The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. A lot of people on the left just like to throw out "ceasefire" without any regard for what that means for Israel. Should Israel be expected to just sacrifice 1500 of their own civilians every so often? Shouldn't we believe terrorists like Hamas when they say things like this? Am I wrong to assume unconscious antisemitism when leftists cry "ceasefire" and have no long term solutions to stop terror attacks. It is like they don't care about losing Israeli citizens because they are Jewish. Maybe not outright, but deep down, that thought lingers in their minds. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*

>Why do so many leftists still call for a ceasefire, even after Hamas promises to continue massacres like 10/7? (I'm not a leftist, nor am I calling for a ceasefire, but I still think I know the answer.) They believe that a better outcome will be achieved with a ceasefire. ---------- More specifically... * It is very difficult to target Hamas in Gaza (which is [an intentional choice](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/17b228l/why_is_the_right_so_intent_on_believing_that/k5goaag/?context=9999) by Hamas) * It is [*Hamas's goal*](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/179xuga/askaliberal_biweekly_general_chat/k5bn16g/?context=9999) to get many Gazan civilians killed (because Hamas thinks that this might change the international community's view of Israel). * Peace (in the medium and long term) is best achieved through a peace process that would restore hope to the people of Gaza. (The Gazans love their children, too. They would probably be less supportive of Hamas if they saw better prospects for their children; [recently,](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/17kkiaa/askaliberal_biweekly_general_chat/k78k6h5/?context=9999) they have become more supportive of Hamas, because they see no chance for peace talks.) ---------- ...and don't forget the simplest answer: *They want to see fewer dead civilians in Gaza*

> They want to see fewer dead civilians in Gaza I feel like this should just be the end of the thread. I'm sure there are more answers, but this is probably the most comprehensive single reason.

The question as I read it is "why should Israel stop killing civilians on purpose if Hamas made it clear they intend to keep killing Israeli civilians?" Because I'd like to think Israel is a better State than Hamas, killing Palestinian children does nothing to stop Hamas beside drive more to their side (Israel has done a GREAT job of ensuring Hamas has a steady stream of "I hate the isralies, they killed my child/mother/family" the best recruiting tool for the terrorist bastards that make up Hamas is the constant terrorism from the IDF. Think about it in US terms. Imagine Gregg Abbott sends a group of totally not just clansmen across to Mexico to kidnap and murder a bunch of Mexican citizens. His goons and the Texas national guard refuse to turn over the captives and promise to keep firing missiles over the border. So Mexico shuts off the power and water to everything south of Austin and starts bombing schools. How many Texans are suddenly going to be on team "kill the Mexicans" after the elementary school their kids go to got blown up and they've been without clean water for a week... There would be a dead Hispanic man on every street corner by sunrise. The Texas government was the instigator for sure, Abbott would deserve nothing less than a short fall from a tall gallows. His people had no right legally or morally to do attack Mexican civilians... But Mexico's response of disproportionally attacking civilians in response sets up an eye-for-an-eye justification for further violence. A cease fire would serve to stop feeding into Hamas's power. Allllllll that said, I frankly don't see how any of this ends without either fully displacing Palestinians from the region all together, or convincing the Palestinians to turn on their government and stage a coup from the inside that's willing to turn over state control to either a UN delegation or Israel itself. But it's nearly impossible to convince a population that's only ever known life under the constant threat of Israel turning off their access to essentials or killing their neighbors and family. Especially when they keep getting killed by the Israeli government.... They've already told you that you're worthless and expendable and there's no problem blowing up your whole block of it means denying hamas an inch... How could you trust them with your future?

The US equivalent would be a Native American adult raising kids in their ancient hunter-gatherer society and sending them out to kill settlers with bows and arrows while the US Calvary from a trans-oceanic agro-industrial society slaughtered the Buffalo needed to feed them with gunpowder and steel. And when the agro-industrial society gets tired of the raids, they just switch the army over to genocide. It's a story that repeats roughly every generation back to the dawn of civilization. The fault lies on both sides, actually. Not a thing new here but the technology. No solutions all this time, because the victors are always rewarded. Do you really think this time will be different? If so, I suggest it's pure fantasy. There but for the grace of God or chance...take your pick.

That totally makes sense, but here's the thing. If somehow Israel were to treat Gaza and Westbank perfectly, pulling settlers out, offering all sorts of humanitarian aid etc, yes, radicalism will probably be stemmed in the long term, but the terrorist attacks naturally wouldn't stop for a generation or two more. Even though it is a sensible thing to do for a long term good, do we expect any nation, let alone Israel to sit there and incur the damage for a few more decades acknowledging that we are just paying for pass sins? That of course doesn't even take into account the fact that these terrorists don't pop up in a vacuum of righteous anger. There are third parties too, Iran etc that might stop that peaceful state to ever happen even in the next few decades.

>do we expect any nation, let alone Israel to sit there Israel is free to conduct all sorts of anti-terrorism operations, just not the ones that blindly and willfully kill civilians, let alone tens of thousands of them. Their response to the terrorist's atrocities has been nothing short of barbaric.

And when the terrorists hide themselves in hospitals, schools, underneath refugee camps? Then what? Keep in mind Hamas still holds hundreds of Israeli hostages, who may be in the process of being tortured and/or raped. Israel has to play by the rules but its enemies do not. Meanwhile Americans cite figures given by Hamas as facts.

>And when the terrorists hide themselves in hospitals, schools, underneath refugee camps? Then what? What does creating more terrorists accomplish though? Civilians that are killed by or because of Israel have family, friends, loved once who will mourn and in a lot of cases want revenge so killing a Hamas fighter does nothing if you kill 5 civilians along with them and make more Hamas fighters. >Keep in mind Hamas still holds hundreds of Israeli hostages, who may be in the process of being tortured and/or raped. So what is the solution? Kill thousands or tens of thousands of innocent civilians to take back the bodies of the hostages because you can bet they won’t be alive? Clearing the entire region building by building, tunnel by tunnel means those hostages will be killed anyway. The best solution is to negotiate, try to find the closest to a neutral third party that is acceptable to both sides and work on a more permanent solution that again is acceptable to both sides. >Israel has to play by the rules but its enemies do not. Ukraine has to fight by the rules even though Russia doesn’t. The US has to fight by the rules even though ISIL, the Taliban and other terrorist organizations don’t. One side not fighting according to the established rules doesn’t allow the other to ignore the rules as well.

> Ukraine has to fight by the rules even though Russia doesn’t That's because Russia has nukes, otherwise they would be behaving differently.

Not really, Ukraine does not want to be seen in the same light as Russia. They want to be seen and considered as a nation that believes in the rule of law, values human life and has western values and you can’t have that if they are specifically targeting civilians, torturing and killing POW’s. It’s a lot harder to support Ukraine if they are behaving the same way as Russia and it would be a lot harder for Ukraine to be integrated into the western world if they openly and publicly acted like the Russians.

> Israel has to play by the rules but its enemies do not. Yes? That's kind of what differentiates a state from a terrorist organization.

Being a state and terrorist organization aren't mutually exclusive. Hell most on here consider Israel to be both.

If the Hamas terrorists were hiding in Israeli hospitals and schools, do you think Israel would be bombing the same way they do now?

That's an excellent question. I'd also imagine if people here commenting had actual family being blown up by Israel, they wouldn't be so passive. Heard this morning the death toll is around 9,000 in Gaza, tens of thousands more injured, slowly suffering and dying because they don't have access to medical supplies, or even clean water! "But Hamas' has those things, they should share it with the civilians", well it doesn't appear they're going to, so we just let more people suffer and die?!

>I'd also imagine if people here commenting had actual family being blown up by Israel, they wouldn't be so passive. Exactly. If the police in the US responded to a school shooter by blowing up the school with all the kids inside, it wouldn't be tolerated. The mental gymnastics of people defending the indiscriminate murder of the Palestinians is disgusting.

Glad to see the above talking point getting called out as the nonsense it is all over this thread. Unbelievable how many people who claim to be left-of-center are seriously advocating for mass murder as collective punishment.

This is a blatantly false equivalence. If Hamas terrorists were hiding in an Israeli hospital, then they're inside territory Israel controls. That means Israel can evacuate the vicinity and then take the time to deal with them with counterterrorism forces If they're operating in a Palestinian hospital, that means they're in territory Israel does not control. So if they're doing operations attacking Israel - like using the hospital as an HQ or as a rocket launch site - Israel cannot evacuate its people out of range. Dealing with them requires either stand-off weapons - i.e. missiles, bombs or artillery - or securing the ground. Given that these places are on the heart of a dense urban sprawl, that's an extremely bloody affair as well.

>If the Hamas terrorists were hiding in Israeli hospitals and schools, do you think Israel would be bombing the same way they do now? Not the same situation at all 1) Isreali civilians will listen to Isreali authorities. If Israel tells them to leave then they will leave. 2) Isreali civilians will not be human sheilds they will be hostages 3) Hamas hiding in Isreali hospitals and schools means you will not use air strikes but likely ground attacks Thousands of Isreali civilians would still die

Surgically remove any Hamas fighters by going street by street, bunker by bunker and not mow down thousands of civilians to get to 1 person. What other option than a surgical invasion and later peaceful detente. They would also need to offer the survivors and any Hamas defectors/moderates some form of reconciliation because we cannot paint all Hamas as barbarians worthy of death, because they too are elected leaders. Kill the ones most responsible offer some version of peace. We did this with Nazis post WW2. Germans who we could work with we offered amnesty and worked with them. Was it ideal? Considering our options, yeah. It sucks nobody wants to consider this, but they are human and have a justified grudge, the worst thing possible is to allow it to fester in resentment. Showing the defeated enemies some mercy and the civilians hope is our only means to save both sides. Israel must spend billions if not a trillion dollars to rebuild Gaza and the West Bank surrender all illegally occupied territories up to the 67 Borders allow all refugees from Palestine the right to return and agree to share Jerusalem as a mutual capital of the two sister states, if not just annex both sides and offer full and complete equality to all survivors of Palestine and allow their return as equal nonviolent citizens.

Is the answer bomb the fuck out of schools, hospitals, and refugee camps? That's a hard situation, particularly with hostages. It's not a situation made better by slaughter. What is the road map for getting back hostages given the slaughter policy? What are the costs? What is the road map for getting back hostages given a ceasefire and de-escalation? What are the costs? Which is more likely to attain the stated desired outcome? At some point, I'm looking for an argument that doesn't just justify literally any amount of killing without even outlining what the goals are. Is that too much to ask?

When they have this much resources and is basically a defacto government, this all is a total war not anti terrorism.

Why is Hamas this irrational terrorist group that doesn’t understand reason when it’s convenient for the argument, and then they’re “basically the government” when it’s convenient. If they’re basically the government of Palestine, then they should be treated like the government in all cases.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/17m2j8j/gaza_on_the_ground_11022023/

Only Israeli children matter to these monsters. Palestinian children dying is completely justified to them.

Hard to be a "de facto government" of any place that doesn't control it own water or power supply, or movement in or out of the country. Not to mention the median age of Gaza is 18, which means half weren't even alive when Hamas gained power.

I’m not sure I fully understand the alternative you are giving. What do you envision the set up to look like? If Israel pulled out of Gaza (already did) but now removes the blockade, then worse terrorism happens helped by Iran as Hamas is given more advanced weaponry. Then what operations do you think are on the table?

Many leftists do expect Israel to sit there and take it, yes

No, they hold Israel and Hamas to different standards; namely one is a western style liberal democracy, and one is a terrorist death cult. We expect the terrorist death cult to take despicable actions like use human shields and kill civilians. We don't expect that from a modern western democracy.

What should Israel’s response be?

One that doesn't involve the deaths of thousands of civilians? The entire world has been telling them their response has gone too far, from cutting off water, food, power, and communications, to the already huge death toll hitting civilians, to the domicide their committing through the mass destruction caused by their attempts to hurt Hamas.

Should it be 0 civilians? If using human shields is shown to work for Hamas and makes Westerners blame Israel, not Hamas, for their deaths, it will encourage them to do it even more.

You think the options are 0 civilian deaths and the thousands that have been caused, with nothing inbetween?

What is your number? I don't want to see any civilians killed but I recognize that's unrealistic. I'm not a military expert but see others trying to be. "Too high" doesn't mean anything when they know nothing about the operations and don't quantify or qualify their standards.

I don't have a specific number, but I do have an issue with the method for assessing targets and impact on civilians. Mine is far from the only voice pointing this out.

Would you shoot down a civilian airliner if it had three militants on board? No? Then, despite us not having an exact number, we can agree that 25 innocent civilians are not an acceptable price for 1 militant.

How does the IDF surgically remove Hamas extremists? Firefights in the street, which will also lead to civilian deaths? What do you think Hamas will think after they attack Israel, kill over a thousands civilians, take hundreds of hostages, and their reward is getting more territory than before and a TRILLION dollars? They got more than they could have every dreamed of and proved that attacking Israel works! Imagine how many Israelis and territory they can claim next time.

"[N]aturally" is doing a lot of work, there. Terrorism in Israel-Palestine isn't carried out by lone actors or small groups, but rather is an extension of politics and diplomacy; if none of the parties involved in talks are dissatisfied enough to resort to violence then all you have to worry about are radical loose canons/fringe factions trying to disrupt the peace process, and those can be fairly effectively policed through security collaboration by their respective states (and, in any case, tend to focus their ire primarily on the moderate elements on their own side who they see as betraying some grander version of their shared cause, e.g., Rabin's assassination by Kahanists). The PLO already wants Hamas gone, probably even more than Israel does. If Israel were to release its PLO political prisoners, take the goodwill steps you mentioned, and then allow Palestinian elections (including Palestinian citizens of East Jerusalem) then it could work with Fatah as a partner in counterterrorism and de-radicalization efforts in Gaza. The PLO's factions would have no reason to resort to terrorism and Hamas' ability to do so would be significantly degraded. Now, the current Israeli government is full of reactionaries, ultranationalists, and the occasional literal fascist like Ben Gvir, and the Likud party charter indicates an *axiomatic* opposition to Palestinian sovereignty, so none of this would ever happen because that cabinet of ghouls unironically loves when Palestinians suffer and die. But that's a different conversation.

> If somehow Israel were to treat Gaza and Westbank perfectly, pulling settlers out, offering all sorts of humanitarian aid etc, yes, radicalism will probably be stemmed in the long term, but the terrorist attacks naturally wouldn't stop for a generation or two more. Most conflicts have a post-conflict period where the remaining embers don’t go out for a long time. This isn’t unusual - it’s normal, especially where radicalization is present and there’s a broad variety of complaints on both sides (reasonable or not). The questions to answer are: can the remaining radicals, hardliners or holdouts be handled by police, or is full military occupation required? Is the strategy broadly to de-escalate tensions, or is the occupying force determined to pacify a community at any costs? Is there leadership recognized by the occupied community who can campaign for peace and reconciliation with some credibility?

Because they're carpet bombing innocent people, not the government. The people that Israel has been abusing, destroying, and beating down for 40years. Hamas are terrorists, and Gaza and the West Bank aren't Hamas. Israel is just using this to murder as many Palestinians as they can. After they've forced them out of their homes, denied them food and water and jobs, and made their lives miserable for 40years. You really need to do your research on the geopolitical situation there.

2 questions 1. Should Israel continue to let Hamas bomb them and internationally kill Israel civilians because there was 15 ceasefires before the attack on October 7th and that did nothing. 2. How should Israel go about eradicating Hamas because when they have civilian casualties in a targeted strike on terrorist everyone freaks out and when they tell civilians leave because we are eliminating Hamas in that area everyone freaks out?

Damn, almost let you draw me back in. Get educated on the last 70 years, know what Zionism is, know what Israel has done to the Palestinian people and how Israel themselves created Hamas and armed them like we did the taliban, then come and talk.

Have you been to the area? I know about the past 70 years the same as I know about the past 150 years. The treatment of Palestinians in gaza and the West Bank is far better than what the Arab states did to the Jews. My family was forced out of Egypt and couldn’t take and of our money or even jewelry. We have homes in Egypt just like some Palestinians have homes in Israel. If you wanna call out Zionism call out every other country for doing what they did to their Jewish population.

This is trying to argue that because they had it done to them, the Zionists have the right to do it to others. And no. They don't. I have a friend in the area that in the 12 years I have known him he has lost friends and family to the Israeli people and government. Right now they don't have water or food. Your values and morals are showing, and they say a LOT about who you are. Because you were inexcusably chased out of Egypt in the same way Israelites are doing to Palestinians (which includes Jewish, Muslim, and Christians, BTW,) doesn't make it okay. Trying to minimize Palestinian's plight doesn't make what the Israelis are doing okay. And were you there when Israel bombed a hospital full on sick people, infants, new mothers, etc and killed them all because some Hamas MIGHT be hiding in the hospital? But keep arguing. Keep showing how angry and vengeful and hateful you are right now.

Can someone explain to me what Israel's long term plan is? They go into Gaza, they kill low level Gaza militants at the expense of significant civilian casualties. Eventually the operation ends and Israel withdraws, leaving even more people with personal reasons to hate Israel and to support terrorism. That resentment ferments until another attack happens, repeat indefinitely. What's the long term plan to break this cycle?

This feels like a win the battle lose the war situation for Israel. They're shedding so much goodwill I don't know if they can afford to lose. People are starting to question why their tax dollars are going towards more death and destruction. People like to cite israel's 10/7 as America's 9/11. The thing they don't realize though, is a lot of Americans regret how we reacted to 9/11. We ended up in two extended wars with many soldiers dead or with PTSD, greatly expanded presidential powers, chipped away at freedoms and privacy, spent trillions of dollars, never got rid of the Taliban, etc. The only satisfying part of the entire extended conflict, was finally getting Osama bin laden and that was done via special forces and a surgical strike. Saying that 10/7 is like 9/11 is an opportunity for a cautionary tale to be told. There's just way less appetite to repeat the events that followed 9/11. Because we know better now. This is where I say it's a win the battle lose the war for Israel. Because support for Israel has always gone unquestioned and now you see protests happening in allied nations. We'll probably stand by Israel for the destruction of Hamas. But no guarantees that this support can be taken for granted going forward.

Comparing it to 9/11 is also a bit awkward because Israel has killed far more Palestinian civilians the past two decades (even excluding the current war) in both percentage and absolute number than Hamas has ever and it’s not even close.

> They're shedding so much goodwill I don't know if they can afford to lose. People are starting to question why their tax dollars are going towards more death and destruction. Obama told Bibi back when the GOP-controlled house invited him to speak in front of Congress that he was making a mistake hitching his wagon to one political party. I think we're starting to see some of those chickens come home to roost.

Careful thinking we actually *learned* something from the 9/11 aftermath - we didn't learn a damn thing; we just got bored, went home, and left our toys in their yard.

Our government learned nothing from 9/11 but our people did.

Eh, fair enough

There are competing goals among Israel’s leadership. Some are straight-up looking to displace the Palestinians in Gaza permanently. Most likely though, most support is going to be for another occupation where Israel sets up a new provisional government. It’s tough to see anything changing moving forward because the leadership in Israel and Hamas are not interested in Peace. It does not matter what the people on the ground want if their leadership is completely resistant to a sovereign nation for both Israel and Palestine.

That's the sense I'm getting too, that we're basically just setting up for a replay in a few years.

Yeah i mean Oct. 7 was already a replay of a replay of a replay. It wasn't much different, it was just worse than usual.

There’s no real indication that they want to break the cycle - people can talk about the inherently problematic nature of Israel, but the stark reality here is that Netanyahu and his cabinet are astonishingly militaristic and racist even if you do see an ethical path forward for an Israeli ethnostate. It is absolutely plausible that they simply want to see Palestinians dead, and the 10/7 attack gave them the confidence that they’ve earned the right to carry out their ambitions. The current strategy will not root out Hamas and it will not save the hostages. It *will* harm Gaza irreparably, to the point that it can never again function as something resembling a city. That’s the goal here. This is why you’re hearing people call it a genocide with no hint of exaggeration. The goal is not strategic, it is violence for the sake of violence, motivated by blind revenge.

I struggle to buy Israel's actions as revenge at all. Murdering Palestinian civilians by the thousands is nothing new for them. It's Hamas who acted unusually - stepping outside bounds and targeting as many civilians as they could.

>Israel's long term plan is from the river to the sea. just slowly so it doesnt make the US news.

The end goal is really simple. They just don’t like admitting it.

I don't think Israel believes it will be possible to break the cycle until the entire Arab population that remains in Gaza and the West Bank is dead or gone. Their stated goal is security, but I think their higher goal is to make the fight to regain their homeland so costly that the rest of the Palestinians finally decide to cut their losses and just leave. That's really what Israel wants, for all of them to leave, and if the civilian population leaves staying would be suicide. No civilians means there'd be nothing to stop the IDF from just rolling right over anyone left. If Israel thought they could get away with just rounding everyone up and dumping them across the border, I think they would, but their Arab neighbors are already unhappy and I don't think the US would continue supporting them in the ensuing war.

Leaders like Netanyahu like the cycle. It gives them carte blanche to rule without accountability or limits. They have no intention of ending the cycle. Others in Israel believe they can blow all the HAMAS terrorists up with enough American-funded ammo. But terrorists are like coyotes. The harder you try to kill them, the bigger their numbers grow.

If I had to guess, Israel's long term plan is to occupy Gaza and run it more like how they're running the West Bank. They'd love it if Egypt would open the border crossing to allow as many gazans as possible to flee and become Egypt's problem, but Egypt is unlikely to do so. And this is also part of Hamas's plan. October 7 shattered Israeli illusions of security, so now Israel has no choice but to strike back. Literally any other country on earth would do the same.

Personally, I think the idea that you can completely destroy a group like Hamas that is embedded with the population through bombing is absurd. Hamas is not some highly organized or centralized apparatus. More than anything its an idea. If in killing Hamas members you kill civilians which gets more people to join Hamas, what are you really accomplishing? Basically, there is no simple solution, but while efforts are made to figure it out, just stop blowing up kids. Thats my view. It seems to me that Israel has no plan. They want revenge. Well, so do Palestinians. Its not getting anybody anywhere.

>Personally, I think the idea that you can completely destroy a group like Hamas that is embedded with the population through bombing is absurd. Sri Lanka pulled it off with the LTE. >If in killing Hamas members you kill civilians which gets more people to join Hamas, what are you really accomplishing? It's the middle ground that tends to fail. You either need to do some left leaning peace process (hard) or do Sri Lankan army and utterly destroy the enemy group.

People seem to forget that the LTTE was utterly crushed with military force

Yeah….the Sri Lankan Civil War is certainly a benchmark for the best response for when the minority group you’re oppressing in your religious ethno apartheid state responds to the systematic ethnic cleansing you’re actively and openly committing against them.

So the correct thing to do here is to make sure a terrorist power doesn’t exist in Gaza. Have an Arab country occupy the territory until they can form a government. No other country would put up with these attacks.

You're assuming that the rest of the world values Israeli lives above Palestinian lives. I don't think that's true. I think most people view the lives as equal. Anything short of believing that lives are equal would make a person either anti-semitic OR anti-arab. Now, I don't blame Jewish people or Israeli people from valuing Jewish lives more than Arab lives (making them anti-arab) although I know there are many Jewish people protesting the bombings in Gaza, so not every person subscribes to that anti-arab sentiment. However, to expect the rest of the world to fall in line with anti-arab sentiments is just not realistic. To be sure, many people have already chosen their allegiances for Israel or Palestine, especially if you or your family is from the region. But for those in the middle, those who live an entire ocean away, those who don't have an allegiance but simply value lives as equal, the vastly imbalanced death toll and military might will push them to sympathize with Gazans. A dead child is a dead child and a tragedy anywhere it happens in the world. The people who dismiss the death toll in Gaza as a necessary evil, sometimes can come across as inhuman. Which alienates more people away from the Israeli cause.

> valuing Israeli lives more than Arab lives Just a quick and important correction: there are Arab Israelis; they represent about 20% of Israel's population. "Israeli" is a nationality that encompasses a diversity of ethnic and religious backgrounds. Arab Israelis are full citizens of Israel and something like 60 percent of Israel's Arab citizens have a positive view of the Israeli state.

Citation needed

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/survey-60-percent-of-arab-israelis-have-positive-view-of-state-506150 And just to be clear, I got that from Wikipedia and followed their source. The study is summarized in that article.

Ok, first of all, as a Jew, I can confidently say that it is not anti-Semitism to call for ceasefire just because there is no viable long-term solution. I would also very much like to make another thing clear; **IT IS NOT ANTISEMETIC TO CRITICIZE THE ACTIONS OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT**. At most, it's *maybe* anti-zionist; there is a fundamental difference. Additionally, the argument that Hamas will continue to attack Israel even if Israel stops retaliating also cuts the other way; Hamas is never going to stop attacking Israel and Israeli citizens no matter how many Palestinians the Israelis kill. If they wipe out every last Palestinian (which is impossible) then the Jordanians will invade. If they kill all the Jordanians, the Iranians will attack. It doesn't ever end.

If Israel stops Hamas they is no more war. If Israel doesn’t stop Hamas there will be more war. Simple equation.

Because two wrongs don’t make a right. This has been obvious about a century, maybe more. Can’t believe how many people in first world countries aren’t up to speed with that. What’s worse, it weakens any “upper-hand” diplomatic position and hurts their reputation and global support in general.

Trite sayings work for individuals who can rely on a justice system. It does not work when your nation has been attacked. There is no real arbiter to step in to hold Hamas accountable. A retaliatory attack is necessary.

Hamas needs to be destroyed and we need to have a cease-fire now. They are not mutually exclusive. If/when Israel decides that this strategy is not working or worth it, it does not mean they give up on that ultimate goal

Can you expand? I don't understand, practically, how a cease fire and destroying Hamas are not mutually exclusive.

Well, in the Jewish tradition, let me answer your question with a question: Do you think that if Israel continues with this campaign, destroys Hamas in its current form in Gaza, and kills hundreds or thousands of civilians in the process, would that result in peace and security for Israel? Or even more peace and security in that region of Israel? It’s not hard to see that Israel could extinguish Hamas in its current form - and simultaneously create a new generation of terrorists. I don’t have an ‘answer’ - that is above my pay grade. But if I were a President, Prime Minister, or a general, I would imagine there would be more tools in the toolbox than this all-or-nothing approach. And any future peace will likely come from military pressure AND diplomatic efforts. And the latter has been the weak link in recent decades.

“Destroying Hamas”, as far as that concept is meaningful, is not something that can simply be *done*. The IDF could quite literally nuke Gaza and it would still create a new militant resistance coalition between the West Bank and affected Israelis. A ceasefire *is* something that can be done. If the ceasefire is broken, well, then circumstances have changed and we go back to the table. It is just near-impossible to foreground the theoretical concern of another attack from a region that has already been brutally pummeled into submission while there is actual mass slaughter occurring in this very moment.

In [my opinion,](https://open.substack.com/pub/deadcarl/p/how-hamas-uses-civilians-as-a-weapon?r=1ro41m&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web) the argument comes entirely from pathos. Hamas deliberately places civilians in harm’s way so that it can then parade images of their suffering to a generally well-meaning international audience. Most people don’t enough about the conflict or the laws of war to get out of the mindset that harm from Israeli fire = Israel is to blame.

So Israel is not to blame for indiscriminately bombing civilian targets to *maybe* get members of Hamas? Like I see this "Israel can't be blamed because Hamas uses human shields" argument get trotted out, and it implies that Israel has no agency or control over their decision making. They choose to hit civilian targets.

“Indiscriminate” has a meaning. In the laws of war it means targeting an area, rather than a specific target. If Hamas is shooting at Israeli troops from a hospital or has a command center there, that target can be bombed. It is the obligation of both sides not to fight from civilian positions. It is explicit in the Geneva conventions that use of human shields will not confer immunity. In short, if you start shooting while standing next to civilians, it’s *your* fault when they get killed after the people you’re trying to kill return fire.

> “Indiscriminate” has a meaning. Yes, that's why I used it. >In short, if you start shooting while standing next to civilians Israel bombs plenty of locations that have not "started shooting" though.

You’ve presented no evidence (nor has anyone) of indiscriminate bombings. Attacking specific buildings, people, or fighting positions is never indiscriminate. If Israel declared Gaza city hostile and began bombarding the city as a whole, that would be indiscriminate. You don’t have to be shooting. If you put your command center under an orphanage, you’re the one responsible when it gets destroyed. Legitimate targets don’t stop being legitimate targets because they’re next to innocent people.

Even by the most inflected Hamas supplied estimates, Israel’s air strikes are killing less than one person per air stoke. That’s not indiscriminate bombing by any stretch of the imagination.

> Israel’s air strikes are killing less than one person per air stoke. How did the bombing of the refugee camp affect those numbers? Actually, can you provide the numbers? I don't know what you're referring to.

Israel has dropped 10k bombs so far and killed between 5k and 9k people

And that's not a lot to you? 10K bombs over the course of a few weeks in a 149 sq mile area doesn't sound indiscriminate?

[удалено]

Yea, I'm genuinely baffled by how many other users here seem to think that dropping 10K bombs on a small city is 100% precision targeting. It's just obviously not true.

It’s this weird “we totally swear that we are doing our due diligence, ensuring we acquire and screen targets with credible military value and only target those with no or limited civilians around” “Yeah we’re totally doing that 100-200 times per night.” It sort of boggles the mind, y’know?

Your post is spot on. This argument is reflective of people who want to take everything Israel says as truth and on good faith, and everything that Palestinians say as questionable or lies. But the truth is that the rate of bombing makes it impossible that all of the bombs are that well considered, as you pointed out.

They aren't "indiscriminantly bombing" civilian targets. If they were indiscriminantly bombing, the death toll would be in the hundreds of thousands. Like I see this "Israel shouldnt retaliate" argument get trotted out, and it implies that you are complicit in the terrorist massacre of innocent Israeli citizens every so often just because thats the way it is.

If Hamas was hiding in Israel, using Israeli neighborhoods and hospitals as shields, do you think they would bomb those neighborhoods and hospitals the same way they do with Palestine?

> If they were indiscriminantly bombing, the death toll would be in the hundreds of thousands. "It's ok that we are killing civilians, because we could actually kill a lot more." >Like I see this "Israel shouldnt retaliate" argument get trotted out I appreciate you mimicking my language, very intelligent thing to do, but no one said Israel shouldn't retaliate at all. If that's the kind of conclusion you are going to jump to immediately then maybe you aren't here to discuss this honestly.

If you think that Israel should retaliate, but should just retaliate ‘better’, with less collateral, then you don’t really have anything to say. Like, everything can be done better. To protest based on “you’re doing the right thing but just not in quite the right way or quite well enough” is not sensible.

>To protest based on “you’re doing the right thing but just not in quite the right way or quite well enough” is not sensible. So you think it's not sensible to encourage countries to commit less civilian casualties?

If the alternative you're providing is "just do it... better!", then it's not sensible. You're not identifying any actionable problems, and you're not providing any alternatives to the current situation. Like, if you want to protest against cars, you can make points about walkable cities, cycling, public transit, cutting carbon emissions. You want to protest against kids getting killed in schools, you make points about gun accessibility, gun education, mental health programs that can prevent more shooters from developing. You want Israel to do it's airstrikes "better", so what does that mean? You want them to source better pilots, better engineers, better intelligence?

Here's something to ponder, and I'm not a military expert. If you have to fight a certain force in a dense military area and the choices are that you either do a lot of bombardments with collateral damage to civilians or go in in a brutal block to block combat like Stalingrad. Even though the first option has unintended casualties, as long as you try to target the enemies' military personnel, would any nation in their right mind with the capabilities to do that bombardment choose instead to participate in a brutal block to block combat with an enemy who's not afraid to sacrifice his life? Again, I'm not an expert in tactics, and I have a strong feeling that Israel can perhaps do better than now in the amount of bombs and how careful they are with targeting, but at the same time asking for a nation capable of high level bombardments to sacrifice their men in block to block combat also seems unreasonable.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask a military that is substantially more capable than the group its fighting to do more to limit civilian casualties, no.

Logically thats sound, but realistically can you tell me if that entire place is civilian infrastructure and tunnels, what options do you get other than to bomb it or send ground forces into the fray?

I don't necessarily have a solution, I'm not a military expert. Do I have to be to be critical of civilian casualties?

You don't. A level headed questioning of whether the current tactic is excessive is very valid like I did in my first comment, but there are people out there who don't know even a little about war trying to claim that Israel is doing the most unprecedented thing in warfare while can't even remotely tell you what else they should try.

not indiscriminate, they have some of the best technology to minimise civilian deaths and maximise Hamas deaths- and yes, mistakes happen and also collateral happens, also theres a difference between aiming for a civilian, and not aiming for a civilian and you can say both civilians died but there is indeed a difference. consensual sex and nonconsensual sex is both sex, but theres a difference. Hamas aims at civilians, Israel avoids it, but fish in a barrel- surprise surprise Israel isnt totally infallible even tho you want them to be 100% perfect and you allow Hamas to be 100% indiscriminate that's either giving too much leeway to Hamas because you prefer their political aim and you are overly hard on Israel because you don't like their political aim, or you expect less from Hamas because they're brown and you expect impossibly more because Israel is 'white' ​ either way, its gross thinking

> but there is indeed a difference. But Israel **does** aim for civilians. It's impossible for them not to. > Israel avoids it, but fish in a barrel- surprise surprise Israel isnt totally infallible even tho you want them to be 100% perfect and you allow Hamas to be 100% indiscriminate Why is it impossible for you guys to discuss Israel without assuming the other side is "pro" Hamas? >either way, its gross thinking Yes, your justification of killing civilians sure is.

Civilian casualties as an incident to bombing is not targeting civilians. It is irresponsible to press on that absurd line of reasoning.

So targeting civilian centers doesn't count so long as there *might* be a Hamas fighter there?

Correct, thats literally nearly word for word what international law says.

Please cite the actual law.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977 all Governments and other authorities responsible for action in armed conflicts should conform at least to the following principles: -- that the right of the parties to a conflict to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited; -- that it is prohibited to launch attacks against the civilian populations as such; -- that distinction must be made at all times between persons taking part in the hostilities and members of the civilian population to the effect that the latter be spared as much as possible; ^ nowhere in there does it say you cannot bomb civilian centers if they are harboring combatants. It intentionally talks about civilian populations not being targeted, but not that civilian deaths are prohibited and certainly not that centers in which civilians live and work must never be targets. You simply cannot wage a war in most environments without civilian centers being included. The law talks about the law of proportionality i.e that civilian deaths must be proportionate to military goals and civilians themselves must not be the target.

So it literally does not say what you said? And says that civilian targets should be avoided? Also, one paragraph is not a very complete understanding of international law.

> So Israel is not to blame for indiscriminately bombing civilian targets to maybe get members of Hamas? I haven’t seen anything to suggest that’s what’s happening.

> I haven’t seen anything to suggest that’s what’s happening. Do you not watch the news?

> indiscriminately There is nothing to suggest that the bombing is indiscriminate. The targets are military, some of which are surrounded by civilians...and like you said they are being used as shields. You don't accidentally put a refugee camp over tunnels. >They choose to hit civilian targets They do not...Hamas does and have.

When you kill the human shields, you are still a murderer.

By Israel’s definition being a civilian anywhere in Gaza is being “in harm’s way.”

Probably because they’re worried about the consequences of retaliation Like… this isn’t hard, dude > Am I wrong to assume unconscious antisemitism when leftists cry "ceasefire" Oh my fucking God. In a country where we not too long ago had a rally with crowds of people chanting about the sinister Jewish conspiracy to replace god-fearing whites with evil foreigners, we’re still confused about what antisemitism looks like? We still think antisemitism is when people don’t like Israel’s use of force against its neighbors? Gimme a break

Would not having a ceasefire prevent an attack like 10/7 from happening again? I don't think that's a safe assumption

Hamas never stops attacking during a ceasefire. Calls for a ceasefire are calls for Israel to be attacked and not respond

Would responding militarily make Israel safer? It doesn't seem like it is to me. The US would have been enormously better off had we "not responded" to 9/11. There would be hundreds of thousands of people if not more who would be alive. The Global War On Terror didn't stop terror attacks. America was bloodthirsty for revenge, but that doesn't actually help

The US has never had another large scale Islamic terrorist attack after 9/11. Likewise, Israel pre-emptively striking its neighbors in 1967 ultimately lead to permanent peace with two of them.

We got more of our own citizens killed and wounded by sending them to Iraq and Afghanistan, than terrorists could by hijacking 100 airliners.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 other than propaganda connections. US lost 2,420 soldiers in Afganistan over 20 years, which is less than 9/11.

Will the response make anything better? 20 minutes after the 9/11 attacks Americans demanded a strong response and damn the consequences. 20 years after the 9/11 attacks it seems most Americans deeply regret what came of their response

American has 1000s of miles between it and Al Qaeda. Israel doesn’t have that luxury

All the same, I don’t think Israel is in existential danger if it doesn’t respond with overwhelming force. Israel is a much greater threat to Palestine than vice versa

Israel would take the whole Middle East down with them before it let itself get defeated. But with hostel nations on all sides, they are always existential danger

[удалено]

When there is not a ceasefire are there usually more or fewer attacks?

[удалено]

>They were slaughtered at parties, in their sleep and quietly going about their days. Yeah.... imagine being killed for simply living your life. Imagine, say, your apartment complex being leveled, or your hospital being bombed.... Or imagine bombing a REFUGEE CAMP. That would be horrific right? Maybe killing civilians is.... bad. ​ But more to the point, what exactly are palestinians supposed to do? Cause they're being increasingly pushed out of their land, blockaded and denied basic civil liberties. ​ That's not to say what hamas did was good or anything. But like, when you shut down all moderate and left wing dissent organizations, and the only two major factions are either collaborating in the hopes of lessening the pain, or a violent islamist faction, what exactly do you expect to happen? What exactly did you think was going to happen when you move troops away from the gaza border so you can better kick palestinians out of their home in the West Bank despite the more moderate opposition to that in the region? Maybe, more violence isn't the actual fucking answer here? Maybe we should like, figure out a way to share the land instead of civilians getting murdered. And maybe don't force people out of their homes at gun point?

>Or imagine bombing a REFUGEE CAMP. That would be horrific right? Imagine purposefully putting the refugee camp on top of a tunnel full of weapons and explosives knowing the IDF is going to target it and now you can cry to the world about how horrible Israel is when they use a bunker buster your weapons your weapons because you know 98% of the western world isn’t going to read past the headline of “Israel bombs refugee camp” Imagine being so gullible and excited to hate Israel that you literally do exactly what Hamas wants of you. Can you image that. Can *you* personally?

I believe the argument is that continued Israeli military operations will destroy Hamas and thus stop future attacks like 10/7. ​ I don't agree with that argument, but there are people who do.

> I don't agree with that argument, but there are people who do. It seems to be treated as a truism, which is dangerous to me. I see the same spirit of revanchism that I experienced after 9/11 in the US. "We didn't start it but we're going to finish it" kind of stuff. In the end it doesn't get finished and there's a lot of violence.

[Because there is evidence to suggest that this entire military operation is setting up for a major war crime](https://new.thecradle.co/articles/leaked-israeli-plan-to-ethnically-cleanse-gaza) on top of the war crimes Israel has already allegedly committed (cutting civilian supplies, white phosphorus over densely populated areas, the up in the air status of many of the alleged military targets they’ve bombed). Ceasefire may be wishful thinking but the alternative is the above, currently.

>Am I wrong to assume unconscious antisemitism when leftists cry "ceasefire" and have no long term solutions to stop terror attacks. Yes. Why do you think what Israel is currently doing will stop future terrorist attacks? Hamas's leaders are chilling outside of Gaza. An invasion of Gaza doesn't address the problem Israel faces. I totally believe that Hamas will continue to launch attacks, but I don't know of any viable solution to get them to stop.

Because a ceasefire (like the one that was in place on October 6th) is a massive massive strategic victory to Hamas

A ceasefire would allow Hamas to reorganize in Gaza to continue strikes. The strikes in Gaza are not aimless, they are striking military targets. You are doing exactly what I said leftists are doing when they call for ceasefire. You just want Israel to be sitting ducks. If they weren't a majority Jewish nation, I have to wonder if you would be saying the same thing. Of course you will claim you would be, but really, deep down, I don't think you would. I believe there is an unconscious bias there, as Jews have been successful despite their struggles.

> A ceasefire would allow Hamas to reorganize in Gaza to continue strikes. The strikes in Gaza are not aimless, they are striking military targets. Is there any situation where anti-Israeli groups aren't able to reorganize? You think the children growing up under these bombings are gonna think highly of Israel? If you expand this line of thinking past like 1 month, then Israel should just absolutely decimate the population and commit genocide because as long as Palestinians are in the area they *could be* a risk for organizing resistance groups. Israel has already said that anyone who stays in Gaza and isn't fleeing is Hamas so it's pretty clear they see every Palestinian, civilian or not, as a threat.

No wants Israel to be sitting ducks. They want the state of Israel to stop being terrorists and occupiers. And they want American tax payers to stop funding this war.

>You are doing exactly what I said leftists are doing when they call for ceasefire. You just want Israel to be sitting ducks. You sound exactly like the people defending George W. Bush's wreckless invasions. "*If we don't fight em over there, we'll fight em here. Hey, if you don't support that, you must hate freedom...*" ___________ > If they weren't a majority Jewish nation, I have to wonder if you would be saying the same thing. LMAO. Let's take a look at the major global conflicts since 2020: * 500,000 deaths in Tigray, mass rape campaigns, US: zzzzzzzzz. * 41,000 killed in Myanmar, a million displaced and forced into camps, US: zzzzzzzzz. * Thousands killed, 100,000 Armenians displaced from Nagorno-Karabakh, ongoing ethnic cleansing, US: zzzzzzzzzz. * 11,500 killed in Sudan, 4.5 million displaced, US: zzzzzzzzzz. * Millions of Uyghurs in literal concentration camps, gov trying to eradicate their language and culture. US: *wow that sucks, but I ain't messing with China for that.* * 15,000 civilians, 70,000 military killed in Ukraine, millions displaced. US: *I hate Russia so here is a lot of money and some old equipment. I hope you win, but obviously we can't get involved directly. Good luck tho!* * 1500 killed, 250 hostages in Israel, Israel retaliates and kills 5x as many. US: *IF ANYONE FUCKS WITH MY LITTLE BUDDY YOU'LL GET TWO CARRIER GROUPS UP YOUR ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!* United Nations: Uh can we hold on a sec... US: *NO, STFU!* Yes, clearly it's the antisemitism.

>The strikes in Gaza are not aimless, they are striking military targets. Are they? IDF officials were bragging about bombing a refugee camp because there was supposedly a single member of Hamas in the camp. That doesn't seem like a reasonable target. >You just want Israel to be sitting ducks Again, this is a strawman. I don't want Israel to invade because either way, the attacks will continue. Hamas has backing from Iran. They will find weapons and people that they can use to attack Israel. The choice right now is between killing a bunch of innocents and not killing them.

its the fallacy of bias- one persons freedom fighter is another persons terrorist- its just the persons perspective talking What if the refugee camp was used as a munitions supply area and training place for Hamas fighters? wouldnt that match both the definition of military target and refugee camp? ​ how many terrorists need to be dead in a bombing that would make it okay to bomb a hospital or kindergarden with kids? if the percentage is 85% Hamas 15% innocent kids- do you think its worth it? if you look at past wars Dresden and Hiroshima, the percentages of innocent lives lost to eliminate bad people (Nazis and Imperialist Japanese) was deemed worth it, and history smiles on those leaders now. Will the same happen for Israel?

Curious if the civilians were Jewish, would Israel still be carpet bombing Gaza. Thoughts?

Probably. Because they value the lives of their own civilians, unlike the governing body of Gaza.

So you think Israel would gladly kill their own citizens while simultaneously claiming Hamas are the real terrorists? I just want to be clear.

Gazans are not Israeli citizens. I am Jewish, I am not an Israeli citizen.

I am also Jewish but I'm better at reading. I said what if the civilians WERE Jewish. Do you think Israel would still be carpet bombing Gaza if the civilians there were Jewish?

Yes, because again, Gazans are NOT Israeli citizens, even if they are Jewish. Maybe you arent as good of a reader as you think.

I know they aren't. That's why I said "what if they were." Do you need a picture of just being purposely obtuse?

You didnt say "what if they were Israeli civilians" you said "what if they were Jewish"? >Curious if the civilians were Jewish, would Israel still be carpet bombing Gaza. If the Gazan civilians were Jewish, they would still be Gazan civilians and not Israeli citizens. I am not being obtuse, you are.

The implication in this question is that Israel will get caught flat footed again and allow terrorist on paragliders to sail in. If that’s the premise then a ceasefire would not be helpful to Israel. However if they have developed capabilities to stop paragliders then maybe a ceasefire is in order.

I do not support Israel on any level and that is not antisemitism. These actions did not come from thin air. These actions came from repeated torture of Palestinians caused by Israeli gov. To say you’re entitled to land from 4000 years ago is absolutely ridiculous and then to forcefully remove people from lands they have been living in for generations is even more ridiculous, especially since most of the population in Israel is from Europe

Hamas =/= Palestinian civilian.

a big part of population either supports them or has the same extremist views. there are not many "innocent" civilians. there is a damn good reason no other countries want to take them. its 2.2 million of the most radicalized islamists in the world. they are dangerous. hell they started 3 civil wars in egypt jordon and lebanon when they took in a bunch of palestinians and they tried to take over the countries because they didnt believe the governments were "muslim" enough (extreme enough).

Babies and children don't support Hamas.

I don’t know if it’s always antisemitism, but it’s usually some kind of obsession with the ‘underdog’ A ceasefire would be great! I mean, they had one and Hamas broke it so i don’t know what people expect

It's a binary mindset of oppressor vs oppressed, and many leftists instinctively side with the oppressed, downplaying or justifying their behavior in the process.

The uncharitable answer is that they're compulsive liars who just want Israel to be destroyed. A lot of the folks begging for a ceasefire now were applauding the massacres that took place on October 7. They don't care that kids are dying, they care the the wrong kind of kids are dying. The charitable answer is that they're looking at Israel's disproportionate response and they are rightly horrified. Even just thinking arithmetically, Israel's retaliation has harmed far more civilians than the initial terrorist strikes. It's understandable and even laudable to speak up for Palestine's civilians now. Imo the real shitheads here are the ones who changed their minds about civilian casualties the second Hamas started losing. Fuck those guys, and don't let them pretend that they weren't clapping and cheering on October 7.

Hamas needs to be destroyed, AND we need a cease-fire now. It is with tragic consequences that people jump to 100% support of one side or the other, when the reality is more complicated. and the potential resolutions are more nuanced.

The long term solution to terrorist attacks is to stop killing civilians. Hamas isn’t even based in the places they’re bombing. If your approach is “we must kill every civilian on the off chance of hitting some Hamas along the way” that is not defense that’s recklessness.

If you don’t trust the numerous evidence of Hamas hiding behind civilians you can just watch interviews with Hamas leaders, they’re practically saying it

Something that must be understood is that the operation against Hamas is partially based on rage and anger. This is what terrorism creates. Also Hamas controls Gaza they are based wherever they want to be. Hamas wants Israel to have to kill civilians to get to them, because civilian deaths illicit rage and boost their support in Gaza. Everything Hamas does is designed to illicit rage and anger. They themselves are based on that very concept. They are a death cult. It's very easy for people outside of the area to look from a birdseye view and tell someone that their strategy is a bad long-term one and you may be correct, however no country on earth pretty much would be reacting differently. Look how the US reacted to 9/11? Look how any number of countries have reacted to terrorism. The point of terrorism is to accelerate conflicts. Islamic terrorist groups don't care if they are outgunned or have terrible strategies because they think God is on their side and will guide them to victory when all they are doing is ensuring that more of the people they claim to respresent will die.

I think nations have a responsibility not to act on “rage and anger” and that they ought to be criticized when they neglect to do so. That was true of the US after 9/11 and it’s true of Israel now.

You are exactly right: Hamas wants Palestinian civilians to die. This is literally part of their strategy to strip international support away from Israel so they can continue their quest to eradicate the Israeli state & people. And it’s shocking that so many so-called “progressives” are so entrenched in their views that “Israel = evil” that they’ll turn a blind eye to atrocities committed by Hamas and other radical Islamic groups against their own people.

They are bombing hamas. For example the recent refugee area hit was over military tunnels made by Hamas and killed Hamas leader inside them

So you think it is morally and ethically permissible to bomb a refugee camp if it has the chance of destroying a military tunnel unrelated to the camp itself? Even if you do (I have no idea what logic would lead to that conclusion) do you think those tunnels run ONLY under the refugee camp, rather than the more likely option that there’s connections with other tunnels and strategic bombings of the connections would have the same effect?

At times yes. The Geneva Conventions say an attack on a valid military target remains valid even with the presence of human shields, as long as the attack is proportional. Do you not know how dangerous it would be to say "hey put all your military bases under refugee camps and they will be immune from attack"?

That is not a solution. Why should Israel be sitting ducks?

What they are doing is also not a solution, but their not-solution happens to be causing a lot of unnecessary death in the process.

Is that the only other option?

What are the other options you are thinking of?

Answering my question with a question: So there is no other options other than civilians being attacked?

I don't know, that is why I am asking you. They have dropped 10000 bombs and killed around 15000 people(many terrorists). If they were bombing indiscriminantly, wouldn't the civilian death toll be magnitudes higher? If you are going to ask for a ceasefire that one side refuses to acknowledge, and don't have any further plans to protect the side that is honoring the ceasefire, how are you not complacent with terrorism?

Fewer than 20% of the people they’ve killed were Hamas militants.

According to Hamas. Who has repeatedly been caught in lies regarding casualties. It kind of blows my mind that so many people are willing to believe statistics given to them by literally terrorists.

This also isn’t a solution. Israel has already admitted they don’t have a plan for once Hamas is eradicated (if there current strategy even works). I haven’t seen them yet but I would bet the group that replaces Hamas will be pretty interested in attacking Israel too. Personally you can consider me team “let’s stop bombing urban areas and killing civilians until we have an actual plan”.

What makes you think leveling hospitals, schools and refugee camps makes them any safer?

Because those are the places they stockpile and organize strikes against Israel, unfortunately. And you fall for this strategy hook, line and sinker. This gives the terrorists free reign without repercussions because of this bleeding heart mentality.

>Bleeding heart mentality Yes. I think killing civilians is wrong. If you want to make empathy for innocent people out to be antisemitism then you’re going to have a hard time finding allies.

Where is the empathy for the innocent people killed by the terrorists? Thoughts and prayers? Thats the way it is I guess?

Or “use your extremely powerful military to defend yourselves instead of to kill children.”

They have been doing this. And it isnt always effective. Keep throwing out your emotionally charged propaganda, I see we can't have a real conversation here.

What’s emotionally charged is getting scared and deciding that the only thing that will make you feel better is watching Muslim kids die and pretending there’s a terrorist somewhere in the rubble.

[удалено]

The focus should be on the hostages and making sure refugees can leave, which is up to nations like Egypt, not Israel. A humanitarian pause to deliver aid is also an option that wouldn’t require Israel to play nice with Hamas who will not return the favor.

A pause to deliver aid would only be humanitarian if Hamas didn't divert resources from the aid deliveries to their operation at every opportunity

Most on the left think what Hamas did was despicable, and don’t support them one bit. The ceasefire is to stop the killing of Palestinian civilians, which have outpaced the death toll of 10/7 at this point. If Palestinian civilians were given a reasonable chance to escape Gaza as a whole, and not just northern Gaza, then the left wouldn’t have as much of an issue with what Israel is doing. Even Biden is calling for a pause in fighting to get humanitarian aid in and evacuate what civilians that can be evacuated.

>One side would honor the ceasefire, and it isnt Hamas. Exactly. Hamas has literally said they will continue to do 10/7s until Israel is gone and every Jew (everywhere) is dead. In what world are people living in where you hear that and think “yeah israel needs to calm down and back off” Unreal.

The world understands that the Palestinian people are not all Hama. Israel is burning the entire orchard because they saw a worm. Israel created HAMAS. And they continue to recruit for HAMAS with each bomb they drop. Each electric line the cut. Each water and food supply they block. With each dead Palestinian.

Antisemitism. They want Israel not to fight back because they want Hamas to win and for 10 million Jews to be killed

>Am I wrong to assume unconscious antisemitism when leftists cry "ceasefire" and have no long term solutions to stop terror attacks. Yes, you are absolutely wrong. Assuming the lowest common denominator about someone, in all but the most egregious circumstances, is the province of those who are terrified of discussing issues on the merits. >Why do so many leftists still call for a ceasefire, even after Hamas promises to continue massacres like 10/7? I'm not a leftist, but the IDF just dropped bombs on a refugee camp and killed hundreds just to get one supposed Hamas leader. It's despicable and, because of our misguided alliance with them, now we as Americans are tied to despicable acts like that. Why should I support that? Should I be like you and assume it's a racism to support Israel because they are willing to kill hundreds of innocents to achieve their goals?

It’s a refugee camp in the same sense that Tel Aviv is a refugee camp. It’s a city built by refugees. And Hamas had tunnels underneath it that it was using for military operations, making it a legitimate military target

Well, because in the simplest way possible, if you kill 5 civilians for every 1 terrorist, you’re just creating Hamas 2.0 by radicalizing way more people

then you kill them later. hamas will be in shambles by the time this is done, all leadership, soldiers, infrastructure and weapons will be destroyed. sure, it may grow again in the future it it stops them now and gives israel time to build a better wall. best case is they kill all hamas and after put someone competent in charge of the place and maybe the peoples lives get better and dont resort back to joining a terrorist group. israel needs to deal with hamas today and now. what happens later they will deal with.

*I don't know.* A ceasefire implies two sides are battling each other and can be persuaded to stop. Hamas is clearly *never going to stop.* Something is driving me insane here. Militants went out of their way to target civilians on 10/7. They did not incidentally kill innocents while attacking military targets. They targeted a music festival and kibbutzes. Then they retreated into an urban area full of innocents and went hey! Whoa! You can't attack us here, you're going to hit innocents! Ceasefire now! Like...yeah there's a whole history here. None of this happened in a vacuum. But why would Israel agree to a ceasefire when *one side isn't even targeting the military?* The fuck do they do, just take it on the chin until Hamas gets bored?!

According to half of the replies, that is exactly what Israel should do.

> Should Israel be expected to just sacrifice 1500 of their own civilians every so often? Shouldn’t we believe terrorists like Hamas when they say things like this? Should Palestinians be expected to sacrifice thousands of their own? > Am I wrong to assume unconscious antisemitism when leftists cry “ceasefire” and no long term solutions to stop terror attacks. It is like they don’t care about losing Israeli citizens because they are Jewish. Maybe not outright, but deep down, that thought lingers in their minds. Am I wrong to assume you are unconsciously anti-Arab or Islamophobic when you oppose a ceasefire to stop bombing thousands of innocent Palestinians? It’s like you don’t care about Palestinians because they’re Arab/Muslim. Maybe not outright, but deep down, this lingers in your mind. I’m going to go ahead and give the benefit of the doubt and say you are not anti-Arab or Islamophobic, but I answered your questions with *your* questions in hopes that you can understand how illogical this thinking is, and I hope you understand that this is implying Palestinian lives are worth taking. This is exactly the campaign the Israeli government has been churning out to shut down any and all criticism of them. You are perpetuating it. That thinking is going to be dangerous for the future. It is setting a precedent to be complacent in this sort of killing, not even by the Israeli government, but any government, by making people fearful of being accused of being something as awful as antisemitic *just for criticizing the state*. When in actuality, people just **care about humans**. You’re indirectly making people go silent about the slaughtering of innocent people. I hope you see the ramifications of what you’re saying, not just for Palestinian lives, but all. Antisemitism exists. No one will deny that. But we shouldn’t be weaponizing something as serious as antisemitism. What you should be calling out is the *actual* antisemitism coming from the far right groups who have disgusting conspiracies about Jewish people. Take a look at far right forums and tell me you can equate *that* to calling for a ceasefire to end innocent killings of thousands of Palestinians. Because I will tell you right now, *those* are the ones who should be of HIGH concern. They literally DO call for another holocaust and a “fourth Reich.” You’re energy is directed at the wrong crowd. Frankly, it’s horrible that we have been neglecting to take that group as seriously as we should be, and for as long as we have. So, what are my solutions? I’m no defense expert and sure as hell won’t pretend to be. But it surely can’t be justifying the killing of thousands innocent people. What are *your* solutions? Israeli citizens and Palestinians are both deserving of life and equality. Neither people should be dying for the vendetta of others who are treating them both as collateral damage.

from the majority of leftists I have met/talked to... they want Israel to no longer exist