It could be that way, but the historical numbers are from the PCBS they could be wrong systemically; but I don't know of a better source.
I like that you are honest, and you also seem like a reasonable human being, which is admirable.
Thank you for the sentiment. Especially online I think that can get lost.
I know the situation is not black and white and that both sides are complicit to the current situation, I just think that the human cost isn’t justifiable, and achieving it at any cost , which seems to be the intent of the Israelian government, even if that means sacrificing their hostages, which makes it even harder to sympathize.
I guess I've just not been convinced that Israel is willing to achieve it "at any cost." Given my knowledge of modern warfare, granted which is only an armchair level, it does seem clear that Israel is fighting with many self imposed limitation all designed to minimize the civilian casualties that must be suffered. I think that's the core of why most are sympathetic; they see a similar self-restraint on the part of Israel's armed forces. It's almost been impossible to follow the last 20 years or so of these off again on again conflicts and not see the pattern of Hamas's terrorism and war crimes; and then see them continue it because they face no international consequences for them.
At some point in this conflict every "neutral" observer will "look closer" at a particularly wild claim made by Israel or Hamas like "Hamas's HQ is located under a Hospital and they have a torture dungeon under there", "Hamas launches rockets from UN ran schools", "Check out Hamas $leader's dope crib in Quatar" or "Israel shells Hospital 500 children dead." and time and time again they're going to see the IDF largely didn't do what Hamas said they did; and Hamas did what the IDF said they did. And most people can only see so many cases of Hamas recklessly committing blatant war crimes, murdering it's own citizens, not having elections, calling for genocide etc... before they start to sympathize with Israel.
And yes, the father/child was a metaphor, but as you put it can also be a school bully (Israel) and systemically bullied kid (Palestine).
I guess the issue is that most see the metaphor reversed.
And I think tunnels were first constructed to facilitate the trade between people in Palestine and the neighboring villages and towns outside Gaza, but then were repurposed by Hamas for their war operations.
That's definitely how the ones in the south near the Rafa crossing were originally constructed. Old fashioned smuggling. But the ones in the North are almost exclusively built by Hamas for warfare purposes. As both weapons depot and as ways to cross the border for raids into Israel without getting detected. The use of those tunnels for warfare has been a recurring theme in the series of conflicts since the disengagement.
No matter the origin, the use of those tunnels for war fighting does make them valid military targets.
So one can argue that if this Intifada didn’t occur, Hamas wouldn’t exist nowadays. It was an angry reaction of desperate people (not defending here), just giving a bit of food for thoughts.
I'd agree with that. Israel surely could have worked faster after the end of the Cold War (and the defacto end of financial and miliatary support from Russia towards Israel's direct enemies) to establish a 2 state solution. But I do think it's reasonable to note, that the First Intifada started in '87 8 years after Israel proved it was willing to trade land for peace with the Sinai deal with Egypt.
The only way to solve this problem is Israel to offer Palestine some concessions, cease fire and start treating them fairly in exchange of change of the leadership in the country and disarmament of the Hamas war wing
What sort of concessions would Israel need to offer Hamas and Gaza that they haven't already offered them?
The Demographics don't back that up. It seems more like those who can emigrate away from the Strip as soon as they can and those who stay have had an incredibly high birth rate. That's why the strip has almost doubled in population since 2000.
You're probably right though that they could basically nuke Gaza and get away with it, but they wouldn't because the radiation would harm them too.
Gaza isn't large. They could do it with conventional weapons that have no radiation problems. The risk of nuclear fallout isn't why they haven't eliminated Gaza, the lack of desire to eliminate Gaza is.
In a war, isn't it relevant who started the conflict and for what purpose? Who was the first aggressor in the conflict between Isreal and Palestine?
In this conflict, Hamas' started the conflict. As for who the "first" aggressors; it would depend on how back you wish to look. If we limit the problem to just post British takeover of the region, than the first aggressors were the British fighting the Ottomans and following it up by enforcing property tax law against the primarily Arab populace who hadn't paid property taxes in a 1000 years to the Ottomans.
Not I don't think so. Hamas doesn't think so. The IDF has the capability to genocide Gazans. Hamas needs Gazans to continue to have aid money to loot. If they believed Israel was willing or wanted to conduct a genocide they'd surrender; because they need the population to continue their lifestyle in Quatar.
I'm saying that based on the strike maps from previous wars and this one and the map (both linked in a different thread on this topic) Israel released about actuve
Are those the only two possibilities?
Likely yes. Israel has a parliamentary system so there are always going to be an official in government with a wild take because they're the last x% of the coalition that got brought in to push them over the top. If they (Israel) wanted to maximize casualties the more reasonable parts of the coalition would fall apart.
Is it possible they want plausible deniability while killing as many as they can? Israeli officials have made it clear that do not want Palestine to exist.
Israel could easily justify tomahawk sized cruise missiles. 20 or so of them would largely wipe out northern Gaza City. And just one into one of the Southern Gaza camps would kill more than the war has so far. So yes you can believe they want to, but you do have to believe them to be incredibly incompetent.
So according to your logic, each one of the bombs was hitting a legitimate military target.
Looking at a mapping of the strikes and comparing it with Hama's tunnel network it does look like they largely line up.
Assuming that Hamas military wing is around 30K, and that Israel is dropping around 400 bombs every day for about 3 weeks, this means that they had hit 82.000 “military” targets over Gaza and the signal from their government is that this war would be very long and bloody war.
Also remember that if they're targeting underground tunnels you need a lot of ordinance to collapse a tunnel from the air. And if you're choosing to not use the biggest weapons (which even amongst conventional weapons Israel is clearly not using) you likely need multiple strikes to clear out a tunnel.
So how many more “targeted” bombs need to be dropped to kill every one of Hamas?
I don't think killing every Hamas operative is the goal. Apparently there's 30-40k fighters in Hamas' army. I think the goal is to target the support infrastructure, weapons depot, etc... necessary to train and command that army. Hamas had been largely training this army out in the open before the start of this war. And Israel had been respecting their right to have an army for self defense. Now that they started a war they're trying to take out all the targets they declined to do over the last few years.
And is the human cost justified?
Unfortunately it's an unanswerable question, as questions of moral reasoning often are.
How would you feel if you are trapped with all of your family and would you consider the actions of the aggressor as just?
Oh I'd hate it. I feel for the Gazan caught in a war zone. I don't think I'd believe the aggressor to be just. I just hope I wouldn't be blindsided enough to not realize that my side was the aggressor.
What are the chances that you would start passionately hate this aggressor to deliberately putting you through this, especially if they hurt or kill some of your family members? And I want an honest answer!
Oh high. I'm human. Just because I'd make a bad decision in the same situation doesn't make it a good decision.
So now think is this like a good base for finding a long term peaceful solution where Jews and Arabs can live alongside each other without killing/hating themselves?
Honestly, yes. Gaza has self determination, more aid than any other nation of poverty in the world, a favorable trade location, a diaspora capable of generating international remittances, a foreign border and the 1967 peace treaty borders. They can choose peace. They may not; but eventually they will choose peace or they will continue to get stomped on in wars that they start.
You know if you are constantly beating your child, the chances of them turning into not a decent human being are quite high.
Gaza isn't a child. It's a nation. It can choose it's destiny. But if it was the metaphor wouldn't be a parent/child one. It would be a peers in school one. Israel would be the quite, weird kid who hit their growth spurt early and started hitting the gym because they got picked on in elementary school by everyone. And Gaza is the last kid in Middle School who still tries to pick on that kid every recess and complains that they continue to get punched in the mouth when they cross the line. That's the more accurate metaphor.
according to anecdotal evidence
Like not even a "Hamas says" type evidence?
Yes. Ultimately if Hamas/Gazans continue to insist on "Genocide or Bust" as their foreign policy that's really the only way to kick the can down the road.