Terrific article. Here are three other memory-holed contexts:
1) Hamas is an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood whose founders were allies of the Nazis.
2) Israel was founded primarily by indigenous Jews who had lived in the Middle East for millennia and whose thriving communities were ethnically cleansed and pogromed by all the Arab nations in the area. It is not a "white, settler, colonial construct." (When people raise *only* displaced Palestinians, ask them what happened to the Jews in Egypt, Syria, Iran, and etcetera.)
3) "Genocide" exists within the context of race essentialists like Hamas, not Israel: It doesn't describe a major loss of life, but rather the attempt to liquidate an entire people. "Apartheid" exists within the context of countries like China and the old South Africa, not within the context of countries like Israel which provides civil rights to its 2 million Arab citizens, as well as their ability to have political parties, elect members of parliament, and in government, as the Arab line was in the last coalition. "Open air prisons" exist in the context of places like Alcatraz, not Gaza where the wall was only erected after Hamas suicide bombers literally blew up the Oslo Accord's two-state solution by detonating themselves in crowded restaurants, markets and public transportation.
4) There is also the context of a long history of gaslighting and what-about-ism in which Jews are blamed no matter what they do. (Currently, if Israel bombs Hamas targets and civilians die, it is accused of "genocide." But if it escorts them to safety, it is accused of ethnic cleansing.)
I think it's great to remember all of these things, but I also think we need to stay out of the trap of trying to justify Israel's reaction. They were brutally attacked by a terrorist army and have every right to respond until the threat is gone. The threat isn't gone until Hamas is gone.
Hamas is shielding themselves with civilians, men, women and children because it's worth it to them that citizens die as long as it hurts Israel's reputation.
Hamas has put the civilians in the way, no one else. Is life wonderful for the Palestinian people? Absolutely not. Has Israel perhaps contributed to the misery? Absolutely.
A strong and safe Israel is also the easiest (and probably only) path to Palestinian prosperity as well. If you want Palestinian suffering to end, Hamas needs to go. For those who blame Israel for the suffering of the Gazans, you need to understand that Hamas has contributed more to their misery than Israel ever could.
This was written with the assumption that the bombardment of Gaza isn't an atrocity or at least won't be considered one in the future. I'm am hoping this Israel action will end in a peace that will have needed this horrific stage. As a Jew, we've been taught how toxic a concoction of equal parts fury, incompetence and confidence can be in a leader...I'm not so sure we aren't the ones rationalizing atrocities now.
Israel is bombing military targets in Gaza. The atrocity is that Hamas is using Palestinians as human shields. Israel's action will end in peace only if the Hamas death cult is removed and put on trial at the Hague.
Oh, I get it. I was right with you (and the official Israeli framing) 2 weeks ago. When you see a whole refugee camp bombed for a 'military target' of a single Hamas commander then it makes you question where the moral line might be crossed. Also it doesn't help that ta member of the Israeli cabinet is calling it the :Gaza Nakba'. It feels a lot more like revenge than liberating the Gazans from a death cult. Also, spoiler, Hamas won't be going to the Hague ...and by the time this is over, depending on how it goes, you just might see Bibi there.
You would be correct if the purpose were to get a single Hamas commander. It wasn't. It's larger aim was to collapse the major tunnel system under it, which was accomplished. Note that the Jabalia camp isn't what we imagine refugee camps to be. It's urbanized and is a Hamas terror centre: It's where the First Intifada began in 1987. As well, only a couple dozen people died, in large part because Israel gave a lot of advance warning and targeted its strikes. Many building went down when the tunnels under them collapsed. Also keep in mind that 1/5 of Hamas rockets misfire, as at the central hospital, and are blamed on Israel even though they are from Hamas.
I join you in condemning the Israeli cabinet minister who spoke of the "Gaza Nakba". He was reprimanded and is not in the war cabinet: Neither are the two other fascistic members of Netanyahu's extremist government.
I also agree that Hamas won't be at the Hague. I doubt Bibi will be either, but certainly hope he's in prison for fraud and bribery, that he will be damned by history, and that his blunders will serve to change Israel's government and strategy in the West Bank and Gaza.
Appreciate the clarification on Jabalia. I'm trying my best to follow the facts but I'm constantly feeling disoriented by the fact that there is a fire hose of mis, dis and regular information coming at me 24/7. My larger point is that I'm just not feeling very confident about having an opinion when my 'facts' are determined by my media diet.
My only comment is to double check the "refugee camp" thing - I haven't looked at it recently, but the last I looked into it, it was being called a refugee camp by the UN but hadn't actually been used as a refugee camp and really wasn't one - though there were a lot of human shields used at this location and Hamas has definitely figured out how to win the PR fight when Israel hits their military targets.
The thing that I wish is that the Palestine people were able to have a voice without turning to Hamas - it's almost like how someone who is kidnapped become protective of their abuser. Hamas is violent and kills Palestinians too. So it's very odd to me that pro-Palestine people think they're somehow protecting Palestinians by defending the actions of Hamas. They're truly not. And imagine a world where Hamas gets its way and wipes Israel off the map along with all the Jews who live in Israel.... the people of Palestine would not be living in any better conditions because Hamas doesn't care about the people or how they live - Hamas is a genocidal hateful movement that would exists to kill Jews - if they accomplished that, they would absolutely set their eyes on another group of individuals.
Imagine if Hitler had placed his bases under hospitals and the allies had decided they weren't going to attack the Nazis because of the innocent people in the hospital. How many more hundreds of thousands of people would've died by letting Hitler continue on in his hatefulness, rather than stopping it.
They say that history is written by the victors. How would our history look if Germany had won that war?
War is horrible--and no matter how any combatant (on "our" side or on "their" side) claims to be fighting monsters, in the end, civilians die.
But I cannot see how Israel should be expected to "pull back" or stop fighting. It isn't logical to expect this of the Israelis in the wake of the attacks on 7 October. Those who perpetrated them were people who came across the border from Gaza. The atrocity was masterminded, by most accounts, in Gaza.
It is hardly controversial, moreover, to accept that Hamas has built up huge weapons stockpiles, including thousands of rockets (a good proportion of which have been fired at Israel over the past decade). Where are these things stored? Where are the militants hiding?
The answer seems clear--in areas that are also occupied by civilians. The truth will out eventually.
In any case, I repeat: How could any government in Israel ignore all that?
It is worth noting that that Israel did give warnings about its intentions to destroy those Hamas strongholds and it did advise people to move out.
We'll see how committed Hamas is to securing peace. They could stop the killing in short order if they declared a willingness to hand over the hostages, as well as those who perpetrated the killings on 7 October.
Lest I should be characterized as uncritical in my support of Israel, let me be clear about my opposition to the Netanyahu government.
We should worry about the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu would likely do almost anything to hold on to the Prime Ministerial post (because that postpones the day when he may be sent to jail for alleged corruption and other malfeasance).
But none of that--or the benighted policies Netanyahu has presided over in the West Bank--can justify what happened in early October, or any short-term ceasefire or withdrawal of IDF forces from Gaza.
I'm very much in line with your thinking but as this war continues I can't help but think it could be prosecuted differently...at very least to get better PR results. Not caring about globally winning hearts and kinds does matter and is relevant to Israel's security. So how could the do it differently: 1) why the rush? Hamas isn't going anywhere. Waiting may have enabled a multilateral response. Also it would give people more time to evacuate south and when they do don't bomb them. Also, perhaps set up a mobile hospital to treat casualties and empty hospitals before bombing. Perhaps try to engage Palestinians in their own 'liberation' and set up a tip line where they can expose Hamas Intel and movements. Maybe a heartfelt video message directly to innocent Palestinians about what you are trying to do and why. Less bombs more special ops. Start each and everyday with an offer of ceasefire for the return of hostages. Not that Hamas would oblige but it would look like Israel is at least trying. Lastly, and my oat importantly, should a country start a long war with a lame duck leader?! A war like this needs a mandate. There should be an election in Israel first. And while we are at it maybe try to get the International community to attempt elections in Gaza to at least try to dislodge Hamas from leadership and give the people a chance to disavow them. I'm trying to be on Israel's side but it looks like the strategy they are going with is "bomb as much as we can ASAP and f@#$ what the world thinks". It isn't a binary. I can be for war with Hamas but not this exact war.
The last I read, 53% of the Palestine population voted for Hamas. Which sort of fits if you think about the large number of civilians who haven't left. Perhaps they are staying precisely because they believe in Hamas, and want to discourage Israel from bombing them? Or because they believe that Hamas will protect them? When a majority of the population agrees with Hamas, I think it would be very difficult to root them out. Nor do I think Hamas would leave just because of a vote - they're strong enough on a military level that they could easily have a coup and prevent a government changeover, and because they are terrorists at heart, there's no reason to believe they'd respect a vote. (They also haven't done much in the way of try to improve life for those living in the Gaza Strip from what I understand.) They aren't a government as we understand democracy, they are terrorists even over their own citizens.
I don't think war = have an election. The people have who they have when something like this happens (anywhere in the world - that's the reality of elections). I also don't think that anyone else would come to Israel's aid and actively engage in the war. With underfunded and understaffed military, and a less stable geopolitical stage, countries may be much more hesitant to get involved in conflicts if they can help it. Especially considering the protests most countries are seeing - how eager do you think Trudeau would be to send the army with knowing that protests would escalate? (Protests started before any Palestine civilians were killed - so no, this wasn't a response to Israel's counter-attack.) I also think a quick reaction was needed. I've imagined what it would be like to be living in Israel, while this is happening - and the only thing that would bring me solace, would be the idea that it wouldn't happen again and the people who perpetrated the violence and started things would be taken down properly. If Israel hadn't responded, we would likely have hundreds more hostages and thousands more being reported dead within Israel by now. Hamas would've seen the lack of response as weakness and I can't imagine them having lacked a stage 2 plan with knowing they spent 2 years planning this.
Hamas wants to kill as many Israeli's as possible. I would be curious to know if they are killing only Jewish Israeli's or also killing Arab Israeli's. But that is one thing worth considering - Israel is a plural society. What Hamas wants, is not. It's hugely tragic for the civilians in Palestine. But they were given time to get out. I'm also of the opinion that harsh, heavy, and early strikes are the most likely to reduce the overall casualty count and shorten the duration of this. But I'm guessing it's really the civilians who are starving - Hamas probably has lots of their own infrastructure in the tunnels as well as stores of food and water. So it may not be as swift an end as we all would like.
It's too bad that wars can't be fought on more ideal grounds with the leaders and the circumstances that we'd like - but I also think there's never an ideal time for war.
Round of applause. We have to mean never again and use our voices to speak against anti-semitism when we hear it. There are things I've stayed quiet on for the sake of keeping the peace in the past. This isn't one of them. Hamas is a murderous group and I wish Israel every success in rooting them out and destroying them. I would hope those who support Palestine would also see that Hamas is brutal to them as well and the best case scenario for everyone's benefit is to eliminate Hamas.
Thank you. Our daughter met and married a Jewish man and has since married and had 3 children. They live just outside of Tel Aviv. I am guilty of in the past turning off “bad news” as I was overwhelmed by it. It is now personal and I have realized I have can not turn it off and must face it and speak up. As a non Jewish person, I now have an inside perspective and it is personal. You have presented what has been swirling in my head and terrorizing my dreams.
Hitler bombed Britain intending to terrorize the civilian population. The Allies bombed back, primarily to eradicate military and infrastructure targets, but not really caring about what the ratio of civilian casualties were. Does that make Britain, America and Canada guilty of war crimes? It was major, kill or be killed warfare. But the Allies didn't set out with the goal to butcher women and children and take them hostage as well. Hamas did. And Hamas wants Gazans killed, the more the better, so the gullible of the world will say 'horrors, naughty Israel', conveniently forgetting or purposely ignoring that Hamas uses Gazans as shield to protect their weapons. Cockroaches have more humanity than Hamas.
The Allied strategic bombing of Germany did cause unnecessary civilian casualties, particularly later in the war. It was not "kill or be killed warfare" - the bombing persisted long after it was abundantly clear that Germany could no longer muster offensive forces. Churchill wrote after the bombing of Dresden: "The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests than that of the enemy. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive."
Civilians frequently misunderstand what constitutes legality in warfare and what amounts to "war crimes". Proportionality, Distinction and Military Necessity must all be considered when taking decisions to use lethal force. Your blase claim that the Allies were "not really caring about what the ratio of civilian casualties were" would, by definition, condemn Bomber Command's actions as war crimes - and it also exposes your own lack of discernment when it comes to IDF actions in Gaza.
It doesn't matter what Hamas wants. It doesn't matter that they set out to butcher women and children. It doesn't matter that they have "less humanity than cockroaches". Israel has the inherent right to self defense and is both legally and morally right to react to Hamas's invasion of Israel with violence. But Israel still needs to consider and apply the principles of the Laws of War in its conduct in Gaza, and I think it's evident by now that it is not terribly concerned with doing so.
You are quite right about Dresden; I am aware that Churchill was not happy about that one. When I said "not really caring about what the ratio of civilian casualties were", I was thinking in terms of comparison to today's standards with precision 'smart' bombs. If the Allies had tried to operate by today's standards, they would not have won the war. I should have made that distinction clear. On the last paragraph, we very much disagree. If they were to follow your high and mighty opinion, they would never achieve anything. The war would grind to a halt, Hamas would survive, and the Gazan people would go on for ever and a day living under the repression of Hamas and being used as shields to protect Hamas armaments. And Israel would go on forever being submitted to endless rocket attacks.
I don't disagree that Hamas needs to be destroyed, and I have no doubt that some airstrikes were necessary to eliminate targets that were primarily military, but at this point I think the scale of destruction is beyond what's necessary to achieve IDF military objectives. I don't think 27%-35% of the buildings in Gaza city were legitimate military targets - and even if they were, proportionality must be considered. Is levelling a city block to kill one Hamas commander proportional? I don't think that argument would hold up in an international court of law - not that anyone in Israel will ever be judged by such a court, but their actions at least should still be considered in the framework of the Law of Armed Conflict.
I mean, would you support the carpet bombing of the entire Gaza strip? The use of tactical nuclear weapons? A line has to be drawn somewhere. I recognize I'm 100% armchair quarterbacking the decisions the IDF is making and that the information we have available to us is far from the whole picture, but even so I think at this point it's evident that Israel is killing civilians and destroying infrastructure in a way that isn't related to achieving its stated objective of destroying Hamas.
History is repeating itself here in Canada, especially in Montreal and to a lesser degree in Toronto. In Montreal, during the 1930s, the publisher of several right-wing newspapers became Hitler’s Canadian lieutenant. While Hitler had his brown shirts, and Mussolini had his black shirts, Adrien Arcand had his blue shirts. He organized huge rallies in Montreal where anti-semitism was used to fuel the demonstrators. Arcand was of a generation of Quebecers whose understanding of their province’s history was found in the writings of Abbe Lionel Groulx who wrote that Quebec would be perfect if only there were no English or Jews within the population. Arcand was greatly influenced by Hitler and adopted much of Hitler’s philosophy — the working class in Quebec were impoverished by big companies which were run by the English or the Jews. This view was adopted again in the 1960s and 1970s by the FLQ to justify their campaign of bombings, kidnapping and eventually murder. Arcand, along with the then mayor of Montreal, Camillien Houde, were interned in a military camp in Petawawa for the duration of World War 2. So we should not be surprised by the large protests and acts of violence in Montreal today. There’s a history of anti-semitism in the province — detailed in “The Swastika and the Maple Leaf “ by Lita Rose Betcherman.
I kept waiting for the article to flip and call out Israel for genocide.
While I know there are those who equivocate about the actions of Hamas generally, and on October 7, 2023, I haven’t seen much of it here in Canada. I do see those who are afraid to criticize Israel’s murder of civilians in Gaza for fear of being labeled anti-Semitic.
I think one can be opposed to what Israel is doing in Gaza AND unreservedly condemn the abhorrent atrocities committed by Hamas
Civilians always die in war. It is murder if they are the target of the aggressor, as all Jews are for Hamas. But civilians are not Israel's target in Gaza. Rather Hamas deliberately set them up for slaughter for its PR propaganda. You are not the only one to have fallen for it..
<eye-roll> spoken like a Canadian snugly ensconced in the part of the world least likely to find themself or their family to be a ‘legitimate’ military target.
What about that other kind of contextualization? "Yes, how awful that 11,000 Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli bombing but after all, Israel must defend itself".
Here's the contextualization you're looking for: "How awful that Hamas has used 11,000 Palestinians as human shields to protect its rocket launchers, and has shot them in the back when they've tried to flee to safety." For the sake of Palestinians as well as itself, Israel must eradicate this death cult that mutilates babies and rapes young women on the corpses of their friends.
I think the Israeli people have learned that 'never again' spoken from their western 'allies' actually means 'inevitibly again and again'. And again. And again.
I pray Israel can see this through, for all our sakes.
If Israel is defeated, we will all lose everything.
Sure, but also remember that the policy of the Entente powers after the First World War was to plunder the German empire, starve German of credit, keep Germany constantly on the edge of economic crisis, and cut off East Prussia from the rest of Germany. Far-sighted people after the Paris Peace Conference mourned the Treaty Of Versailles as the start of the Second World War.
When the Great Depression hit, Germany was clobbered by economic trauma and turned to fascists to right the ship. Germany was not so special; every western nation had fascist movements.
A policy of containment, austerity, blockade, land seizure, infantilization, and humiliation will only lead to disaster. Netanyahu has a lot to answer for.
During the Second World War, the Allied post-war plan was to completely deindustrialize Germany and turn it into pasture land. The Morgenthau Plan would have led to the death by starvation of an estimated 25 million Germans. There was certainly a convincing argument to be made that the Germans deserved whatever they got.
Of course, this plan was a propaganda triumph for the Nazis, and it motivated German soldiers to fight to the death. Allied military commanders urged the politicians to find a new plan because it was hardening the enemy's resolve. Why surrender or negotiate?
After a few years of deindustrialization, austerity, and hunger after the war, it became apparent that a robust peace would be impossible through the suppression and containment policy. Hence the Marshall Plan was extended to West Germany. Moralism and vengeance is antithetical to peace.
Until we ditch the woke religion we will be unable to solve our spiralling problems. Recommend Jonathan Rauch’s “The Constitution of Knowledge” be compulsory in high school and as a prerequisite for university entry.
Ah yes, the use and misuse of history to justify one's point of view! People typically use comparisons to Nazi Germany to stifle questions and debate, to present complex problems in black and white. In this case, which side are the Nazis and which are heros depends precisely on where you sit and your protagonist of choice.
Tying yourself to history is like tying yourself to a boat anchor, forced to drag it around like Sysiphus and his damn rock.
Terrific article. Here are three other memory-holed contexts:
1) Hamas is an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood whose founders were allies of the Nazis.
2) Israel was founded primarily by indigenous Jews who had lived in the Middle East for millennia and whose thriving communities were ethnically cleansed and pogromed by all the Arab nations in the area. It is not a "white, settler, colonial construct." (When people raise *only* displaced Palestinians, ask them what happened to the Jews in Egypt, Syria, Iran, and etcetera.)
3) "Genocide" exists within the context of race essentialists like Hamas, not Israel: It doesn't describe a major loss of life, but rather the attempt to liquidate an entire people. "Apartheid" exists within the context of countries like China and the old South Africa, not within the context of countries like Israel which provides civil rights to its 2 million Arab citizens, as well as their ability to have political parties, elect members of parliament, and in government, as the Arab line was in the last coalition. "Open air prisons" exist in the context of places like Alcatraz, not Gaza where the wall was only erected after Hamas suicide bombers literally blew up the Oslo Accord's two-state solution by detonating themselves in crowded restaurants, markets and public transportation.
4) There is also the context of a long history of gaslighting and what-about-ism in which Jews are blamed no matter what they do. (Currently, if Israel bombs Hamas targets and civilians die, it is accused of "genocide." But if it escorts them to safety, it is accused of ethnic cleansing.)
I think it's great to remember all of these things, but I also think we need to stay out of the trap of trying to justify Israel's reaction. They were brutally attacked by a terrorist army and have every right to respond until the threat is gone. The threat isn't gone until Hamas is gone.
Hamas is shielding themselves with civilians, men, women and children because it's worth it to them that citizens die as long as it hurts Israel's reputation.
Hamas has put the civilians in the way, no one else. Is life wonderful for the Palestinian people? Absolutely not. Has Israel perhaps contributed to the misery? Absolutely.
A strong and safe Israel is also the easiest (and probably only) path to Palestinian prosperity as well. If you want Palestinian suffering to end, Hamas needs to go. For those who blame Israel for the suffering of the Gazans, you need to understand that Hamas has contributed more to their misery than Israel ever could.
This was written with the assumption that the bombardment of Gaza isn't an atrocity or at least won't be considered one in the future. I'm am hoping this Israel action will end in a peace that will have needed this horrific stage. As a Jew, we've been taught how toxic a concoction of equal parts fury, incompetence and confidence can be in a leader...I'm not so sure we aren't the ones rationalizing atrocities now.
Israel is bombing military targets in Gaza. The atrocity is that Hamas is using Palestinians as human shields. Israel's action will end in peace only if the Hamas death cult is removed and put on trial at the Hague.
Oh, I get it. I was right with you (and the official Israeli framing) 2 weeks ago. When you see a whole refugee camp bombed for a 'military target' of a single Hamas commander then it makes you question where the moral line might be crossed. Also it doesn't help that ta member of the Israeli cabinet is calling it the :Gaza Nakba'. It feels a lot more like revenge than liberating the Gazans from a death cult. Also, spoiler, Hamas won't be going to the Hague ...and by the time this is over, depending on how it goes, you just might see Bibi there.
You would be correct if the purpose were to get a single Hamas commander. It wasn't. It's larger aim was to collapse the major tunnel system under it, which was accomplished. Note that the Jabalia camp isn't what we imagine refugee camps to be. It's urbanized and is a Hamas terror centre: It's where the First Intifada began in 1987. As well, only a couple dozen people died, in large part because Israel gave a lot of advance warning and targeted its strikes. Many building went down when the tunnels under them collapsed. Also keep in mind that 1/5 of Hamas rockets misfire, as at the central hospital, and are blamed on Israel even though they are from Hamas.
I join you in condemning the Israeli cabinet minister who spoke of the "Gaza Nakba". He was reprimanded and is not in the war cabinet: Neither are the two other fascistic members of Netanyahu's extremist government.
I also agree that Hamas won't be at the Hague. I doubt Bibi will be either, but certainly hope he's in prison for fraud and bribery, that he will be damned by history, and that his blunders will serve to change Israel's government and strategy in the West Bank and Gaza.
Appreciate the clarification on Jabalia. I'm trying my best to follow the facts but I'm constantly feeling disoriented by the fact that there is a fire hose of mis, dis and regular information coming at me 24/7. My larger point is that I'm just not feeling very confident about having an opinion when my 'facts' are determined by my media diet.
My only comment is to double check the "refugee camp" thing - I haven't looked at it recently, but the last I looked into it, it was being called a refugee camp by the UN but hadn't actually been used as a refugee camp and really wasn't one - though there were a lot of human shields used at this location and Hamas has definitely figured out how to win the PR fight when Israel hits their military targets.
The thing that I wish is that the Palestine people were able to have a voice without turning to Hamas - it's almost like how someone who is kidnapped become protective of their abuser. Hamas is violent and kills Palestinians too. So it's very odd to me that pro-Palestine people think they're somehow protecting Palestinians by defending the actions of Hamas. They're truly not. And imagine a world where Hamas gets its way and wipes Israel off the map along with all the Jews who live in Israel.... the people of Palestine would not be living in any better conditions because Hamas doesn't care about the people or how they live - Hamas is a genocidal hateful movement that would exists to kill Jews - if they accomplished that, they would absolutely set their eyes on another group of individuals.
Imagine if Hitler had placed his bases under hospitals and the allies had decided they weren't going to attack the Nazis because of the innocent people in the hospital. How many more hundreds of thousands of people would've died by letting Hitler continue on in his hatefulness, rather than stopping it.
They say that history is written by the victors. How would our history look if Germany had won that war?
So it wasn't a refugee camp, just a place where a whole bunch of refugees happened to be camped, got it.
War is horrible--and no matter how any combatant (on "our" side or on "their" side) claims to be fighting monsters, in the end, civilians die.
But I cannot see how Israel should be expected to "pull back" or stop fighting. It isn't logical to expect this of the Israelis in the wake of the attacks on 7 October. Those who perpetrated them were people who came across the border from Gaza. The atrocity was masterminded, by most accounts, in Gaza.
It is hardly controversial, moreover, to accept that Hamas has built up huge weapons stockpiles, including thousands of rockets (a good proportion of which have been fired at Israel over the past decade). Where are these things stored? Where are the militants hiding?
The answer seems clear--in areas that are also occupied by civilians. The truth will out eventually.
In any case, I repeat: How could any government in Israel ignore all that?
It is worth noting that that Israel did give warnings about its intentions to destroy those Hamas strongholds and it did advise people to move out.
We'll see how committed Hamas is to securing peace. They could stop the killing in short order if they declared a willingness to hand over the hostages, as well as those who perpetrated the killings on 7 October.
Lest I should be characterized as uncritical in my support of Israel, let me be clear about my opposition to the Netanyahu government.
We should worry about the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu would likely do almost anything to hold on to the Prime Ministerial post (because that postpones the day when he may be sent to jail for alleged corruption and other malfeasance).
But none of that--or the benighted policies Netanyahu has presided over in the West Bank--can justify what happened in early October, or any short-term ceasefire or withdrawal of IDF forces from Gaza.
I'm very much in line with your thinking but as this war continues I can't help but think it could be prosecuted differently...at very least to get better PR results. Not caring about globally winning hearts and kinds does matter and is relevant to Israel's security. So how could the do it differently: 1) why the rush? Hamas isn't going anywhere. Waiting may have enabled a multilateral response. Also it would give people more time to evacuate south and when they do don't bomb them. Also, perhaps set up a mobile hospital to treat casualties and empty hospitals before bombing. Perhaps try to engage Palestinians in their own 'liberation' and set up a tip line where they can expose Hamas Intel and movements. Maybe a heartfelt video message directly to innocent Palestinians about what you are trying to do and why. Less bombs more special ops. Start each and everyday with an offer of ceasefire for the return of hostages. Not that Hamas would oblige but it would look like Israel is at least trying. Lastly, and my oat importantly, should a country start a long war with a lame duck leader?! A war like this needs a mandate. There should be an election in Israel first. And while we are at it maybe try to get the International community to attempt elections in Gaza to at least try to dislodge Hamas from leadership and give the people a chance to disavow them. I'm trying to be on Israel's side but it looks like the strategy they are going with is "bomb as much as we can ASAP and f@#$ what the world thinks". It isn't a binary. I can be for war with Hamas but not this exact war.
The last I read, 53% of the Palestine population voted for Hamas. Which sort of fits if you think about the large number of civilians who haven't left. Perhaps they are staying precisely because they believe in Hamas, and want to discourage Israel from bombing them? Or because they believe that Hamas will protect them? When a majority of the population agrees with Hamas, I think it would be very difficult to root them out. Nor do I think Hamas would leave just because of a vote - they're strong enough on a military level that they could easily have a coup and prevent a government changeover, and because they are terrorists at heart, there's no reason to believe they'd respect a vote. (They also haven't done much in the way of try to improve life for those living in the Gaza Strip from what I understand.) They aren't a government as we understand democracy, they are terrorists even over their own citizens.
I don't think war = have an election. The people have who they have when something like this happens (anywhere in the world - that's the reality of elections). I also don't think that anyone else would come to Israel's aid and actively engage in the war. With underfunded and understaffed military, and a less stable geopolitical stage, countries may be much more hesitant to get involved in conflicts if they can help it. Especially considering the protests most countries are seeing - how eager do you think Trudeau would be to send the army with knowing that protests would escalate? (Protests started before any Palestine civilians were killed - so no, this wasn't a response to Israel's counter-attack.) I also think a quick reaction was needed. I've imagined what it would be like to be living in Israel, while this is happening - and the only thing that would bring me solace, would be the idea that it wouldn't happen again and the people who perpetrated the violence and started things would be taken down properly. If Israel hadn't responded, we would likely have hundreds more hostages and thousands more being reported dead within Israel by now. Hamas would've seen the lack of response as weakness and I can't imagine them having lacked a stage 2 plan with knowing they spent 2 years planning this.
Hamas wants to kill as many Israeli's as possible. I would be curious to know if they are killing only Jewish Israeli's or also killing Arab Israeli's. But that is one thing worth considering - Israel is a plural society. What Hamas wants, is not. It's hugely tragic for the civilians in Palestine. But they were given time to get out. I'm also of the opinion that harsh, heavy, and early strikes are the most likely to reduce the overall casualty count and shorten the duration of this. But I'm guessing it's really the civilians who are starving - Hamas probably has lots of their own infrastructure in the tunnels as well as stores of food and water. So it may not be as swift an end as we all would like.
It's too bad that wars can't be fought on more ideal grounds with the leaders and the circumstances that we'd like - but I also think there's never an ideal time for war.
Round of applause. We have to mean never again and use our voices to speak against anti-semitism when we hear it. There are things I've stayed quiet on for the sake of keeping the peace in the past. This isn't one of them. Hamas is a murderous group and I wish Israel every success in rooting them out and destroying them. I would hope those who support Palestine would also see that Hamas is brutal to them as well and the best case scenario for everyone's benefit is to eliminate Hamas.
Thank you. Our daughter met and married a Jewish man and has since married and had 3 children. They live just outside of Tel Aviv. I am guilty of in the past turning off “bad news” as I was overwhelmed by it. It is now personal and I have realized I have can not turn it off and must face it and speak up. As a non Jewish person, I now have an inside perspective and it is personal. You have presented what has been swirling in my head and terrorizing my dreams.
Hitler bombed Britain intending to terrorize the civilian population. The Allies bombed back, primarily to eradicate military and infrastructure targets, but not really caring about what the ratio of civilian casualties were. Does that make Britain, America and Canada guilty of war crimes? It was major, kill or be killed warfare. But the Allies didn't set out with the goal to butcher women and children and take them hostage as well. Hamas did. And Hamas wants Gazans killed, the more the better, so the gullible of the world will say 'horrors, naughty Israel', conveniently forgetting or purposely ignoring that Hamas uses Gazans as shield to protect their weapons. Cockroaches have more humanity than Hamas.
The Allied strategic bombing of Germany did cause unnecessary civilian casualties, particularly later in the war. It was not "kill or be killed warfare" - the bombing persisted long after it was abundantly clear that Germany could no longer muster offensive forces. Churchill wrote after the bombing of Dresden: "The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests than that of the enemy. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive."
Civilians frequently misunderstand what constitutes legality in warfare and what amounts to "war crimes". Proportionality, Distinction and Military Necessity must all be considered when taking decisions to use lethal force. Your blase claim that the Allies were "not really caring about what the ratio of civilian casualties were" would, by definition, condemn Bomber Command's actions as war crimes - and it also exposes your own lack of discernment when it comes to IDF actions in Gaza.
It doesn't matter what Hamas wants. It doesn't matter that they set out to butcher women and children. It doesn't matter that they have "less humanity than cockroaches". Israel has the inherent right to self defense and is both legally and morally right to react to Hamas's invasion of Israel with violence. But Israel still needs to consider and apply the principles of the Laws of War in its conduct in Gaza, and I think it's evident by now that it is not terribly concerned with doing so.
You are quite right about Dresden; I am aware that Churchill was not happy about that one. When I said "not really caring about what the ratio of civilian casualties were", I was thinking in terms of comparison to today's standards with precision 'smart' bombs. If the Allies had tried to operate by today's standards, they would not have won the war. I should have made that distinction clear. On the last paragraph, we very much disagree. If they were to follow your high and mighty opinion, they would never achieve anything. The war would grind to a halt, Hamas would survive, and the Gazan people would go on for ever and a day living under the repression of Hamas and being used as shields to protect Hamas armaments. And Israel would go on forever being submitted to endless rocket attacks.
I don't disagree that Hamas needs to be destroyed, and I have no doubt that some airstrikes were necessary to eliminate targets that were primarily military, but at this point I think the scale of destruction is beyond what's necessary to achieve IDF military objectives. I don't think 27%-35% of the buildings in Gaza city were legitimate military targets - and even if they were, proportionality must be considered. Is levelling a city block to kill one Hamas commander proportional? I don't think that argument would hold up in an international court of law - not that anyone in Israel will ever be judged by such a court, but their actions at least should still be considered in the framework of the Law of Armed Conflict.
I mean, would you support the carpet bombing of the entire Gaza strip? The use of tactical nuclear weapons? A line has to be drawn somewhere. I recognize I'm 100% armchair quarterbacking the decisions the IDF is making and that the information we have available to us is far from the whole picture, but even so I think at this point it's evident that Israel is killing civilians and destroying infrastructure in a way that isn't related to achieving its stated objective of destroying Hamas.
History is repeating itself here in Canada, especially in Montreal and to a lesser degree in Toronto. In Montreal, during the 1930s, the publisher of several right-wing newspapers became Hitler’s Canadian lieutenant. While Hitler had his brown shirts, and Mussolini had his black shirts, Adrien Arcand had his blue shirts. He organized huge rallies in Montreal where anti-semitism was used to fuel the demonstrators. Arcand was of a generation of Quebecers whose understanding of their province’s history was found in the writings of Abbe Lionel Groulx who wrote that Quebec would be perfect if only there were no English or Jews within the population. Arcand was greatly influenced by Hitler and adopted much of Hitler’s philosophy — the working class in Quebec were impoverished by big companies which were run by the English or the Jews. This view was adopted again in the 1960s and 1970s by the FLQ to justify their campaign of bombings, kidnapping and eventually murder. Arcand, along with the then mayor of Montreal, Camillien Houde, were interned in a military camp in Petawawa for the duration of World War 2. So we should not be surprised by the large protests and acts of violence in Montreal today. There’s a history of anti-semitism in the province — detailed in “The Swastika and the Maple Leaf “ by Lita Rose Betcherman.
Thank you for taking the time to share this history, I wasn't aware of it.
I kept waiting for the article to flip and call out Israel for genocide.
While I know there are those who equivocate about the actions of Hamas generally, and on October 7, 2023, I haven’t seen much of it here in Canada. I do see those who are afraid to criticize Israel’s murder of civilians in Gaza for fear of being labeled anti-Semitic.
I think one can be opposed to what Israel is doing in Gaza AND unreservedly condemn the abhorrent atrocities committed by Hamas
Civilians always die in war. It is murder if they are the target of the aggressor, as all Jews are for Hamas. But civilians are not Israel's target in Gaza. Rather Hamas deliberately set them up for slaughter for its PR propaganda. You are not the only one to have fallen for it..
<eye-roll> spoken like a Canadian snugly ensconced in the part of the world least likely to find themself or their family to be a ‘legitimate’ military target.
What about that other kind of contextualization? "Yes, how awful that 11,000 Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli bombing but after all, Israel must defend itself".
"What about..."
Here's the contextualization you're looking for: "How awful that Hamas has used 11,000 Palestinians as human shields to protect its rocket launchers, and has shot them in the back when they've tried to flee to safety." For the sake of Palestinians as well as itself, Israel must eradicate this death cult that mutilates babies and rapes young women on the corpses of their friends.
I think the Israeli people have learned that 'never again' spoken from their western 'allies' actually means 'inevitibly again and again'. And again. And again.
I pray Israel can see this through, for all our sakes.
If Israel is defeated, we will all lose everything.
Inevitably. Again.
CP, you are right
If we don't stand with Israel now and if they lose this fight then in the relatively near future Hamas and it's offspring will come for us.
Israel must prevail.
Sure, but also remember that the policy of the Entente powers after the First World War was to plunder the German empire, starve German of credit, keep Germany constantly on the edge of economic crisis, and cut off East Prussia from the rest of Germany. Far-sighted people after the Paris Peace Conference mourned the Treaty Of Versailles as the start of the Second World War.
When the Great Depression hit, Germany was clobbered by economic trauma and turned to fascists to right the ship. Germany was not so special; every western nation had fascist movements.
A policy of containment, austerity, blockade, land seizure, infantilization, and humiliation will only lead to disaster. Netanyahu has a lot to answer for.
During the Second World War, the Allied post-war plan was to completely deindustrialize Germany and turn it into pasture land. The Morgenthau Plan would have led to the death by starvation of an estimated 25 million Germans. There was certainly a convincing argument to be made that the Germans deserved whatever they got.
Of course, this plan was a propaganda triumph for the Nazis, and it motivated German soldiers to fight to the death. Allied military commanders urged the politicians to find a new plan because it was hardening the enemy's resolve. Why surrender or negotiate?
After a few years of deindustrialization, austerity, and hunger after the war, it became apparent that a robust peace would be impossible through the suppression and containment policy. Hence the Marshall Plan was extended to West Germany. Moralism and vengeance is antithetical to peace.
Until we ditch the woke religion we will be unable to solve our spiralling problems. Recommend Jonathan Rauch’s “The Constitution of Knowledge” be compulsory in high school and as a prerequisite for university entry.
Ah yes, the use and misuse of history to justify one's point of view! People typically use comparisons to Nazi Germany to stifle questions and debate, to present complex problems in black and white. In this case, which side are the Nazis and which are heros depends precisely on where you sit and your protagonist of choice.
Tying yourself to history is like tying yourself to a boat anchor, forced to drag it around like Sysiphus and his damn rock.