Hamas strike on Israel - Threadbans in op - mod warning in OP updated 19/10/23

"Are there Israelis who are not "Zionists"? Who are they?"

Your question seemingly implied Israelis were born died-in-the-whool as Zionists.

How many lives would be lost if Israel is defeated?

Sure support for Israel's policies may have diminished (hard to say in the middle of all this) but has support for its right to exist diminished practically or on an ethical basis?

Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel and (if I understand correctly) the slaughtering of all Jews.

And this is the thing.

The idea of Hamas coming to the table in good faith is like giving credence to the idea of ISIS coming to the table.

That doesn't excuse what Israel is doing, but a bit of realism is needed.

Hamas is an utter cancer in the exact same way ISIS is, hard to expect Israel to negotiate with a fundamentalist, barbarian organisation that belives in Israel being wiped off the map and jews driven into the sea, not to mention their stance on women, LGBT, virtually everything we consider base level progressive in the west.

We're talking about a fundamentalist, hardcore, Jihadi group. That is the Government of Gaza.

That's the big thing that people seem to dance around. Hamas is the Government of Gaza, the democratically elected Government. Yeah, I get they haven't held elections since, but polls show strong support, and the PA hasn't held elections in the West Bank precisely because Hamas could take power there as well, right now, in 2023. So all the talk of "But current day Palestinians didn't vote for them".

A lot of them did. A lot of them that didn't vote for Hamas then, would inevitably vote Hamas now, both in Gaza and the West Bank. Hence no elections in the West Bank either.

It was a Government that attacked Israel a few weekends ago, not some fringe underground resistance with limited public support.

I don't think too many people here were urging the US to sit down with ISIS to spare the civilians of Iraq, Syria, etc. Why didn't that happen? Because people took the stance that ISIS was an evil that had to be destroyed.

I'm not for a second saying that it's OK for civilians in Gaza to be dying at the rate they're dying but how would anyone suggest Hamas be dealt with.

That's besides the fact that Israel is grabbing land in the West Bank and everything else. I understand and accept that. But how would anyone proposed that Israel deal with Hamas specifically.

No matter what people try and make it out to be, it is, has never been, and unfortunately for a long time won't be black and white.

It's an extremely difficult situation with no real answers. That doesn't make anyone, or any actions, justifiable or right, but the idea that there's a simple solution, or that it boils down to Israel simply backing off, are not realistic.

That would save lives in the very short term but not longer term.

PA has already said they won't take control of Gaza if Hamas is deposed by IDF. So....what?

Complete nightmare. Anyone trying to make out that it's some simple thing if only Israel would stop being the baddies are kidding themselves.

I would like to believe that Israel cannot be defeated (I am not talking about this occasion but in the medium or longer period into the future).

However this may or may not be how it is viewed from their eyes

If they do fear defeat then that would change their calculus obviously.

Do you think they may fear defeat at some point?(I have heard this sentiment expressed)

Hamas can't be reasoned with, I agree with you it's a cancer like ISIS. But the US didn't kill 7000 civilians in their battle with ISIS, it was a fraction of that.

Maybe, just maybe Israel is acting out of revenge and don't care about collateral damage?

IDF spokesman on Sky News the other day didn't even refute the 700+ killed civilians in the past 24 hours. He was also asked what % of those killed were Hamas terrorists.... he refused to answer.

Even Russia while bombing civilian targets claiming there's Nazis or military targets give figures (propaganda, but figures at least)

I guess the IDF can't tell how many terrorists were waiting for the bread to bake in Gaza?

I don't disagree with any of that. I'm sure the strikes have dealt minimal damage to Hamas as a literal, on the ground, fighting force, though they are without doubt crippling their abilities overall.

But yes I would fully agree that the majority of casulties are civilian and there's no real justification for that no matter what side of the debate you're coming from.

But the point remains - what does Israel do to deal with Hamas?

If they never bombed Gaza in the first place and went in with a ground invasion the civilian casulties would be even worse. You're talking Stalingrad all over again.

There's no ideal solution to this. People will talk about peace talks, two-state solution, and the rest as if it's some simple solution that Israel won't see sense on - and ultimately that's entirely what should be the end-game. But in the here and now, not very realistic with Hamas remaining in control of Gaza.

Maybe not cutting off food, water, electricity and medicine would be a start. You don't want to look like barbarians. Maybe allowing foreign nationals to leave Gaza would be nice, they are hardly terrorists. Maybe bombing bakerys in alleged safe refuge camps would be a start. Can we also not kill journalists? I mean they look to tell the truth (21 dead in Gaza and the West bank, 67 died worldwide last year)

Maybe not resorting to your enemy tactics would be a start. Collective punishment will only help Hamas and make innocent Gazan's suffer more.

Don't ask what Israel should do, but ask what they shouldn't do, it's an easier way to start.

Again, don't disagree with any of that at all.

But it still doesn't answer as to what Israel should do about Hamas.

I have just looked at the wikipedia page for Zionism and it seems to accord with my initial understanding that it was not a religious movement that claimed the land was given to it by some God .

According to that page it seems to have been a broad church united around a particular kind of nationalism.

If that is the case then surely all Israeli citizens are Zionists if they are not hypocrites and the term anti Zionists should be more or less equivalent to anti Israeli .

I realise I seem to be going back on my retraction but am I right and is the term anti Zionist sometimes being misrepresented to describe a sub section of society when really it applies to the country as a whole?

I think Joe Biden described himself as a Zionist .Did that just mean that he supports the right of Israel to exist as a state?

And any country that does not recognize Israel can be called anti Zionist?

I appreciate that when Israel expands into new territories it lays itself open to the abusive characterization of Zionism but I feel that ,without defending it that is just the kind of expansionism we see elsewhere when wars are fought and the winners divide the territorial gains. (except that Israel has been for the most part the warred against)

I remember after the 67 war Israel defended its appropriation of the Golan Heights by saying it was necessary to defend itself against further aggression.....

I don't think the new settlements in the West Bank can be justified on those grounds. Are they?

Just release another two hostages and more negotiations and , and, and. The whole hostage thing could be strung out over months/ years. Hard to see the Israelis going for that timeline.

How come Palestinians had the right of passage back and forth into Israel to work , visit , whatever. I reiterate this was up until that inhumane attack by hamas on Oct 7th.

Last I heard, Egypt won't accept any Palestinian refugees?

Because Israel is a democratic country. Gazza is run by terrorists (Isis) big difference. Palestinian 30 year olds need to show the world we want change. A change to peace. We all know form our own country what peace can do over 25 years. Economically, better lifestyle. Also not having a gun pointed at you and sometimes to your head when you cross a border checkpoint in the 80s and yes this did happen to me. Anyway has one poster said earlier its a very difficult situation.

What do you call a war when only one side has an army?