Of course it's not against the Palestinians, per se.
It's a war against their continued presence on portions of Greater Israel that his party and his people would like to further colonize.
There's also the current operation involving his former "asset" and strategic partner, Hamas. With whom it seems he's had a falling out of sorts, and as a result, his people got massacred. But that's just a sideshow against the backdrop of this far broader, deeper, decades-long conflict.
Tell us about the West Bank, then. What is happening there right now and how it relates to Hamas?
I do think there's evidence, plenty of, that Israel is doing its best to expel the Palestinians.
I don't pretend to understand how it's to be a country surround by enemies, and there's a lot of history there that explain all of this. But the current facts - all the destruction in Gaza - can't be justified, ever.
You say that ICC has no investigative power. But ONU has people on the ground and has been denouncing Israel for months...
> The majority of Israeli would like to find some sort of win win solution where everyone can live in peace. The majority of Palestinians don't see any solution that includes Jewish people living in the region.
[citation needed] Because your equivalent on the other side would say it is exactly the other way around, and both of you would feel unarguably right. So unless you base your claim here on a neutral trusted source I would file that away as someone's gut feeling that may be part of a political bubble.
Your palestinian counterpart could point out the same, as far as I know more than three quarters of the palestinians alive today did not vote for Hamas, since they were kids when that vote took place in 2006. Your Palestinian counterpart could point to the fact that their people are unarguably more restricted than an Israeli citizen living in the same area or to the fact that their territories got smaller over the decades which is surprising given your statement about a lack of Isreali ambition to drive them away — did the Palestinians voluntarily gift that land away or how did that happen?
Now sure, in reality this conflict is much more complex, and the history of the Palestinian territories has to do with repression, terrorist responses, constant military intervention, settler ambition and so on. But if — in effect — you drive the other people out, even if "you don't want to", you are driving them out, period. And for that you just have to look at a timeline of the border over the history of the region, without bothering yourself about all complexity, which in this conflict is abused by both sides as an excuse.
Todays younger generations in the West perceive Israel as the stronger force (and it is) and as such feel that Isreal has a moral duty to de-escalate the conflict. Now that 80% of the Gaza strips population is displaced and this is the conflict with the most dead children than any other recent conflict¹, taking about not wanting to drive them away seams a tad bit cynical — one could infer from that they are not to be driven away, but to be erradicated.
In any way this will mark the sad point in history where the decline of support for Isreals ambitions in the West started and Isreal won't even see it coming, since their own perspective on the conflict is skewed by their own propaganda. A support Isreal both needs and given its early history also deserved. But taking it too far has consequences.
And as someone who grew up with 3 brothers: It is for the stronger one to stop the conflict and act with controlled force. And Isreal is the stronger one and right now it is beating the smaller brother into a bloody bulp in stupid rage as the rest of the world watches in absolute horror.
This is Corey, the guy who does this project where he asks random Israelis and Palestinians questions, being interviewed. I highly recommend his channel to anyone who wants a better understanding of the conflict. He's not taking sides and he asks difficult questions (coming from his viewers) about the conflict to both. If you pursue this you will certainly find out how much you do not know about this conflict.
To some of your other points since I'm revisiting:
- There are dead children because Gaza is extremely dense and half the population are children. That said the blank statement is not useful because the Palestinians counts are iffy, one example is that they include combatants who are under 18yo, and it deflects blame from Hamas from operating under the cover of children and not providing for their safety. This is not to say we should not feel sorry for dead children. Most critics of Israel are unable to offer an alternative way for Israel to defend its citizens given the specific circumstances. If Israel had a magic weapon that only killed Hamas militants I'm sure they'd use it. If you're asking Israel to send soldiers into an urban environment to ensure no uninvolved are killed instead of dropping a bomb on the enemy, I'd say, within reason, go with the bomb. That's what any military would do, what the US and its allies did against ISIS and in other places. That's how wars are fought. Nobody puts their own soldiers lives at risk to protect civilians the other side puts at risk by their actions.
- The argument that Palestinians didn't get to vote since 2006 is also pretty weak. One reason they didn't get to vote is that the PA didn't hold a vote because Hamas would win. Polls show broad support for Hamas amongst Palestinians. Either way, they are the government of Gaza whether they enjoy support or do not. When non-democratic countries go to war their citizens suffer consequences whether they got to elect their government or not. We should feel for the unfathomable numbers of young Russians that have died in Putin's crazy war on Ukraine. Does that mean that Ukraine should surrender because those Russians didn't vote for Putin in a free and democratic elections? No.
- Israel has to, under international law, ask civilians to evacuate and indeed facilitate their evacuation from combat areas. That's exactly what it did. Now the West attacks Israel for doing exactly that. I would say there's nothing Israel can do that's right. If you can suggest a reasonable path for Israel to protect its citizens from Hamas and earn the support of the critics I'm all ears.
- I'd love for there to be a way for Israel to de-escalate the conflict. I lived in Israel during the suicide attack campaign that Hamas waged on Israel as Israel was trying to make peace with the Palestinians and get to a two state solution (circa 2000). The failure of that process and the failure of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza proves there is no partner for any sort of de-escalation. Again, go check out some of those videos. The escalation came from the Palestinians (and Iran) and Israel has no practical way to de-escalate.
I also grew up in Israel at a time where Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza had complete freedom of movement in and out of Israel. Israelis shopped in the west bank and Gaza. Palestinians worked in Israel. There were essentially zero settlements and zero settlers. The PLO (backed by the surrounding Arab countries) murdered Israeli civilians left right and center. Not because of the settlements, not because of road blocks, not because of settlers attacking Palestinians. Just because Israel exists. The Palestine they want to liberate is and has been all of Israel. This is not about the individual freedoms of the individual Palestinian and how Israel "oppresses" them. A by the way is that when Israel took Gaza from Egypt in the 6-day war many Gazans were extremely happy to not be under Egyptian rule. The Egyptian and Jordanians, prior to 1967, didn't consider for a microsecond giving the Palestinians their own country over those areas that they controlled. But both are happy to ask Israel to do that now.
It's not serious to suggest that Israel did not supply any food or water to the Palestinians when in fact it supplied plenty. Why didn't Egypt supply food and water to the Palestinians? (Before Israel took the border corridor).
What other war can you provide me as an example where a the opposing side provided supplies to its enemy? Does Russia supply Ukraine with food and water? Does Ukraine supply Russia? Did the allies supply the citizens of the Islamic State with food and water? Yes- The Gazans depended on Israel in many ways before they started this war, most of them by their own choice. Did the Germans deliver food and water to the UK during WW-II? Do the Turkish give the Kurds food and water as they bomb them? If the government of Gaza, Hamas, has stocks of food and water, and it does not disburse those to the population, and even steals aid from the population, why is this Israel's problem?
Those organizations you're referring to are anti-Israeli and their statements are political.
The US, who has closer knowledge of what's going on on the ground, says Israel has not committed war crimes.
Part of the political circus here is around the definition of occupation. The ICC essentially claims that Gaza has always been and is currently occupied. The ground truth is that Gaza stopped being occupied when Israel withdrew in 2005 and that Israel at this time is not actually occupying most of Gaza. It is occupying portions of it and blockading other parts.
The argument is more or less around: "In international law, occupation is when a foreign power gains effective control over a territory during an armed conflict, even without armed resistance. The territory under control is called occupied territory, and the foreign power is called the occupant." and whether Israel is in effective control of all of Gaza or not. I think a reasonable person who sees the actual reality would conclude that Israel does not have effective control over the entirety of the Gaza strip. Therefore Israel does not bear the responsibility of the occupying power according to international law. The claims that Israel does occupy Gaza are political in nature, not factual.
> I think a reasonable person who sees the actual reality would conclude that Israel does not have effective control over the entirety of the Gaza strip.
This is not a precondition to being an occupying force and by arguing this way you really do not show good faith, but rather a desire to cloud the discourse with a discussion about definitions.
Don't worry, you could show the world just how unoccupied Gaza is by traveling there without interacting with either the Isreali side or some other Western military. But that is not going to happen for some reason. And that reason is that Isreal is occupying the territory and you can't go there (or leave from there) without interacting with them.
Part of the political circus here is around the definition of occupation.
Not just the ICC but the UN as a whole, and the EU consider Gaza to be occupied due to the fact that it controls air and maritime space, along with all 7 border crossings, along with its oft-exercised ability to enter the strip forcibly at will, which take precedence over the 2005 withdrawal of permanent internal forces.
To the extent that there's a "circus", it's in the minds of those who prefer to allow themselves to be soothed and distracted by the government's narrative of the situation.
> "In international law, occupation is when a foreign power gains effective control over a territory during an armed conflict, even without armed resistance. The territory under control is called occupied territory, and the foreign power is called the occupant."
Where did you get that definition? The source your parent gave you has a completely different definition (which cites the original Hague Convention of 1907 [Part IV article 42]):
> Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised
Wikipedia has a similar definition:
> temporary hostile control exerted by a ruling power's military apparatus over a sovereign territory that is outside of the legal boundaries of that ruling power's own sovereign territory
Nowhere in current international law does occupation require an active armed conflict. And your definition even contradicts it self when it states “even without armed resistance”. How can it be during an armed conflict when there is not armed resistance?
I suspect this definition has been Frankensteined from the original Hague Conference of 1907 which defines occupation (as cited above) and later additions from the Fourth Geneva convention of 1949 (Article 2):
> The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Then your definition sort of sandwiched an additional requirement of “during and armed conflict” seemingly from thin air. I can’t find this requirement in any treaties of intentional law.
I don't believe international law effectively solves the problems it is intended to solve, but if we are discussing whether a country was acting the right or wrong way how do you suggest we judge that?
Right of the strongest? Follow the opinion of the warlord of the day? Follow our gut? Be so kind and bless us with your maxime that should guide the day in your opinion.
Sure many people are blindingly naive about the geopolitical realities involved, but that does mean only thinking about what is is sufficent. If we want to improve things there needs to be some ruler to measure the conduct of nations.
It's not serious to suggest that Israel did not supply any food or water to the Palestinians when in fact it supplied plenty.
After sufficient arm-twisting from the Biden administration, it did.
But until that point - it withheld. And quite intentionally and forthrightly so:
“I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed,” Gallant says following an assessment at the IDF Southern Command in Beersheba.
“We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly,” he adds.
I don't think so. A siege is not prohibited under international law. The Palestinians at that point had plenty of water and food. The bar, to me, would be at the point where they're actually starving, i.e. they have used up the entirety of the stuff they stocked up, including Hamas' stocks in the tunnels, and were starving/had nothing to drink, and Israel at that point refused to let any provisions through. This is actually starving the population. You can lay a temporary siege that's well below that bar.
Again, a siege is not prohibited under international law. The civilian population being to leave would be one example. Allowing humanitarian relief would be another. Along the lines of what I said above, the question of humanitarian relief only arises later into the siege when there is actually a humanitarian problem. And Israel reversed course on some decisions and allowed aid even before that. Gallant did not say Israel would prevent Gazan civilians from leaving to Egypt (e.g.).
This was said at the heat of the moment. I do realize it's hard for random people on the Internet to understand the shock Israel was under at that time. It's also fair to expect the minister of defense to moderate what they say. It's also still very much a cherry pick reduced to a propaganda line item.
Lo and behold -- unfortunately not quite all, but certainly a lot of the provocative / uncompromising language he Palestinian side is, in essence, coming from a place of anger or other distressful emotional states as well.
Why would every major humanitarian organization be anti-Israel? It doesn't make any sense.
Besides, it's a straw man to say the claim is that no food or water is being supplied.
The accusation is not that no supplies are provided. The accusation is that Israel obstructs supplies.
> The US, who has closer knowledge of what's going on on the ground, says Israel has not committed war crimes.
There are many actors with knowledge of what happens on the ground. Taking Israels closest ally to be the final judge of this claim is ridiculous.
