To wonder how anyone thought what was happening in Gaza was ok?

[march10th]

I see all these threads popping up about outrage about what's going on, especially now the UN and the US have started acknowledging the situation.
AIBU to wonder how people didn't see this from the beginning??

It's been months and thousands of people have been wiped out. As an Arab with close family links to Palestine, I think this is ethnic cleansing, similar to what Western countries have done to the indigenous people of Australia and America.

Precisely pretty disappointing and worrying to think that someone thinks it's ok

It also depends on the context. Describing Hamas as animals seems reasonable to me. But sometimes people will claim that any description of Hamas is what the Israelis think about the Palestinian people.

Another example is when Netanyahu referred to the Amalekites, which is used as evidence of genocidal intent because Saul (I think?) ordered the killing of all the Amalekites in the Bible. But it was actually just a call to remember an Amalekite atrocity against the Israelites. I believe Jews have a duty to remember this. So he was just saying “remember Oct 7th”. Shows you how words are manipulated to suit an agenda.

It also depends on the context. Describing Hamas as animals seems reasonable to me. But sometimes people will claim that any description of Hamas is what the Israelis think about the Palestinian people

Do you think the sole survivor of an IDF attack on a residential block that kills his or hers entire extended family, including several children, is justified to call Israelis "animals" ?

Or does your argument only extend to one side?

I do think there is a significant number of Israelis who do not see any distinction between Hamas and non combatant Gazans, a minister recent said on the death of a Palestinian child, that the boy wasn't a child but a terrorist in waiting..

It also depends on the context. Describing Hamas as animals seems reasonable to me.

The context was given Netanyahu described the Palestinian people (not Hamas specifically) as animals after Oct 7th.

But sometimes people will claim that any description of Hamas is what the Israelis think about the Palestinian people.
But he said Palestinians not Hamas did he mispeak? And I like the way you are blaming people for picking it up wrong not the person that said it in the first place

Israel has dismissed from their roles BUT not from the military, 2 officers in charge of the missile attack on the World central kitchen attack... wow - that'll deter future "mistakes"

I think “animal” is dehumanising language. I can understand why someone - anyone, Israeli or Palestinian - whose family was killed would use it about the people who did it. I’m saying it isn’t evidence of genocidal intent. It is, actually, mundane. Political leaders should exercise greater responsibility in their language I agree.

Also some Israeli politicians have said “animals” but specifically about Hamas (but which has been twisted into them meaning all Palestinians). But describing Hamas as animals is fair enough. Actually, it is an insult to animals.

Ok so you're continuing to defend it.
I've made my point I don't agree with that language being used to describe any group of people I also wasn't talking about the victims of the terrorist attack (neither were you when you first referenced it). I have no issue with them using every word under the sun to describe the evil monsters that carried out that attack.

Also some Israeli politicians have said “animals” but specifically about Hamas (but which has been twisted into them meaning all Palestinians).

Once again blaming people for misinterpreting not the people saying it!

I’m not really defending it. Just pointing out there is a difference between the dehumanising language used against an enemy during war, and actual ideological hatred manifesting in a specific commitment to wipe out a group of people.

That is defending it's use! Again are Palestinians the enemy or Hamas? Because it was specifically said about Palestinians

And further more using that language about innocent civilians at a time of war is probably the most dangerous time to use it for those civilians because you are dehumanising them so making it easier to reconcile killing them

I’m really not. I’m making a specific point that should be understandable (I still have hope!)

Hope in what? My ability to understand your point?
I don't agree with your explanation doesn't mean I don't understand it

Ok. We’ve probably mined this particular seam. I think I’ve explained myself. People can always look at the thread if interested.

I think it's not necessarily helpful or accurate to see only two possibilities: deliberate genocide by Israel (which is unproven) vs @CaterhamReconstituted 's view of unfortunate but entirely unintended and unwanted civilian deaths (which is at odds with reality). Logic suggests that the IDF is, at least broadly, pursuing Hamas targets. But the key question is what level of civilian casualties they deem acceptable in order to reach those targets. The conduct of the war so far suggests that a high level of civilian casualties is tolerated, because the IDF places little value on Palestinian life. Whether or not their animating motive is to kill civilians, they know that the deaths are the inevitable result of their actions and they continue anyway. This is, essentially, intent (as distinct from motive). It also appears clear that there is a significant level of collective punishment, hence the deprivation of aid and essential supplies. In both cases, this is morally reprehensible and legally culpable and no civilised country should be supplying arms to Israel at this point.

I think you're absolutely right that it's a question of what level of civilian casualties Israel deem acceptable in order to reach legitimate targets and goals.

I thought it was interesting in the article on AI targeting someone posted the other day that the software allowed the users to configure how many civilian deaths were acceptable to take out an identified target - and that this number has changed at different times during the war.

I don't think the 'acceptable loss' number has to be zero. But most people would agree it has been too high for bombing, and much too high for aid supplies (it's obviously not a program in this case, but the same concept will apply in any strategic calculation).

In the end, it's a judgement call about where that number becomes unacceptable - given all the circumstances and considering the decision-making process - and that's what the ICJ will take years figuring out from a legal standpoint. Because it isn't obvious.

I disagree with you that countries should stop supplying arms to Israel. I'm sure others on here agree with you. (And some would think that even if Israel had achieved a miraculously low number of civilian casualties)

I don't mean being appalled at the atrocities Hamas have committed against Israel: most people have rightly condemned that regardless of how they see the rest of the war.

I mean I still don't understand why people whose main concern is Palestinians aren't really, really angry at Hamas for the consequences of their actions on Palestinians. Why they aren't pressuring our government to help remove them. Why don't the placards on the marches for Palestinians demand Hamas to stop the war and step down.

If Hamas surrendered - actually gave themselves up, as well as handing over the hostages - the war would stop. There was even a deal offered early in the war for the leaders to leave Gaza for other Arab countries with no repercussions. Which Hamas refused.

Hamas deliberately sacrifice Gazans for their own benefit all the time. Their entire strategy seems to be to increase the suffering of Gazans.I'm not even convinced it's for ideological reasons: the leaders - of Hamas and other factions - have become billionaires entirely by making Palestinians suffer.

With October 7th, they have pushed back the possibility of a 2SS by at least a generation. That's the future of a whole generation of Palestinians blighted - by Hamas.

I see people saying they don't like Hamas, and will be happy when they are gone. But no actual anger or push to get rid of them. Why?

I think it may be something to do with expectations. Israel is a recognised state, and has Western values, so people expect them to behave benevolently, since that is our expectation of our own states - and so they are really angry when Israel causes harm. But they have no expectations of Hamas so they somehow don't get angry even when they cause huge harm to the Palestinians.

People say things like 'they're terrorists, what do you expect' - but why on earth would that make you accept them more? Why wouldn't you be really angry at terrorists having so much power, and try to get rid of them?

It makes no logical sense!

Yes it is common for oppressive states to use dehumanising language against an group of people to justify committing acts of violence against them. We have seen it happen now and many times throughout history. It always seems to end very badly

People say things like 'they're terrorists, what do you expect' - but why on earth would that make you accept them more? Why wouldn't you be really angry at terrorists having so much power, and try to get rid of them?

has anyone accepted Hamas here? Marching in the west will make no difference to getting rid of Hamas. They cannot be pressured politically from here. It would be a complete waste of time. Also many people see that The Palestinians were oppressed before Hamas. They will continue to be oppressed if Hamas is weakened now. And another terrorist group will grow in it’s place unless Palestinian’s see a future where have their own state and are able to live good lives.

@statsfun I think it’s because terrorists are by definition terrorists. Their grievances overlap with the oppressed group they purport to represent. They act as disruptive agents to the status quo when a political vacuum has developed over a long period of time.

The demise of one terrorist group is just an opportunity for one of their rivals to fill the gap. In the six counties of Northern Ireland they had at least 6 republican terrorist groups.

The people of Gaza are literally starving and in no position to get rid of Hamas.

When long term militarisation of a territory is in place, there is a synergy of oppressive actions at play. For instance, a security checkpoint takes on a different flavour if it manned by a person in the uniform of an occupying army who has been born in another country who is standing on your ancestral lands and belongs to an army with a shoot to kill policy for stroppy teenagers. When they are disrespectful, it generates deep emotions in the most reasonable person.

In NI the police force was disbanded and demilitarisation happened. Internment without trial had already ended. The electoral situation had already been reformed. The micro aggressions of flags, parades, language, self identification were addressed.There are still terrorists but they do not have traction.

Now go back to Gaza and think how you would feel about 1%of your community being killed, twice that maimed, starvation , desecration of graves and places of worship, homes and hospitals razed to the ground and the IDF posting gleeful selfies. How would you feel? Do you think that a ground offensive in Raffah will really end the terrorist threat to Israel? Or do you think that the all young men who have experienced these traumas will just say “Welcome be the holy will of God”?

People say things like 'they're terrorists, what do you expect' - but why on earth would that make you accept them more? Why wouldn't you be really angry at terrorists having so much power, and try to get rid of them?

I think for me when I say "they're terrorists" it isn't because I'm not angry with them or accept them and that I don't think they have a responsibility in releasing the hostages and contributing to the end of the conflict but more that I recognise as a terrorist organisation they don't have a central command, they are not necessarily coordinated, they likely have splinter groups that will do the opposite to what the Hamas leaders may agree to in negotiations. I know in Northern Ireland when ceasefires were agreed over the years there was another group that would splinter off and would carry on regardless. It is extremely difficult and trying to defeat them and pin a ceasefire on trying to control that will mean the war goes on indefinitely. I think Israel needs to change their approach, if it's not too late, the only way to defeat Hamas and those aligned to their ideology is to give people a realistic alternative, build trust with the ordinary Palestinian that there is a better way than Hamas to secure a future for your children but that has never been Israel's way so the cycle will just continue.

It shouldn’t really matter when that sort of language is used it. Can why it is being used be understood on an intellectual level, I think yes. Can war be used as a justification for dehumanising another group, no I don’t think it excuses the consequences. The risk to innocent civilians when using dehumanising language during war is arguably much greater.

Thanks @Kindatired you explained it way better than me

There is no proper comparison between Hamas and republican terror groups in Northern Ireland. The IRA are terrorists, but they have a specific political goal: the unification of Ireland. This goal is an entirely reasonable one, even if you don’t agree with it. You can argue about whether we should have negotiated with them (I don’t think we should have) but it is the tactics of the IRA that are morally reprehensible, not their stated aims. They don’t hate English people as a race and they don’t want to see them exterminated. They are fundamentally rational actors.

Hamas and other jihadist groups, on the other hand, are not bound by earthly concerns. They genuinely believe it is a religious duty to murder Jews. So their stated aims (which they’ve been honest about) are morally reprehensible, as well as their methods. It is not about statehood. The Palestinians could have had a state many times by now. And if Hamas were really interested in that goal, the 7th October has made that less likely than ever.

Really excellent summary @Babyboomtastic !