Condemning the attack is not possible without knowing its crimes, but Israel has obscured its actual war crimes with a deluge of lies, highlighting the need for an international investigation.
“After having spent their lives in a concentration camp that the United Nations deemed “uninhabitable,” it is easy to understand the desperation, whatever we might say about the prudence and morality of their plans.”
They spent their lives in a self-governed “concentration camp” financed by a billion dollars a year from Qatar because Hamas refuses to accept that Israel has a right to coexist in the region and continually launched missiles and terrorist attacks against Israel. I would contend that there was “desperation” on both sides and even with the Palestinian Authority government attempting to work out a two-state solution with the Israelis. Sadly, their isolation was self-inflicted and unnecessary.
As for the “morality” of their plans, gleefully killing unarmed civilians is certainly immoral. Then scurrying back into tunnels using unarmed Gazans as human shields as they fired more rockets to provoke a response and turned fellow citizens into “collateral damage” for their “cause” is inhumane and indefensible. There were many other options than this obscene blood bath and to condone such actions also is indefensible.
"Hamas also achieves practical and propagandistic goals by putting Palestinians in harm’s way. More civilians in combat zones mean more human shields for its forces. More dead and wounded Palestinians mean more sympathy for its side and more condemnation of Israel.
That’s why Hamas turned Gaza’s central hospital into its headquarters during the 2014 conflict. It’s why it stored rockets in schools. It’s why it has used mosques to store guns. It’s why it fires rockets from Gaza’s densely populated areas. It does all this knowing that Israel, which has agreed to abide by the laws of war, tries to avoid hitting those targets — and, when it does hit them, that it will result in accusations of war crimes and diplomatic demands for restraint. Either way, Hamas gains an edge."
Actually, Israel began its siege of Gaza in 2005, two years before Hamas was elected, in the immediate aftermath of withdrawing its settlements. The plan was always to isolate Gaza when the settlements were removed, and Israel began experimenting with how to do it prior to Hamas coming to power.
Similarly, Hamas did not begin firing rockets at Israel immediately upon coming to power but only after suffering roughly 2,000 Palestinian deaths in the year prior to it. The rockets have regularly been fired in response to Palestinians suffering heavy casualties at the hands of Israel.
As for "gleefully killing unarmed civilians," that is far from an established fact. Rather, it is an often asserted frame, which is used to reinforce a multitude of lies that Israel has spread about the attack. As this article has demonstrated, most of these assertions cannot be verified, and Israel has been caught lying on multiple occasions concerning the death tolls.
It is within this context that we might best understand the argument that they use "human shields." Israel has made this claim every time they have attacked Gaza, but human rights organizations have never found substantial evidence for it. And they certainly have not not reported that they are setting up command centers in hospitals. Even if they were, it would not just carrying out attacks on those hospitals.
Rather, we should view this whole narrative as part of an elaborate justification for the genocide that is currently unfolding in Gaza.
Suffering from a bit of confirmation bias there, Theo. Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to the genocide of Israel which is why they are imprisoned in Gaza. This will likely lead finally to a two-state solution, but Hamas (and Netanyahu) will not be part of it.
I am not sure what you think will lead to a two-state solution, but the West Bank has been governed by a completely compliant and cooperative entity for 30 years, and the occupation of it has not ended. Israel has continued stealing land from it. And they have flooded it with settlers, which most analysts close to the ground believe severely complicates, if not cripples, a two-state solution. So, we can't blame Hamas for the failure to forge a two-state solution.
Meanwhile, Israel had been in possession of the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years when Hamas was formed in 1987. So, Hamas is not the reason Palestinians lack a state. Rather, their lack of a state is the reason for Hamas.
As for whether they are a terrorist organization, they are a national resistance militia. As the occupying power of Gaza, Israel is technically and for all practical purposes at war with it. So, not only do they have a right to resist, as inscribed in international law, but Israel has no right to its own defense within the territory it occupies. Thus, whatever crimes Hamas may or may not commit would constitute war crimes, which we might weigh against those of Israel, which have been considerably more extensive, and vastly more murderous.
By your logic, Israel would need to be completely isolated and besieged, but so also would the United States, Germany, France, Australia, Canada, and Britain for their participation in Israel's crimes against humanity. Perhaps we should just start with the country that has far and away committed the most war crimes in the shortest period of time.
“After having spent their lives in a concentration camp that the United Nations deemed “uninhabitable,” it is easy to understand the desperation, whatever we might say about the prudence and morality of their plans.”
They spent their lives in a self-governed “concentration camp” financed by a billion dollars a year from Qatar because Hamas refuses to accept that Israel has a right to coexist in the region and continually launched missiles and terrorist attacks against Israel. I would contend that there was “desperation” on both sides and even with the Palestinian Authority government attempting to work out a two-state solution with the Israelis. Sadly, their isolation was self-inflicted and unnecessary.
As for the “morality” of their plans, gleefully killing unarmed civilians is certainly immoral. Then scurrying back into tunnels using unarmed Gazans as human shields as they fired more rockets to provoke a response and turned fellow citizens into “collateral damage” for their “cause” is inhumane and indefensible. There were many other options than this obscene blood bath and to condone such actions also is indefensible.
"Hamas also achieves practical and propagandistic goals by putting Palestinians in harm’s way. More civilians in combat zones mean more human shields for its forces. More dead and wounded Palestinians mean more sympathy for its side and more condemnation of Israel.
That’s why Hamas turned Gaza’s central hospital into its headquarters during the 2014 conflict. It’s why it stored rockets in schools. It’s why it has used mosques to store guns. It’s why it fires rockets from Gaza’s densely populated areas. It does all this knowing that Israel, which has agreed to abide by the laws of war, tries to avoid hitting those targets — and, when it does hit them, that it will result in accusations of war crimes and diplomatic demands for restraint. Either way, Hamas gains an edge."
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/15/opinion/columnists/hamas-war-israel-gaza.html
Actually, Israel began its siege of Gaza in 2005, two years before Hamas was elected, in the immediate aftermath of withdrawing its settlements. The plan was always to isolate Gaza when the settlements were removed, and Israel began experimenting with how to do it prior to Hamas coming to power.
Similarly, Hamas did not begin firing rockets at Israel immediately upon coming to power but only after suffering roughly 2,000 Palestinian deaths in the year prior to it. The rockets have regularly been fired in response to Palestinians suffering heavy casualties at the hands of Israel.
As for "gleefully killing unarmed civilians," that is far from an established fact. Rather, it is an often asserted frame, which is used to reinforce a multitude of lies that Israel has spread about the attack. As this article has demonstrated, most of these assertions cannot be verified, and Israel has been caught lying on multiple occasions concerning the death tolls.
It is within this context that we might best understand the argument that they use "human shields." Israel has made this claim every time they have attacked Gaza, but human rights organizations have never found substantial evidence for it. And they certainly have not not reported that they are setting up command centers in hospitals. Even if they were, it would not just carrying out attacks on those hospitals.
Rather, we should view this whole narrative as part of an elaborate justification for the genocide that is currently unfolding in Gaza.
Suffering from a bit of confirmation bias there, Theo. Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to the genocide of Israel which is why they are imprisoned in Gaza. This will likely lead finally to a two-state solution, but Hamas (and Netanyahu) will not be part of it.
I am not sure what you think will lead to a two-state solution, but the West Bank has been governed by a completely compliant and cooperative entity for 30 years, and the occupation of it has not ended. Israel has continued stealing land from it. And they have flooded it with settlers, which most analysts close to the ground believe severely complicates, if not cripples, a two-state solution. So, we can't blame Hamas for the failure to forge a two-state solution.
Meanwhile, Israel had been in possession of the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years when Hamas was formed in 1987. So, Hamas is not the reason Palestinians lack a state. Rather, their lack of a state is the reason for Hamas.
As for whether they are a terrorist organization, they are a national resistance militia. As the occupying power of Gaza, Israel is technically and for all practical purposes at war with it. So, not only do they have a right to resist, as inscribed in international law, but Israel has no right to its own defense within the territory it occupies. Thus, whatever crimes Hamas may or may not commit would constitute war crimes, which we might weigh against those of Israel, which have been considerably more extensive, and vastly more murderous.
By your logic, Israel would need to be completely isolated and besieged, but so also would the United States, Germany, France, Australia, Canada, and Britain for their participation in Israel's crimes against humanity. Perhaps we should just start with the country that has far and away committed the most war crimes in the shortest period of time.