Israeli ground invasion of Gaza-What a day!!

[T Town Tommy]

So who is the worse of two evils here... A uper-wealthy political donor trying to shape policy or an uper-liberal media trying to do the same?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

So who is the worse of two evils here... A uper-wealthy political donor trying to shape policy or an uper-liberal media trying to do the same?

Not sure I see a meaningful distinction here. Both parties are reliably Zionist/ interventionist toward the Middle East. The current Secretary of State (a Democrat) nearly had to step down because of a candidly honest comment about Israel. The presumptive 2016 Democratic presidential nominee is actually more hawkish than most Republicans.

Put another way, I don't see this as a partisan issue, Tommy. The costs of supporting Zionism are immense--in both blood, treasure and moral integrity-- but when it comes to the benefits, all its advocates can offer is hand-waving bullshit about "credibility", Pax Americana, etc. This strikes me as a pretty clear case of US politicians and pundits being bribed and manipulated into supporting a policy that is clearly against the interests of the average American.

It's certainly not the only example of such. Arguably the most egregious, though.

 

[enrico514]

.

 

[enrico514]

.

 

[T Town Tommy]

My take is that these are UN neutral sites... not sure how anyone can defend knowingly killing innocent civilians even if the site had military value...

The same UN neutral sites where Hamas was hiding rockets recently? The same UN that turned the rockets back over to Hamas? Sorry... but Hamas is well known for hiding their weapons amongst civilian populations. Just as they are at hiding militants in civilian occupied dwellings. That's really not in question.

I don't want to see another person killed in the conflict. But the comments made by Hamas' political leader Khaleed Meshaal just this weekend will make that more difficult to do for Isreal.

 

[enrico514]

.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Just look at the civilian death count...

http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_sitrep_04_08_2014.pdf

At least 1,176 murdered as of yesterday.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Just look at the civilian death count...

It could be much worse.

Hard to bargain with one side when their stated goal is the total destruction of the other. Pretty simple to me. Hamas wants Isreal to give up their grip on goods flowing in to Gaza. Isreal states that Hamas is smuggling is more weapons to use against them. And Isreal is correct as they have intercepted weapon after weapon coming in - wonder where all that money we just sent to Gaza ends up? If Hamas wants peace then they should do what is necessary to get there. Sadly, time and time again, they have shown that's not their end game. They will not stop until Isreal is removed from the face of the earth.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The same UN neutral sites where Hamas was hiding rockets recently? The same UN that turned the rockets back over to Hamas? Sorry... but Hamas is well known for hiding their weapons amongst civilian populations. Just as they are at hiding militants in civilian occupied dwellings. That's really not in question.

I don't want to see another person killed in the conflict. But the comments made by Hamas' political leader Khaleed Meshaal just this weekend will make that more difficult to do for Isreal.

These sorts of arguments might have some merit if there was any semblance of parity between the parties involved, but there's not. Israel is extremely wealthy and well-armed. Due to Israel's blockade, Gaza is destitute and extremely weak. Look at the civilian death toll to date-- 3 Israelis vs. 1000+ Gazans.

Context matters. In light of the above, Israel's current offensive is indefensible.

It could be much worse.

I suppose we should all thank God that Israel is showing such restraint.

Hard to bargain with one side when their stated goal is the total destruction of the other. Pretty simple to me. Hamas wants Isreal to give up their grip on goods flowing in to Gaza. Isreal states that Hamas is smuggling is more weapons to use against them. And Isreal is correct as they have intercepted weapon after weapon coming in - wonder where all that money we just sent to Gaza ends up? If Hamas wants peace then they should do what is necessary to get there. Sadly, time and time again, they have shown that's not their end game. They will not stop until Isreal is removed from the face of the earth.

Where are you getting this? See the article I linked above in The National Interest. Most of what you just posted is straight Zionist propaganda. The idea that Hamas presents an existential threat to Israel is laughable.

 

[T Town Tommy]

These sorts of arguments might have some merit if there was any semblance of parity between the parties involved, but there's not. Israel is extremely wealthy and well-armed. Due to Israel's blockade, Gaza is destitute and extremely weak. Look at the civilian death toll to date-- 3 Israelis vs. 1000+ Gazans.

Context matters. In light of the above, Israel's current offensive is indefensible.

But doesn't that lack of parity say something about Isreal's position? They could easily defeat Hamas in a matter of days but have stated time and again that they are willing to co-exist. Hamas wants nothing to do with that. The blockade has shown that it is needed due to the actions of Hamas in the past. Even when Isreal gives, Hamas is caught time and again smuggling in weapons. And Isreal has a right to stop it.

What would be the US response if Mexico decided they wanted Texas back and started firing rockets across our border? I doubt the US would stand by and wait for them to stop. We would do the same thing Isreal is doing. Try to get them to stop while limiting civilian deaths.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Where are you getting this? See the article I linked above in The National Interest. Most of what you just posted is straight Zionist propaganda. The idea that Hamas presents an existential threat to Israel is laughable.

Hamas isn't an existential threat to Isreal. But lobbing rockets over with the intent to kill whoever they hit is a threat. And Isreal has a right to defend against that. I do agree, that to what extint the response is would be debateable.

Mexico isn't an existential threat to the US, but I would bet we wouldn't put up with that either. We could probably be much more effective at curtailing civilian deaths if that ever happened, but make no mistake, there would be some. Especially if Mexico deployed the same tactics that Hamas uses.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

None of those United Nations schools had weapons. The IDF told Palestinians to leave their homes. They went to the schools, and then the schools were bombed.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

A Mexico analogy would work if we walled off Mexico from the rest of the world and then progressively took their land and then killed their civilians. The two borders are completely different in every way. Other than the fact that they are borders.

 

[T Town Tommy]

None of those United Nations schools had weapons. The IDF told Palestinians to leave their homes. They went to the schools, and then the schools were bombed.

Better go back and look. Rockets were found in UN schools a week and a half ago. It was widely reported by the national media. It was the UN that announced they found them.

 

[T Town Tommy]

A Mexico analogy would work if we walled off Mexico from the rest of the world and then progressively took their land and then killed their civilians. The two borders are completely different in every way. Other than the fact that they are borders.

Uh... ok.

You do realize that Hamas is a terrorist organization. You do realize that their stated intent is to kill every Isreali citizen. You do realize that as long as that is their stated end game goal, they will continue to be isolated. They can't even agree with their own factions on what they want. And claiming the land as "their land" is open for serious debate.

 

[enrico514]

.

 

[T Town Tommy]

I may be wrong but I believe one of the top UN envoy said a couple of days ago that Israel was violating the Geneva Convention and should be held accountable for possible war crimes. I would add that the US should stop sending them military supplies.

That UN person you mention is a very controversial figure and her remarks were met with distain and ridicule from most of the world. She chairs the UNHRC which currently has members from China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, and North Korea. And, oh yeah, the same committee that elected Quaddafi president of the council a few years back. That's a great cast of characters there. You can't make that stuff up.

 

[enrico514]

.

 

[T Town Tommy]

If you listen to the US Department of State daily briefings you would see that even the US is condemming these bombings. And once again... if that's not good enough for you... look at he civilian deaths...

I don't think anyone wants to see civilians killed. But even the State Department, in condemning the bombings, stated that Hamas was making it difficult on Isreal due to hiding rockets in civilian areas such as the UN schools.

 

[Rizzophil]

I don't think anyone wants to see civilians killed. But even the State Department, in condemning the bombings, stated that Hamas was making it difficult on Isreal due to hiding rockets in civilian areas such as the UN schools.

T Town, keep posting on this thread. You are speaking the truth.

Unfortunately, expect the anti-Israel crowd to grow

 

[enrico514]

.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Hamas isn't an existential threat to Isreal. But lobbing rockets over with the intent to kill whoever they hit is a threat.

Israel's current offensive wasn't started by Hamas rockets. It was brought about by the kidnapping and murder of 3 yeshiva boys in the West Bank. Hamas had nothing to do with the crime; yet the Israeli government, having full knowledge of this, still decided to press its advantage and use the incident as a pretext to invade Gaza and dismantle Hamas. So Israel is the aggressor here.

Mexico isn't an existential threat to the US, but I would bet we wouldn't put up with that either. We could probably be much more effective at curtailing civilian deaths if that ever happened, but make no mistake, there would be some. Especially if Mexico deployed the same tactics that Hamas uses.

Would your outlook change if the US used a false pretext to invade and crush a hostile regime? Say... by deliberately and repeatedly lying about the presence of WMDs in Iraq?

You do realize that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

How do you define a terrorist organization? It has no legally binding criminal law definition in the international community. The term frequently gets invoked to shut down critical analysis; in this case, it's being used (as it has many times before) to justify any and all actions Israel chooses to take against Hamas, regardless of collateral damage.

If terrorism is defined as the deliberate targeting of civilians in furtherance of a political goal, then one could argue that the IDF is a much more prolific terrorist organization than Hamas.

You do realize that their stated intent is to kill every Isreali citizen.

As mentioned in The National Interest article I linked previously, Hamas: (1) is incapable of carrying out such a threat; and (2) has a substantial track record that contradicts their stated stance. As the weaker party (by a country mile), they have proven far more willing to negotiate a long-term cease-fire than Israel.

You do realize that as long as that is their stated end game goal, they will continue to be isolated.

They remain isolated because the occupying power prefers to keep them that way.

They can't even agree with their own factions on what they want.

From the same article linked above: "In its recent pact with Fatah... Hamas agreed to surrender power to, and to support, a Palestinian government in which Hamas was given no portfolios and which explicitly accepts all the usual Western demands about recognizing Israel, adhering to all previous agreements, and adhering to non-violence."

A cynical man might be tempted to suggest that the destruction of that pact is the primary reason behind the current Israeli offensive.

And claiming the land as "their land" is open for serious debate.

Regardless, it's a debate that Israel isn't interested in having. If they claim the West Bank and Gaza, then they need to either relocate them (as we did with the Native Americans) or incorporate them into the polity. If they don't claim it, give them their own state. The only indefensible option is the one they've chosen-- to maintain control over Gaza and the West Bank as occupied territory, thereby denying the Palestinians any kind of meaningful sovereignty or civil rights. But, as the US government has learned over the last decade, maintaining a state of perpetual war makes dealing with undesirables much easier.

Unfortunately, expect the anti-Israel crowd to grow

T-Town is defending his position without resorting to labeling his opponents as "anti-Israel". If you'd like to take a crack at a moral justification for Israel's actions, please do so.

 

[IrishLax]

How do you define a terrorist organization? It has no legally binding criminal law definition in the international community. The term frequently gets invoked to shut down critical analysis; in this case, it's being used (as it has many times before) to justify any and all actions Israel chooses to take against Hamas, regardless of collateral damage.

If terrorism is defined as the deliberate targeting of civilians in furtherance of a political goal, then one could argue that the IDF is a much more prolific terrorist organization than Hamas.

Solid philosophical question, but in practical measures it's not a debatable point that our Government regards Hamas as a terrorist organization.

As mentioned in The National Interest article I linked previously, Hamas: (1) is incapable of carrying out such a threat; and (2) has a substantial track record that contradicts their stated stance. As the weaker party (by a country mile), they have proven far more willing to negotiate a long-term cease-fire than Israel.

Palestinian "government" (admittedly run by Fatah not Hamas) walked away from a deal where Israel offered up 90%+ of the West Bank........ I think it's completely ridiculous to take public statements of intention and give them any value. Most people in positions of power for the Palestinians have little to no interest in any kind of long-term peace unless it's entirely on their terms (which they know won't happen).

In general, there are an awful lot of Hamas apologists these days. As I said before, in no way do I condone the way Israel operates, but it's become trendy to act like Hamas is some carebear organization bent on peace... and that's total bullshit.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Due to Israel's blockade, Gaza is destitute and extremely weak.

Yet, somehow, Hamas was able to construct dozens of sophisticated tunnels that have been estimated to cost millions to build and over one million a year each to maintain. Where is that money coming from?

IMO, the people of Gaza, who are basically trapped, are paying the biggest toll as their standard of living declines nearly every year. Yet, in this increasingly despair situation after Egypt and Israel went full blockade, the money didn't go to support the people, but to support ambushing Israelis. Hamas isn't interested in bettering the lives of their "people". Nothing they have done since 2006 leads a reasonable person to conclude that.

I am not saying everything Israel is doing or has done is right. But I would hope my government would defend me from being dragged into a bush and then underground when walking down the street. These tunnels were created to, at best, terrorize Israeli soldiers and citizens. At worst, they could be used to orchestrate a massive attack. I just cannot see a scenario where Hamas really intended to be peaceful.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Palestinian "government" (admittedly run by Fatah not Hamas) walked away from a deal where Israel offered up 90%+ of the West Bank........ I think it's completely ridiculous to take public statements of intention and give them any value.

Are you referring to most recent round of negotiations? From the relevant wikipedia article:

On 2 May 2014 the Hebrew daily Yedioth Ahronoth, cited an anonymous senior American official as placing the blame for the break-down in talks mainly on Israel's settlement stance, directly quoting the remark:'Netanyahu did not move more than an inch.” Israeli sources in Jerusalem later reported that the remarks came from the US Special Envoy Marin Indyk himself, who was reportedly preparing to hand in his resignation. Whoever the source of the comment, the White House cleared the interview in which the remarks were made. In this the officials appeared to be referring to the Israeli government announcement of a record 14,000 new settlement housing units. Mark Landler has written that the remark attributed to Indyk reflected the President's own views:

Publicly, Mr. Obama has said that both sides bear responsibility for the latest collapse. But the president believes that more than any other factor, Israel’s drumbeat of settlement announcements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem poisoned the atmosphere and doomed any chance of a breakthrough with the Palestinians.

Most people in positions of power for the Palestinians have little to no interest in any kind of long-term peace unless it's entirely on their terms (which they know won't happen).

I vet my sources pretty carefully, and not a single one of them agrees with that assessment. Think about it. Israel has all the power here. If they really wanted to make a deal, it would happen. But there's always something--most recently, radical Zionist settlers building in Palestinian territory-- that conveniently sabotages negotiations.

In general, there are an awful lot of Hamas apologists these days. As I said before, in no way do I condone the way Israel operates, but it's become trendy to act like Hamas is some carebear organization bent on peace... and that's total bullshit.

Who here is defending Hamas? Their hands are as dirty as anyone. But the massive power imbalance between Israel and the Palestinians is crucially important to any moral assessment of the conflict, and Israeli apologists are constantly trying to dismiss that aspect of the debate. All of my posts have been about Israel and the (total lack of) proportionality in its response.

Yet, somehow, Hamas was able to construct dozens of sophisticated tunnels that have been estimated to cost millions to build and over one million a year each to maintain. Where is that money coming from?

The money likely came from Israel's regional enemies, who use Hamas as a way to attack it by proxy. Hamas' benefactors have no interest in spending money to improve the plight of the Palestinians either, because the current state of affairs is useful for fostering anti-Israeli sentiment in the Arab world.

IMO, the people of Gaza, who are basically trapped, are paying the biggest toll as their standard of living declines nearly every year.

Yes. As we keep going off on these tangents about Hamas, this fact bears repeating: the current civilian death toll is estimated at 3 for the Israelis, and 1,000+ for the Palestinians. Many of them were women and children. How are the deaths of these noncombatants-- at the hands of an elite American-subsidized and -equipped force-- justified by Hamas' history?

 

[Wild Bill]

Palestinian "government" (admittedly run by Fatah not Hamas) walked away from a deal where Israel offered up 90%+ of the West Bank........ I think it's completely ridiculous to take public statements of intention and give them any value. Most people in positions of power for the Palestinians have little to no interest in any kind of long-term peace unless it's entirely on their terms (which they know won't happen).

I vet my sources pretty carefully, and not a single one of them agrees with that assessment. Think about it. Israel has all the power here. If they really wanted to make a deal, it would happen. But there's always something--most recently, radical Zionist settlers building in Palestinian territory-- that conveniently sabotages negotiations.

The Charter of Hamas seems fairly clear to me - they're not looking to make a deal.

Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims.

Who here is defending Hamas? Their hands are as dirty as anyone. But the massive power imbalance between Israel and the Palestinians is crucially important to any moral assessment of the conflict, and Israeli apologists are constantly trying to dismiss that aspect of the debate. All of my posts have been about Israel and the (total lack of) proportionality in its response.

I can't imagine anyone can argue against Israel eliminating these tunnels (could be wrong, though). Under the circumstances, how do they get this done while keeping their response "proportional"?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I can't imagine anyone can argue against Israel eliminating these tunnels (could be wrong, though). Under the circumstances, how do they get this done while keeping their response "proportional"?

Of course they're fully justified in destroying the tunnels, and in killing Hamas fighters with the utmost prejudice. What they're not justified in doing is killing 1k+ civilians in the process. I'm aware that Hamas' ideology and tactics make minimizing collateral damage very difficult, even impossible, in some situations. But if Hamas is literally making it impossible for the Israelis to defend themselves without inflicting massive amounts of civilian casualties (which is possible, but I remain skeptical), then Israel needs to: (1) claim the West Bank and Gaza as its own; and (2) relocate the Palestinians; as much for the safety of Palestine's civilians as for Israel's own. If the status quo necessitates the death of women and children, then the status quo has to change.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Slate's William Saletan just published an article titled "12 Signs It's Time to Get Out of Gaza":

More than three weeks ago, responding to rocket fire from Gaza, Israel launched a campaign of airstrikes against Hamas. Two weeks ago, Israeli ground forces went in. The balance of military power is so lopsided that Israel can do whatever it wants. But that freedom makes it difficult for the winning side to recognize when it’s time to stop. Here are some clues that suggest that time is now:

1. Your enemy refuses to protect its people. Normally, if you invade a country and pound the daylights out of it, you can expect its government to seek, or at least accept, a cease-fire to stop the bleeding. Not here. Hamas has refused to endorse or honor a simple cease-fire despite the ridiculous imbalance of casualties.

Israel argues, correctly, that Hamas doesn’t care about Gazan civilians. Hamas also seems fragmented, unable to make decisions. Arab governments aren’t stepping in, either—they seem to hate Hamas more than they love Gazans. But the absence of competent advocacy for Gazans isn’t a reason to keep shooting. It’s a reason to stop. When your enemy shows no mercy for its own people, that responsibility falls to you.

2. You’re killing too many civilians. Last time I checked, on a per-strike basis, Israel’s rate of inflicting civilian casualties was lower than NATO’s in the Kosovo war. But in just three weeks, Israel has launched so many strikes that its civilian casualty toll has eclipsed NATO’s.

Even if you set aside mass-casualty incidents for which Israel has denied responsibility (sometimes with independent evidence), there are too many other cases in which its excuses don’t begin to justify the death toll. On Wednesday, when the U.N. cited evidence that the Israel Defense Forces had killed 19 civilians in an artillery strike on a U.N. school, Israel said it was only shooting back at militants who had fired mortars “from the vicinity.” On Thursday, an airstrike apparently injured 15 Gazans at a U.N. school during a strike on a nearby mosque (presumably targeted for housing military assets). Another 17 people died in a strike on a market on Wednesday. An Israeli military source told reporters that in two of these cases, terrorists “fired at IDF troops ... and our troops returned fire. It may be that one of our shells fell in the market.”

That’s unacceptable. There’s nothing “pinpoint” about these strikes. What’s happening is entirely predictable: Israel has shifted from guided weapons to old-fashioned shelling. Everyone, including Israel, knows that this will increase the error rate, with lethal results. “When they started naval bombardment, artillery and tank fire, that’s just not as accurate as airstrikes,” says a U.N. official in Gaza. “They can’t see what they’re shooting at.”

3. Your civilian protection measures are failing. I’ve praised the IDF for its exemplary double-layered warning system: phone calls to residents of buildings, followed by dummy bombs designed to scare people out of the building before the real strike hits. The IDF has also robo-called and leafleted neighborhoods, warning people to clear out before the area is invaded. But these measures are failing. Some people never got phone calls. Others misunderstood the dummy bombs and went back into their houses, thinking the strike was over. Some stayed in targeted neighborhoods, afraid to move. Others moved only to end up in places they mistakenly thought were safe. The further the IDF advances into overpopulated Gaza, the harder it is for civilians to find a refuge. At some point, you have to acknowledge that your worthy efforts aren’t enough.

4. Your mission and methods keep expanding. First the IDF was just going to hit Gaza from the air. Then it went in on the ground, but Israel assured everyone that the target was just the tunnels. Then Hamas killed a bunch of Israeli soldiers in a surprise attack, and Israel retaliated with widespread shelling. This week, the Israeli air force has been hitting 100 to 200 targets a day. How does that fit a campaign against tunnels? The strikes are on suspected weapon storage sites and “homes of terrorists.” Israel keeps moving the goal post, redefining the conditions that would meet its vague objective of “sustainable quiet.” That’s the beginning of mission creep. Where does it end?

5. The payoff is declining. In the early days of the ground invasion, the IDF bragged about all the tunnels it had found. But in the last few days, the rate of discovery has trailed off. To find the rest, Israel would probably have to expand its areas of operation in Gaza, and that means more gunfire, bombing, shelling, and civilian deaths. Israeli soldiers would die, too. On Wednesday, three of them were killed on a tunnel mission.

6. You’re losing too many soldiers. Before the ground invasion, the IDF’s casualty count was zero. Now it’s more than 50. Hamas, which measures success by how many Israelis it kills, is getting the blood it wants. Why give them more?

7. You’re close to losing another Gilad Shalit. The last time Gaza militants captured an Israeli soldier, Israel released more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners to buy his release. In the last couple of weeks, Hamas has made several attempts to grab another IDF soldier alive. If it gets one, imagine the leverage it will gain.

8. You’re picking fights with everyone. First it was the U.N. Relief and Works Agency. Then it was the U.N. Security Council. Everyone who speaks up, no matter how carefully, about the pain Israel has inflicted in Gaza gets an insulting rebuke from Israel. As if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s face-to-face, on-camera lecture of President Obama three years ago wasn’t enough, government sources have reportedly leaked to the Israeli press a cease-fire proposal from Secretary of State John Kerry and a fabricated transcript of an Obama-Netanyahu phone call, apparently in an attempt to embarrass Kerry and Obama. In the last week, Israeli columnists have derided Kerry in articles that implicitly channeled the contempt of Israeli officials. One article said that “very senior officials in Jerusalem” had called Kerry’s proposal a “strategic terrorist attack.” Israel’s deputy transportation minister said it was as though “the United States is working in the service of Hamas.”

This kind of escalation against anyone who doesn’t affirm all your beliefs, including your friends, is mental illness. In foreign policy, the damage and self-destruction are that much greater. Now Kerry is wondering aloud whether he can take Netanyahu’s stated support for a cease-fire “at face value,” and the U.S. State Department is expressing dismay at the accusations from Israeli ingrates. The department’s spokeswoman says, “It's simply not the way partners and allies treat each other.” And Israel doesn’t have any other genuine ally.

9. Your eldest statesman says it’s time to stop. A week ago, Shimon Peres stepped down after seven years as Israel’s president. The job is ceremonial, but Peres has stratospheric prestige, having served as prime minister in three different decades. On Wednesday, he visited wounded Israeli soldiers and praised them for fighting Hamas terrorists “who have no respect for human lives.” But he also concluded that the war had “exhausted itself” and “now we have to find a way to stop it.” For this, Israel’s housing minister called Peres’ remarks “unacceptable” and accused him of undermining military morale.

10. Your army hints that it’s time to stop. On Tuesday, an anonymous “high-ranking military official” told Israeli reporters that “the political leadership must decide now—either we push deeper [into Gaza] or we backtrack.” He cautioned that “we won't be able to take out every tunnel” and added (in a country where polls overwhelmingly favor further prosecution of the war) that “our responsibility is to lead the offensive to where it needs to go, not to where the public wants.” That sounds like a warning that the wise course, at this point, is to get out.

11. Your ethics are degenerating. Israel accuses Hamas of using Palestinian civilians as human shields. As an indictment, that’s correct. But Israel has also peddled this as an all-purpose excuse for the IDF’s role in civilian deaths. Here’s how Netanyahu frames the argument:

They’re using their civilians to protect their missiles. So naturally, they're responsible for all the civilian deaths that occur accidentally. We're sorry for any accidental civilian death, but it's Hamas that bears complete responsibility for such civilian casualties.

That’s a fully self-absolving mentality. It pre-emptively removes all blame from the trigger-puller and his government. Some ministers in Netanyahu’s government have gone further, arguing for a cut-off of food, water, and electricity to Gaza. A deputy minister blames Palestinians for their predicament, noting that they elected Hamas eight years ago. Once you’ve devised a moral argument that excuses anything you do, you’re lost.

12. The West Bank is boiling. So far, the war has been confined to Gaza. But Hamas has been doing everything possible to inflame anger in the West Bank. Over the last two weeks, the Palestinian Ma’an News Agency has tracked an increase in “armed attacks on Israeli military sites and settlements in the West Bank.” If Israel doesn’t end one war soon, it may soon be facing two.

 

[BobbyMac]

Sooner or later, the people on the Arab street have to take control of their destiny and quit letting Theofascists hijack their way of life. If you let the minority swing the sword in your name, you are culpable and responsible for their actions. The tyranny that Israel imposes on the Palestinian masses is brought upon them by the tyranny the Arab oligarch's impose on their own people in the first place. Hamas doesn't want a deal, it loses it's reason for existence. The struggle is what's important... not the solution.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

If you let the minority swing the sword in your name, you are culpable and responsible for their actions.

That's awfully similar to the justification al-Qaeda gave for 9/11: American civilians, by electing imperialist politicians, were morally complicit in the actions of their government, and therefore were legitimate targets.

The tyranny that Israel imposes on the Palestinian masses is brought upon them by the tyranny the Arab oligarch's impose on their own people in the first place.

See the last line of #11 above.