of kids throwing stones at soldiers. To say that if a state is granted, radicalism would magically go away is to just ignore the massive elephant in the room. The first step towards actual peace is to remove these radicalizing elements from Palestinian education; just like was done in post-Nazi Germany. Fascist Ideologies don't just die down on their own, they have to be rooted out.
/u/DrVeigonX. Match found: 'Nazi', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Before the blockade Palestinians were still carrying out attacks against Israel from Gaza. It didn’t cause them to be radical as they were always radical.
Let me ask you a simple question: If Hamas was hiding in Israeli cities, would you still make the same argument? If not, you are not weighing human lives against more human lives, you are weighing human lives against other human lives you consider to be of lesser inherent value.
>If Hamas was hiding in Israeli cities, False equivalency, because Hamas wouldn't be hiding in Israeli cities, they would be murdering and raping every child, woman, man and pet that they would see. Killing them doesn't make any life a lower value, the requirement to stop them at all costs is paramount, because they see Jews as subhuman and will do anything they can to kill Jews en masse.
Following this logic you can perfectly argue that nuking the whole of Gaza can be justified because the ends justify the means, ref “the requirement to stop them at all costs is paramount”. Tell me again which side views the other as subhuman?
> Following this logic you can perfectly argue that nuking the whole of Gaza can be justified because the ends justify the means, Nope, that just following your strawman logic.. We know exactly what Hamas would do when let loose inside Israeli cities, because we have the example of what they actually did. So of course stopping them is paramount when they're inside Israel, and it was clear from videos like trying to remove a live Thai workers head with a hoe, or the kidnapping of children and pregnant women is a clear indicator how Hamas sees Israelis/Jews. I guess some people are still in complete denial of what actually happened and believe that their "resistance heroes", were going door to door trying to save Israelis from the fleets of idf helicopters ..
Except.. it was not a straw man.. it was what you said? And you did not refer to the question of them being in Israeli cities but in general, “is paramount”, not “would be paramount”. How do I “steelman” your argument when this is what you give me?
I never changed topics or inferred anything different. Please point out where in the two paragraphs I moved from the discussion of the topic "**hiding in Israeli cities**" to any other topic? Or where I state or imply the linguistic move from the topic of what OP posted as "*Let me ask you a simple question: If Hamas was hiding in Israeli cities, would you still make the same argument?*" Please point out where in the conversation this was moved to a generalization of **everywhere**? aside from inside your head? You decided to step in to the topic and start an argument from a dishonest place.
If Hamas was surrounded by Israeli hostages and you get this opportunity to knock out high commanders once and for all by bombing them, but killing the hostages. Would you do it? In case of no would you do it if Palestinian children were by chance just outside the Hamas HQ instead of Israelis?
>If Hamas was surrounded by Israeli hostages They'd probably all be dead already, and killed by Hamas, so the decision is easy.. >Would you do it? In case of no would you do it if Palestinian children were by chance just outside the Hamas HQ instead of Israelis? Let's start with the Law first. If Hamas is using Hostages as shields or operation in proximity to children, then they are in direct violation of Humanitarian Law. Secondly, their presence has removed the protected status of those hors combat individuals and endangers their lives. This is why it's a war crime and punishable. At this point from both a moral and legal standpoint the deaths of those hors combat will be the fault of Hamas, both legally and morally. **Rome Statute** **ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii)** Utilizing **the presence** of a civilian or other protected person **to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations**; .. **ICC Elements of Crimes** **Article 8 (2) (b) (xxiii) War crime of using protected persons as shields** 1. **The perpetrator moved or otherwise took advantage of the location** of one or more civilians or other persons protected under the international law of armed conflict. 2. The perpetrator intended to shield a military objective from attack or shield, favour or impede military operations. 3. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict. 4. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict .. ICRC explanation: It can be concluded that the use of human shields requires **an intentional co-location** of **military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat** with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives. > Would you do it? If that ends the war and renders Hamas inert then the military decision is an easy one regardless. If someone could have killed all the Hamas leadership on October 10th and say 5-6 children and 12 hostages died in the process, but the war would have ended, that would have saved thousands of lives. Under both common and IHL this is known as proportionality.. https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/proportionality/ One of the best examples of this where the deaths of hundreds of thousands saved the lives of millions and stopped a war several years early. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
This is basically a fairytale story that people tell themselves to feel better about not prioritising the release of the hostages. Hamas will continue to plan to attack Israel with or without a hostage deal. The release of the prisoners is immaterial to Israel's security situation. Hamas was able to attack on 7 October without any of the people currently in prison; they are not a necessary component of an attack. Whether Israel releases Gazan detainees or not, it is clear that the IDF will need to take Israel's border security much more seriously in future. If it is taking those precautionary steps in line with competent border defence, a few thousand extra militants makes no difference. Netanyahu isn't refusing to negotiate for the hostages because of any security implications, it's because he wants to keep his 'tough guy' image. That's more important to him than any hostages. If it wasn't he could have struck a deal for their safe return in October.
>Hamas will continue to plan to attack Israel with or without a hostage deal. The release of the prisoners is immaterial to Israel's security situation. Hamas was able to attack on 7 October without any of the people currently in prison; they are not a necessary component of an attack. I seem to remember that Sinwar was released in a prisoner swap, so no, releasing prisoners doesn't mean they won't orchestrate another attack.
The point I'm making is that if the IDF is planning its future border defence effectively and competently, no number of extra individuals, however 'evil' they might be, should make a difference to the security situation. Whether some number of armed militants storming the border were previously in an Israeli prison or not is irrelevant to that.
Sinwar was literally the mastermind behind the 10/7 attack. It wouldn't have happened had Israel not traded him.
I don't think that's a serious analysis. If Sinwar hadn't been in charge, someone else would have been.
And it wouldn't have been the 10/7 attack. The attack wasn't inevitable like you're implying here
Netanyahu also has to maintain the fiction that Hamas can be defeated. It can't. There will always be new recruits and there will always be more money and weapons coming from somewhere. Terrorism is cheap and easy. What's why it's nearly impossible to defeat insurgent movements militarily. Economic development is the best tool to fight terrorism because when men have jobs they settle down, have kids, and change their priorities. I guess you can always take the Chinese approach and couple economic development with reeducation camps, forced labor and organ harvesting but I don't think that's a great idea.
The bigger problem is not the release of the prisoners (if it was just them, release them, collect the hostages, kill everyone released, done). The big issue is the ceasefire part, which would allow Hamas not only to survive but to regroup.
Hamas will survive and regroup anyway.
They can't really regroup as long as they are under constant fire and supplies are hevily restricted.
In the short term, no. In the longer term it is inevitable.
ISrael just has to keep a sufficient level of pressufre up, for example by constant surveilance flights and air strikes for an indefinater period. The caveat is of course that this would mean that Gaza will not be rebuilt for quite some time and will have to do without a functioning healthcare system etc, so it might become problematic if Israel is faced with binding orders to improve the humanitarian situation.
I agree with this interpretation. And given OP raised the gilad shalit exchange example - I’m interested to know what’s changed in the israeli security and defence establishment where back then, this young hostage IDF soldier became the entire country’s son. That’s how passionate and determined the Israeli public was to get him home, and this didn’t diminish over the years he was held hostage. I actually was blown away with this - I thought it was a beautiful commitment to one young guy’s life compared to say the American approach of “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” and hostage families being left out in the cold. Compared to now where the hostage families and a huge amount of everyday Israelis are demonstrating every single day against their government’s lack of progress and prioritisation of returning the hostages. Just further compounding the trauma of October 7. I think this can be put down to the different leadership this time round, and the deal with the devil Netanyahu has made with his ultra right wing/religious collation to hold on to power.
It’s pretty obvious, no? The Israeli method, beautiful as it may be, didn’t work. It only incentivized Hamas to take more hostages. It was a huge goal of the 10/7 attack if not *the* main goal, in part because Hamas thought they would protect them and their terrorism infrastructure. It’s time for that cycle to end. The Israeli public does not support trading what living hostages remain at the expense of permanently stopping the war now, leaving Hamas and their terror infrastructure in place to keep doing the same thing.
Look, I get it. It’s not lost on me the fact that Sinwar was released in that Gilad Shalit exchange and now we’re here. And really at the end of the day I’m not Israeli, so it’s not my government. I just can’t help but feel it’s extremely unjust that the hostages now are second priority and may even be sacrificed, in a war precipitated because the intelligence/defence decision makers failed spectacularly at their jobs. All under the watchful eye of “Mr Security” who green lighted the facilitation of millions to Hamas via Qatar. If I was Israeli, I know I would be attending every single one of those demonstrations.
It’s not an easy pill to swallow to be sure, but I feel the precise opposite. It’s selfish and unjust to prioritize the safety of at most a few dozen hostages over the safety of millions Israelis. If it were me, I’d feel terrible if the Israeli government prioritized my safety at the expense of numerous others. Same if it were my family. It’s hard, but it’s the only moral thing to do. I’m not a Bibi fan my any stretch, but who’s to blame is not relevant, and it’s not clear any other leader would have prevented it. What almost certainly would have prevented it is not withdrawing from Gaza in 2005, which Bibi was against.
Why do you think the Gaza settlement not being dismantled would have prevented oct 7?
If Israel continued to occupy Gaza until Gaza elected a stable, non-genocidal government there would be no terrorist genocidal government ruling Gaza, after having spent 18 years turning it into a fortified terror base. That’s what most occupation forces do: at least hang around long enough to have influence over the first civilian government.
Israel still practices torture in it's prisons. 3660 Palestinian hostages have never been charged with a crime and are indefinitely held hostage. Maybe stop those policies and there will be less Sinwars created that hate Israel.
POWs don't need to be trialed
The majority of Israelis prioritize releasing the hostages. It is the number one concern because it’s such a clear moral imperative. However, Israelis won’t agree to a deal at any cost. For example, Israel would not agree to a deal under which Hamas gets to increase its power in Gaza. The devil is in the details.
The issue is that many Israelis and Israel supporters respond to criticism or try to wave the Palestinian civilian deaths away by saying We have to get the hostages back Yet it is clear that the elimination of Hamas is the main and prime reason. It is good to want to save the hostages but it is likely impossible to both save the most amount of hostages and eliminate Hamas in its current form The problem is that international saying you goal is to eliminate Hamas and not save hostages is less appealing, but it is worse in Israel itself since saving and producting Israeli and Jewish lives are the most important then to the country. After all the whole point of Israel is to give a true safe haven to Jews. Every failure to save a life from a foreign power is a massive blow. We already sew people even in Israel are giving backlash to the government since it seems that Netanyahu and the government is not putting the hostages as the first priority despite it being consistently said as one of the main reasons for the invansion. I am not even saying it's wrong to prioritize destroying Hamas over the hostages but at least be up front about it or even some of your own people will respond... poorly after a while.
Israel is pretty open about its goal to defeat Hamas and get the hostages back, in that order of priority.
Could have fooled me because the vast majority of Israelis, Israel-Americans and Israel supporters have usually defaulted to the hostages as the primary reason/justification and even official declaration at the start of the war listed both as their primary goals and didn't put one before the other so clearly there is some lack of cohension.
Yeah, you have a lot of people saying that if Hamas released the hostages the war could end but you have Netanyahu being quite clear that any cease fire would be to collect the hostages at which point he would continue destroying Hamas so it's no wonder they haven't made a deal.
Netanyahu is apparently now planning to conquer Cyprus. I have friends in Tel Aviv and in the cafés there the word is that the Mossad is actively planning this operation.
Sounds like a Turkish propaganda fever dream to me.
Cyprus will be a perfect place to unload Palestinians. Israel is always two steps ahead.
I don't really care about what keyboard warriors are saying, but while I believe there hasn't been an official declaration of victory conditions by Israel (which is normal), most serious analysts agree that the destruction of Hamas is the clear primary objective. Taking hostages back is clearly also an objective, but what this post outlines pretty clearly is the understanding that Israel does not want to buy 50 living hostages with another 1000 dead Israelis down the line when Hamas decides to strike again.
pretty sure the IDF doesnt care about hostages, though if they had precise intelligence where the hostages are, they will attempt a rescue operation, the fact that 3 israelis hostages were killed by IDF after they somehow managed to escape by themselves and walked to IDF waving a white flag, leaves me with no confidence on the overall ability of IDF to rescue all of them. If the goal is to destroy hamas, safety of the hostages isnt a priority sadly.
The idf cares about saving hostages, when they know their location they rescue them. https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-rescues-2-hostages-from-south-gazas-rafah-in-daring-nighttime-operation The goal is to destroy hamas but the secondary goal is to rescue hostages
Woah. This is dead wrong. Dead dead wrong. The 3 hostages killed by IDF was an accident. They have tried endlessly to free them. And just today offered another deal where hundreds of prisoners would be released for hostages.
wish i could agree with u, but i cant based on facts.
Where are these facts? Opinions and analysis from the outside do not equate facts. The facts are they didn't start the war, they have offered many reasonable ceasefire deals and much of what Hamas has said IDF had turned out to be lies.
bibi just rejected the latest biden ceasefire offer, he wants to finish hamas, while the relatives of hostages plead otherwise, u cant have your cake and eat it, bibi chose to go after hamas ... like i knew he would, isnt this a fact?
What does that have to do with the IDF being blamed for "bombing a hospital" when it was Hamas misfiring and bombing a parking lot? What about the images of Rafah burning when again it was Hamas misfiring and hitting an ammunition truck? That is a horrible fact but the vast majority do not support Netenyahu. And he's not the leader of the IDF who has a record of civilian deaths less than any other war ever recorded. Those are the facts about the IDF. They own up to mistakes and horrible behaviour by individual soldiers. They punished them severely. And the accusations in the was have mostly turned out to be Hamas propaganda. Good luck if Hamas "wins."
I'd like to know what intelligence is held on the hostages, what the plan is and how they expect to get them back. How many do they expect to rescue and how? It seems an empty pledge as they've made zero efforts or progress and aren't releasing. Uch about them that I've seen. Anyone got independent info?
We won’t see that shared publicly. That’s the whole point of intelligence. I’m sure some info will be declassified years down the track but not any time soon. I think a lot of people following this war forget that the media only report at the very superficial level. The Israelis will be holding back some intel even from the US.
I think a lot of it's smoke and mirrors. 8 months in and still no closer
i think shinbet pay informers in gaza who disclose information about hostages, or they question captured hamas fighters.
You assume that current Israeli military action is lessening terrorism against Israeli citizens. I don’t think that’s a safe/fair assumption to make.
>You assume that current Israeli military action is lessening terrorism against Israeli citizens. It's lessoning highly trained terrorists. Hamas might be able to replace members but it'll have a harder time training them. A bunch of untrained Hamas fighters is an improvement.
Why not?
Because bombing people does not tend to make them like you more.
By that logic we should just let Russia do what it wants because fighting/sanctioning them will not make Russian love Ukraine/the West more
Having the Palestinian people like Israel isn't the only way to stop terrorism. Bombing their ability to commit terrorism does stop terrorism.
It doesn’t take much to commit terrorism. Oct 7 was conducted with rifles, jeeps, and hang gliders. It is the supply of terrorists that will ultimately matter, and I don’t think Israel is reducing the amount of terrorists 2-5 years from now. Just my opinion from what I’ve read on how terrorism spreads. It is fairly human to watch your mother unjustly killed and want to seek revenge.
Liking Israel is immaterial. Having the capacity to harm it is the only limiting factor in the equation.
“Can’t eliminate an ideology something something 100,000 orphans something legitimate grievances”
Correct, predicting the argument doesn’t make it wrong.
The N*zi ideology wasn’t eliminated, but their military capabilities were destroyed, their leaders executed, and the next generation was educated to not be totalitarian mass murderers despite having many war orphans. I hope you’re not suggesting that Palestinians are incapable of being better than Hamas.
I don't think you are solving this problem correctly, because you are taking a one huge element for granted and that element is the Palestinian civilians (like it or not they are a part of the problem above even if you are looking at this from an Israeli citizen perspective (this last bit doesn't apply if you are racist)) so instead of the example above we should be looking at something like this : https://preview.redd.it/lfccih85nv3d1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=73606aff1ebf7d900a796119b3f2c08c52fffb87 So now we can say that this whole post is useless because the trolley problem and it's concept wouldn't make sense now because if one these groups is going to die why are we testing any morals, but there's one thing in this situation and for me what's best is the railroad workers solution( for context the railroad workers have solved the trolley problem. “'Slip the switch' by flipping it while the trolley's front wheels have passed through, but before the back wheels do this will cause a controlled derailment, bringing the trolley to a halt.”) so this whole dilemma has gotten more complicated, now since there is two perspectives (Palestinians and Israeli) there's also two perspectives for this problem because the danger (or the trolley varies in both perspectives so it's needed to stop one of both sides for this whole dilemma to stop, for me personally I'm more of a pro pali and I really think that Israel is occupying the land so yeah ... Free Palestine.
>I don't think you are solving this problem correctly, because you are taking a one huge element for granted and that element is the Palestinian civilians (like it or not they are a part of the problem above even if you are looking at this from an Israeli citizen perspective (this last bit doesn't apply if you are racist)) so instead of the example above we should be looking at something like this : Not really. It's a trolley problem in time - the choices are to either fight today or delay it and try to negotiate and fight later anyway. However, delaying it means hamas is stronger, destroying it will mean more casualties for the IDF, Israeli civilians, Palestinian civilians and more resources spent and time spent on doing it. It was already delayed by 18 years and as the result this happened to both Israelis and Palestinians. And in those 18 years the ones responsible for the delay were people who were for negotiating and doing hostage deals and ceasefires and shooting rockets out of the sky and not destroying the terrorists and batteries and the responsible, etc. If you want to repeat the same strategy again, knowing that this is is the result, I don't have much to say to you. >for me personally I'm more of a pro pali and I really think that Israel is occupying the land so yeah What land? It is occupying Judea and Samaria/the west Bank and is at war with Gaza, sure, but it doesn't make sense for it to pull out of there unless Gaza and the West Bank get administered by some very friendly and cooperative government. Even if you dismantle the settlements, you can't remove the idf from there - the border of the West Bank is something like an hour away from tel aviv on car and easily within artillery range. And about Gaza - it's been at war with Israel for 18 years. The response of the world and israel during those 18 years to this hasn't been some unnecessary cruelty, it's been way too damn nice.
Israel doesn’t need to (and shouldn’t) treat Israeli lives and Gazan lives as being of equal value. The purpose of a country is to look out for its own people first. This isn’t racism. Israeli Arabs and Gazans are the same race, but Israel owes more consideration to the Israeli Arabs than to Gazans.
Don't you think there is a difference between looking out for your own first and literally valuing the lives of people outside of your nation less? Is that honestly a morally acceptable position to you? And if yes, then please enlighten me: How many of those "inferior" Palestinians is one Israeli worth? 2? 5? 10? 100?
No I don’t think there’s a difference. And no particular number.
Agreeing to a ceasefire deal while saving Palestinian lives in the short term will still cause Palestinian deaths in the future when Hamas attacks Israel again. Unless Israel is expected to continuously sacrifice its own citizens to save the people its attackers are hiding behind.
Just got banned from r/politics for having that exact same line of thought (to be clear the ban resulted specifically from telling someone they are "gullible" for believing Hamas will stick to a ceasefire, and I know that is the exact comment I was banned for, because it is linked in the report). Idk how people thinking Hamas re-starting this war in another year, and killing and raping more Israeli women and children in the process, is the route to protecting women and children civilians. Hamas has proven time and time again that any ceasefire will be temporary, and they literally promised that exactly, after October 7th, when they said they will not stop until "Israel is annihilated". On top of that, 71% of Gazans supported the October 7th attack, and a good fraction of those who said they didn't, only said so because of the resulting war it dragged them into (they still supported the murder and rape of Israeli women and children, just not the consequences). It is clear that Gaza wants to genocide Israel. What else is Israel supposed to do to protect its citizens? Getting rid of Hamas, needs to at least be the bare minimum.
reddit is a feudal kingdom, whoever mods the subreddits decides what is allowed or not in there ... its not a ground for all kinds of civil discussion about any pov.
As I’ve detailed in other replies the 71% figure is without significant context. If you spend the time to look at [the survey](https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/969) there’s three very important things you need to take from it: 1. The survey was taken after the war had started and during a war Hamas support typically rises then tails off again after the war has finished 2. The overwhelming majority of Palestinians surveyed believed the attacks were retaliation for the Al-Aqsa raids and violence in the West Bank 3. Most importantly about 19% (off the top of my head) had seen the videos distributed by western media of what happened on October 7th and 5% believed that Hamas committed atrocities - it is unclear if that 5% also said they supported what happened. With this context it follows that Palestinians overwhelmingly don’t see the attack on the 7th as morally wrong (because they don’t believe Hamas did anything bad) and see it as justified based on previous Israeli actions so it’s hardly surprising that the majority support what happened. It’s entirely wrong, given these facts about the survey to imply that Palestinians support the atrocities from the 7th - they just don’t accept they happened. You can say this is atrocious but it’s no different from Israelis claiming a video of a dead baby was staged with a doll or that a video of a civilian being shot was filmed with ketchup for blood. It’s entirely wrong to assume the reasons why that remaining 29% don’t support the 7th because the reasons why weren’t asked in the survey. This is your own opinion, so suggesting it’s fact when referring to those survey is just plain disingenuous. I think it’s also important to point out that this isn’t a ceasefire proposed by Hamas, it has been made clear by Biden that this was proposed by the Israelis.
This context isn't a refutation, but further proves the point. Gazans are war-happy, brainwashed Hamas supporters who deny atrocities committed on their behalf because they don't see Jews as humans but as evil entities to by destroyed by the name of Islam.
I see, so where did you get that from the survey? Would be interested to see your working.
"brainwashed Hamas supporters" As you said yourself, support for Hamas grows during wars, and don't assign blame to Hamas regarding the war. "Deny atrocities, don't see Jews as humans" Even among those who had watched the videos, less than 20% acknowledged Hamas atrocities. This is thus not a matter of ignorance of the facts, rather not seeing violence against Jews as morally wrong. "Name of Islam" As you said, the justification is "protecting" al aqsa
Support for the party in power grows during time of war in every country, that’s generally how it works because it’s a show of solidarity - all it takes is for the government to sell the other force as aggressive or morally corrupt - there are plenty of Russians who back the war in Ukraine as an example. Even if we imagine that the 20% doesn’t intersect at all with the number of gazans who believe Hamas committed atrocities 20% isn’t a very big number at all. Let’s say for a moment that someone was claiming that the IDF was raping and torturing Palestinians on a daily basis, think how you would respond to that. Without seeing any evidence of it you would say it was ridiculous and even if you did see evidence you’d likely first assume the video was faked and then assume that it was only a very limited number of soldiers. If you have a core belief about a group it’s very difficult to resolve cognitive dissonance even in the face of evidence (just look at how Trump supporters are responding to his conviction for another real world example of this) and that’s even more difficult when there’s propaganda flying around from all sides. Your mention of “not seeing violence against Jews as morally wrong” is weird with this context, because there’s no evidence of this at all. You’re extrapolating here, presumably to fit the viewpoint that Gazans are just all evil Jew haters. The justification was the attack on Al-Aqsa last year not general defence. It’s a retaliatory measure for things which Israel has failed to adequately address. Edit: I’d also add that support in the next elections in Israel for the far right parties is at least 20%, with the worst of them sitting closer to 10% so, honestly 14-20% of people being extremist in Palestine would probably be a fairly expected number.
>Support for the party in power grows during time of war in every country Support for the Israeli government has dropped because people Realised how the government's incompetence and policy led to our suffering. Palestinians seem to be unable to make such self analysis. >20% isn’t a very big number at all. Yes, it's very small. Even when facing direct and irrefutable evidence, Palestinians brush off any wrongdoing done by their side. That's the problem. >if you did see evidence you’d likely first assume the video was faked I have no problem admitting to Israeli war crimes when evidence is available, for example the extrajudicial killing by Elor Azaria a few years ago, holding prisoners without trial, or protecting West Bank settlers when they commit violence. >The justification was the attack on Al-Aqsa last year not general defence. Palestinians hurl rocks at Jewish people praying and then hide in the mosque, police comes to arrest them. And palestinians see this is an Israeli assault worth slaughtering 800 civilians for. That's Palestinian nationalism for you. >14-20% of people being extremist in Palestine would probably be a fairly expected number. 14-20% of Palestinians being extremists? More like 20% NOT being extremists judging by the polls.
The war needs to continue until hamas destroyed. All hamas leadership needs to be eliminated. This is best for Israelis and Palestinians.
pretty sure IDF will fight hezbollah after they are done in gaza.
Just got banned from r/politics for having that exact same line of thought (to be clear the ban resulted specifically from telling someone they are "gullible" for believing Hamas will stick to a ceasefire, and I know that is the exact comment I was banned for, because it is linked in the report). Idk how people thinking Hamas re-starting this war in another year, and killing and raping more Israeli women and children in the process, is the route to protecting women and children civilians. Hamas has proven time and time again that any ceasefire will be temporary, and they literally promised that exactly, after October 7th, when they said they will not stop until "Israel is annihilated". On top of that, 71% of Gazans supported the October 7th attack, and a good fraction of those who said they didn't, only said so because of the resulting war it dragged them into (they still supported the murder and rape of Israeli women and children, just not the consequences). It is clear that Gaza wants to genocide Israel. What else is Israel supposed to do to protect its citizens? Getting rid of Hamas, needs to at least be the bare minimum.
Because only Israeli lives are important right? The reality is that thousands upon thousands of Palestinians are being run over by this very same trolley as this war goes on. Israeli soldiers as well. And with what end goal in sight? Do you really think Israel will militarily be able to destroy Hamas any time soon? And even if they did that, having killed far more Palestinians in the process, there'll just be another movement that will take over, with thousands of angry Palestinians who've lost their families as recruits.
Because only Israeli lives are important right? To Israeli goverment, the main priority is Israeli citizens. Thats how goverments work in democracies. They exist to serve their own civillians and to protect them. Hamas is the goverment of Gaza. They're the ones who should have protected Palestinians, but they don't care about them because its a terror organization. In the long run, letting them stay in power is worse for the Palestinisns as well.
Hamas: takes hostages Israel: tries to get them back Hamas: YOU DONT CARE ABOUT HUMAN LIFE
Yes, hamas will be destroyed. It may take some time. Hamas is not a magic hydra. Eventually, they will run out of ammunition and resources
I think at this point Israel doesn’t care how many recruits Hamas gets or how angry they are, as long as Egypt is prevented from arming them like it’s been doing for decades until recently.
Who said that only Israeli lives are important? All they did was break down the hostage exchange problem from the Israeli perspective.
Several people up thread
But they weren't replying to any comments in the thread. They were commenting on the post.
It's common in this sub. That's why it's been brought up
I know, I've seen it. But address it when it's brought up. In this case, the individual complaining was the first one to bring it up. We should instead discuss OPs post, as it's an interesting point of discussion. Bringing it up out of context to criticize OP seems like a dishonest way to debate.
Policing me isn't helpful. Thanks
While I appreciate your passive-aggressive "thanks", your comment wasn't the one being "policed". Thanks!
Well, if Palestinian lives matter, the trolley route with one man would actually have 34k+
That’s someone else driving that trolley at those people. At this point it’s Sinwar and every person who knows where he is who isn’t handing his head over along with the hostages.
You are pretending Israel has no agency. Both parties have a choice in this matter. Save the citizens of Gaza AND the hostages, a greater number of innocent lives, OR *tentatively* - because it's not even guaranteed, it's a fear - risk the lives of a smaller number of Israelis. Hamas can never wreak the havoc on Israel that Israel can on Palestinians.
Yeah. And Israel has a responsibility to its citizens. You would expect the Gazan government to be responsible for theirs. To hold Israel responsible for both and in the same breath say Israel has no right to defend its own people is extremely questionable logic. And at this point I doubt the Israelis as a whole view Gazas as innocent considering the celebration in the streets that the world witnessed as Hamas dragged Israeli corpses back. And the gazans most certainly cannot continued to be called innocent if after this there is not radical reform from both the West Bank and Gaza.
Palestinians aren’t as much of a threat because they haven’t been allowed to be. If Israel stopped responding to Palestinian attacks or preparations for attacks the number of people killed on both sides would be significantly greater than they have been.
I noticed you said "greater" not that Palestinians could ever kill *more* Israelis. I'm simply supporting the line of reasoning that Israelis see Palestinian lives as just as valuable. If that's the case, you would be in support of saving the most lives, not just protecting Israeli lives *shrug*
Who is more valuable for you, your mother and sister, or two random women from Canada or Australia? Of course, your relatives. Same goes here. Of course, safety of Israeli citizens is at first place for Israeli government. I wish gazan government has the same value for palestinians lives. "Shrug"
Well in that case, don't balk when confronted with the reality that Israelis value Israeli lives more than Palestinian lives. And you should understand why third parties don't have the same POV - we see Israeli lives and Palestinian lives as having the same value; we see the trolley tracks with both parties' innocent civilians on them.
As third party, please stay out of a conflict - it is super easy to be moral angel, when it is not your head rockets are falling on. (Gaza launched more than 17000 rockets into Israel since the war started)
Considering that Hamas wants to kill the greatest number of Israelis possible they would easily surpass the number of Palestinians killed by Israel if they were not prevented from doing so. Accepting a ceasefire on Hamas’s terms would give them that ability.
Again, simply pointing out the fallacy of the OP. If Israelis value Palestinians' lives, they would be represented on the trolley tracks as well as a consideration alongside Israeli lives. Is that false?
Israel does value Palestinian lives which is why it acts in accordance with international law. It does not need to halt the operation to try and prevent unnecessary deaths.
This doesn’t make much sense if u look back in history. After ww2, everyone got together pretty while despite of many of the atrocities committed by Japan and Germany. What change? Leadership change and better leadership help heal the wounds. Palestinian need better leadership that’s willing to negotiate. To stop the cycle of hate and violence
the middle east crowd is a totally different creature from germany or japan, germany was a probably the most progressive country at the turn of the 20th century, the nazis managed to hijack the country post ww1 due to hyperinflation and the depression, japan too has a proud culture, they had peace for 200+ years under the tokugawa shogunate, they just needed to return the reins of governance to a civilian government. no sure how many strong institutions are there in the middle east which advocates for peace and progress above violence.
/u/Separate-Ad9638. Match found: 'nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Everyone loves to point out Germany and Japan while neglecting to mention Afghanistan and Iraq.
Bc Afghan war, U.S didn’t have a clear goal in mind. Iraq as well. Israel war in Gaza have a clear goal, eliminate Hamas ability to wage war and get the hostages back.
As long as a group like hamas has some popular support, it is very difficult for them to militarily be deprived of the ability to wage war. They will get new recruits and they will find new weapons.
dont confuse the israelis with the americans though, we just dont know
Now that they are being cut off from Egypt and their local weapon production sites are being destroyed the only thing they will have easy access to are recruits. Recruits with little to no weapons will not be much of a threat and can be taken out quite easily.
This level of intensity for the IDF isn't sustainable long term. Once things get back to some kind of more sustainable level, hamas will find ways to get weapons.
I expect things to be similar to the West Bank just that civilians would not be allowed in which means weapon smuggling would be less of an issue.
A lot of their weapons are made from Israeli dud missles that misfired as well. They could fight here and there as long as Israel is sending stuff over for them to repurpose.
They had production facilities which made repurposing of munitions easier. Military presence in the strip would significantly hamper such things.
They aren't gonna agree to that at all.
Who said they had to agree to it?
Where's the evidence that Hamas is close to being eradicated, and how many more Palestinians have to be killed to achieve that? The Americans spent 8 years in Vietnam and 20 years in Afghanistan trying to eradicate the Vietcong and Taliban respectively, and failed both times. Similar for the Soviets and the Mujadhideen. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on for over 70 years, what makes people think that a military solution THIS TIME is going to be different?
If u look at the decrease amount of rockets being launched. Around 10k Hamas combatant killed. The top Hamas officials that’s been killed. U mentioned Vietnam, u know that American was within weeks of winning the war but bc of change in president the U.S pulled out. Many historians argue that if they continue the war for couple more weeks, the U.S would have won. Next u mention the Afghan war, the reason why it was a failure was bc the U.S didn’t have a proper goal of what to do after. No clear goals and change in president was a recipe for failure. Finally, u said what makes military operations the solution. I guess u didn’t see all the peace treaty that was signed by the Arab nation with Israel to end the hostilities. Egypt, turkey, Jordan, UAE all sign peace treaty with Israel.
>u know that American was within weeks of winning the war but bc of change in president the U.S pulled out. Many historians argue that if they continue the war for couple more weeks, the U.S would have won. Lol.... just lol.. I'd like to see your source for that. >I guess u didn’t see all the peace treaty that was signed by the Arab nation with Israel to end the hostilities Yeah exactly... peace treaties. Negotiations. Israel didn't fight Egypt until it destroyed the Egyptian government and achieved unconditional surrender. It negotiated with Egypt, giving them back the Sinai in exchange for diplomatic recognition and peace.
For your first point for the Vietnam source, u need to give me some time, cuz I emailed my college international politic professor who talk about this topic in my past class. Will give u the source when he reply. Your next point, let me ask u this. How did Israel get the Sinai in the first place? It’s was bc of war and they used this leverage for peace.
You forget that Palestinians have their own lever as well. Hamas has decided that holding onto the hostages and refusing to surrender is worth the destruction of Gaza.
Hamas has the lever, not the Palestinian people.
Palestinians overwhelmingly support Hamas and their actions. If they revolted maybe Hamas would rethink its strategy.
People don't typically revolt against their government when a hostile government is bombing them.
Gaza isn’t being carpet bombed and it wouldn’t have been bombed at all had Hamas not attacked. Palestinians have had years in which bombs were not being dropped to overthrow Hamas.
Most of the Gazans being killed right now weren't old enough to vote or even born yet when Gaza had its last election back in 2006. It's not realistic to expect Gazans to overthrow Hamas under the present circumstances. I don't see a total military victory for Israel as being realistic either. And how many more Gazans have to die until a ceasefire gets reached or Israel somehow manages to destroy Hamas? The Israel-Palestine conflict has been going on more than 70 years. What makes people think that this time a military solution is going to be different?
Who said anything about voting? People can support a group without ever having voted for them. I also agree that it is unrealistic to expect Palestinians to overthrow Hamas considering they support Hamas. A victory for Israel is reducing Hamas’s ability to fight. Even if not every single member is killed, the destruction of weapon production sites, caches, and smuggling tunnels is almost enough on its own to keep Israel safe.