[hef19898]

Way, way back there was an IDF officer who said, in TV, after having a Palestinian boys arm broken something along the lines of "he wont throw a stone with that arm any time soon".

I hope that this is not the standard we hold, because if it is, there is no moral ground anymore to stand on when it comes to denouncing terrorism.

[bennyz]

Police brutality isn't something specific to this region (IDF is policing in the west bank), or to Palestinians in the region. Hamas murdered and kidnapped hundreds of civilians to protest this?

I think it's pretty clear that Hamas would prioritize the release of a high ranking terrorist with civilian blood on their hands over someone that may be wrongfully detained.

[hef19898]

Yes, Hamas attacked, killed and kidnapped people in a terror attack to protest this. Also to have hostages to exchange for some of their own. And yes, these "own" are Hamas members and not the innocent bystanders. Was there ever any doubt about this?

None of that justifies, again, the levelling of Gaza, the starving of around 500,000 people and the deliberate targeting of civilians who have nothing to do with any of that.

You what works? Identifying the purpetrators, prosecuting and convicting them. If you want to go ultra tough, use Mossad to go after Hamas leadership. Heck, even using precision strikes at Hamas leadership in Gaza wouod be better, regardless of the related colleteral damage and casualties. Israel is not doing any of that, Israel started levelling Gaza right south of the border and continue southwards, hoping people flee to Egypt which would allow Israel to close the doors behind them. There is a term for this: ethnic cleansing. That is undefensible, period.

[gataca]

> There is a term for this: ethnic cleansing

Actually the term for this is: war

Hamas can surrender and release the hostages to end the war. Until then Israel is justified in pursuing their 'complete and utter destruction'

[hef19898]

No, the term is ethinic cleansing. In war there are rules regarding civilians, rules Israel ignoring. And no, (in)actions by the enemy do not give the otherside a justification to do whatever they want. Rules and laws still apply during war.

I tired so tryong to get that point across to people. And worried what that attitude might mean for the future.

[gataca]

Israel gave civilians weeks to leave areas of fighting and warns them ahead of time before attacking. This is not ethnic cleansing no matter how many times you repeat the phrase.

Presence of civilians does not render an area illegal to attack. Using civilian cover to initiate attacks is a war crime, not wearing uniforms is also a war crime - both things Hamas does. Using civilian buildings for military purposes makes attacking those areas legal and within the rules of war. You don't get to change the definition of words or invent laws of war when convenient to attack Israel.

[bennyz]

>You what works? Identifying the purpetrators, prosecuting and convicting them. If you want to go ultra tough, use Mossad to go after Hamas leadership. Heck, even using precision strikes at Hamas leadership in Gaza wouod be better, regardless of the related colleteral damage and casualties. Israel is not doing any of that

ah, yes, it's that simple, just press the magic button that makes all Hamas disappear and all uninvolved civilians live well and prosper...

To me it seems that if those who care about innocent civilians were more focused on demanding Hamas to surrender and release the hostages promptly would be do more to save lives than constantly criticizing Israel, which gives Hamas hope they can survive this (and do what they did again later on)

[hef19898]

Right now only one side is doing the blowing things up stuff: Israel.

You know what makes, maybe, Hamas go away? Open and free election, a cease fire followed by a peace treaty followed by international recognition of Palestine as a nation with free access to the sea and everything else that entails. With a neutral, demilitarized zone between Israel and Palestine, a zone save guarded by an international force with a very robust mandate. Because by know, both side need to be seperated to avoid future conflict. That would also mean a full review by an international court of all sentences by Israeli military courts against Palestinians, in cases a general amnesty is not applicable.

Oh, I almost forgot: A rebuilding plan for Gaza and other Palestinian territories. A massive one, comparable to the Marshall Plan after WW2. A plan in which Israel would have a keen interest in paeticipating if peace is the goal. Oh, yes, and a complete abandonnent of Israels illegal settlement policy and the settlements.

In exchange for Israel recognizing all of the above, and international support of that, the new Palestinian nation agrees to recognize Israel as well.

How does that sound? Not magic, I know, but something that worked in principle in Northern Ireland for example.

[GordonS]

All of this seems quite reasonable to me, and I'm certain Gazans would agree to it. Certainly polls suggest the majority would support it [0].

I'd also add that there needs to be an end to apartheid in Israel. There may also be need of a deradicalisation program.

[0] https://en-social-sciences.tau.ac.il/sites/socsci-english.ta...