[throw310822]

I don't understand why you say "unprovoked". Gaza has been under occupation for decades (yes, it's technically an occupation, regardless of whether there are settlers or not). It's been periodically bombed, each time with as many victims as an October 7th. It's been under a complete blockade for 16 years. The fact that everything was fine in Israel on October 6th doesn't mean that there was a peace- it just means that they weren't expecting their victims to be able to fight back.

> What would you do in such a situation?

The situation is that Israel is an oppressor and an occupier, so what should it do? Well, first of all it should have made different choices in the past, honest and fair and peaceful choices. Which it didn't make, and it's its fault. But it's never too late. It should have made honest, fair and peaceful choices also in this occasion- mourned its deads, vowed to bring those responsible to justice, and engaged with Palestinian counterparts to withdraw within the 1967 borders and promote the birth of a Palestinian state.

Of course, it didn't do any of those things. It did exactly what Hamas expected.

[tptacek]

And, as a result, Hamas has been gone from a rent-extracting governing authority with 16 combat-effective brigades, deep connections to the IRGC, and ongoing funding not just from the Gulf States but from Israel itself(!) to an international pariah with military leadership hiding in tunnels and its last 2 allegedly combat-effective brigades preparing to make a valiant last stand behind a wall of civilian refugees in Rafah.

Yes: Israel did exactly what Hamas expected. The problem for Hamas is twofold:

* Hamas thought the urban combat to root them out of Gaza City and Khan Younis would be a Vietnam-scale bloodbath that would tie the IDF up indefinitely until they were forced to make a truce.

* Hamas's messianic nutbag leader genuinely believed that he was ushering in the end of days, and that the IRGC's other assets would immediately commit to full scale combat operations against the IDF. Instead: Hezbollah noped the hell out, and Iran launched a large scale drone attack that ended up providing a Boeing and Lockheed-style fireworks display in which other Arab states, even as Israel was massacring Palestinian civilians, pitched in to help. Then Iran "declared the matter resolved". Gulp.

Sometimes, if only strategically, it makes sense to do what your enemy wants you to, because your enemy is stupid.

[throw310822]

Hamas was designated a terrorist organisation and the Gaza strip was subject to a total blockade since 18 years because of Hamas having won regular elections (at the time). So much for becoming an international pariah.

No, the real news here is of course the news: the ICC seeks to arrest Israeli top leaders as much as the Hamas leaders. The subject that is going from being everyone's darling to international pariah is Israel, absolutely no doubt about this. This is a massive win for Palestine and those who claim to fight for it, including Hamas- with the potential for historical consequences.

My take is that this was the intention behind the October 7th attack- to drive Israel to such a violent retaliation as to force the world to take notice and to condemn Israel. I might be wrong and the victory might be entirely an unintended consequence. However your interpretation essentially requires Hamas to have zero knowledge of the real ratio of military force between Hamas/ Iran and Israel, and zero knowledge of the fact that the US have always been ready to commit their entire military for Israel. And even your imagined "win" scenario for Hamas is Israel committing to "a truce"- which is what they already had before Oct 7.

* Iran's fireworks display is the result of Israel, not Hamas, trying to drag Iran into the war.

[rusk]

> My take is that this was the intention behind the October 7th attack

I see very strong parallels between this and the Dublin 1916 rising. I don't believe the leaders of the Irish rebels could beat the British - it was seen as a "blood sacrifice" and a way to show the world the brutality of British colonial power. The Brits duly obliged and brutally put down the rising and set the wheels of an independent Ireland in motion.

I have to say though, that the 1916 rebels didn't go out of their way to kill civilians like Hamas clearly did on the 7th ...

[rbanffy]

> Hamas's messianic nutbag leader genuinely believed that he was ushering in the end of days

This is more or less why Israel has so much support between Evangelical Christians. A relatively large number of these people actually want the world to end because they really believe in the Rapture and that they’ll be saved.

[tptacek]

People overindex on this. Israel enjoys overwhelming support in both parties, and, for those unfamiliar with US politics, evangelicals belong overwhelmingly to just one of them.

[rbanffy]

In the US, not supporting Israel is political suicide.

That said, a lot of evangelicals do believe the world is about to end and are willing to pay to hasten the process.

[tptacek]

Telling a pollster you support Israel isn't political suicide, and Americans consistently do that. It's political suicide for a politician to oppose Israel, because Americans like Israel.

[rbanffy]

There’s an immense gap between supporting Israel and a two-state solution and supporting Netanyahu and those positions should be confused. I fully support the two-state solution, but I don’t support Netanyahu and his genocidal policies.

[YZF]

It has not been "technically" occupied. There's no such thing. Either a place is occupied, or it's not, and Gaza was not. What is true is that most in the international community refused to accept Israel's withdrawal from Gaza as the end of Israel's occupation. That's a political statement.

You're missing an important part about tens of thousands of rockets and mortars being fired from Gaza at Israel and terrorism originating from Gaza at Israel. Israel didn't just randomly attack Gaza.

Here's what really happened in Gaza: Israel completely withdrew in 2005 and was not occupying Gaza any more. It handed the entire Gaza strip to the Palestinian Authority. There was even an agreement for safe passage between Gaza and the West Bank: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_freedom_of_movemen...

Not to mention that even before 2005 Israel handed control of most of the Gaza strip to the PA as part of the Oslo accords (and agreement to hand Gaza and Jericho over to the Palestinians predates the Oslo accords).

In 2007 following Palestinian elections Hamas took control of the Gaza strip by force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007) Israel only imposed a full blockade of Gaza as a result of this change because Hamas' stated goal is/was the destruction of Israel. Despite Israel's blockade Gaza has a border with Egypt and had no shortage of goods (and weaponry) through smuggling and other means. There was also plenty of travel in and out of the Gaza strip (both towards Israel and the West Bank and towards Egypt) and there were plenty of good going into Gaza through Israel. Gazans also worked in Israel. Gaza also had a power station and a water desalination plant. It has billions of dollars of aid and investment flowing into it (Ismail Hanyah needs to be a billionaire after all).

So Israel was neither an oppressor nor an occupier in Gaza. It took actions to try and prevent Hamas from arming itself.

The other part wrong with your premise is that Palestinians want to live in peace with Israel within the 1967 borders. They do not. Maybe some of them do. But many do not. When the Oslo peace process was accelerating towards that goal Palestinians started a suicide bombing campaign against Israeli civilians which results in the killing of Rabin, the rise of the right, and the termination of the peace process.

EDIT:

Bombings by Hamas starting 1993: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_at...

Rabin's assassination 1995: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitzhak_Rabin

1993: Oslo accords https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords

2007: Blockade of Gaza: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip

2005: Disengagement from Gaza: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaz...

Rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_...

Gaza-Israel barrier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza%E2%80%93Israel_barrier

[throw310822]

> It has not been "technically" occupied. There's no such thing. Either a place is occupied, or it's not, and Gaza was not.

Gaza is considered an occupied territory by all international bodies with the power and authority to make such a determination, for excellent reasons that you can look up. End of the story. What you do (and Israel does, for propaganda purposes) is to confuse the civilian settlement with the military occupation, or to pretend that since soldiers are not inside Gaza but just all around its borders, Gaza is free. Which is like saying that a prison camp is free if the guards are all outside the fence.

[Hikikomori]

It's not technically occupied. Israel just controls their border with Gaza. And their coastline. And their airspace, also bombed their airport. Oh and the border to Egypt as nobody can visit Gaza without Israels approval. Israels continued denial of a Palestinian state and the basic rights of statehood, like the control of their own borders, is what makes it an occupation.

Netanyahu has supported Hamas long before 2005 as part of a divide and conquer strategy. The elections were pushed by Bush at a time when PA were seen as corrupt. When they lost Bush tried to get them to coup and Hamas took over and kicked them out as a reaction to that.

>In July 1995, Netanyahu led a mock funeral procession featuring a coffin and hangman's noose at an anti-Rabin rally where protesters chanted, "Death to Rabin"

Should tell is everything we need to know about the people in power now.

Maybe the Palestinians were not happy with the deal, them losing their land. Not to forget previous atrocities perpetrated by Jewish terrorists and the nakba.

[saintkaye]

Israel does not control the Egypt border and almost all of this is opinion through implication not fact. This type of post does not belong on this message board.

[ceejayoz]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah_Border_Crossing

> Under a 2007 agreement between Egypt and Israel, Egypt controls the crossing but imports through the Rafah crossing require Israeli approval.

[YZF]

This is Egypt's choice. Egypt has the control. If they choose to let Israel have a say it's their choice. Their making an agreement with Israel != Israel controls the border. Plenty of tunnels too but that's besides the point.

[ceejayoz]

> This is Egypt's choice.

Doubly untrue today; Israel took complete control of it on May 6.

[Hikikomori]

Are you even able to criticise Israel for anything?