UPDATE: Wednesday, Jun 26, 2024 · 4:41:46 PM +00:00
·
Dem
I have written what I believe are the outer limits of reasonable perspectives of the conflict. My own personal perspective is that this cannot be won militarily. It can only be lost militarily. I believe that it is obvious that Prime Minister Netanyahu has made this much worse and that his choices make a lasting and stable peace much less likely, not more likely. I believe that heavily investing in infrastructure and providing a good quality of life and bringing sufficient aid for the Palestinian civilians would be the best choice one could make to create conditions from which a lasting and stable peace could emerge.
So, I don't believe that using the military here is a good idea. However, I can see how some could argue that it is moral, reasonable, and appropriate to use the military. I can see how good people much smarter than me could hold different views than mine.
UPDATE: Wednesday, Jun 26, 2024 · 3:13:28 PM +00:00 · Dem
Intent is a key word here. We must distinguish between the murder of one person because of their ethnic or religious group or nationality and genocide. The " in part" doesn't mean what some seem to think it means. If we have a group of ten people of xyz ethnicity who are together, but two of them were murdered, then either they failed to carry out their intended goal or it appears that we have a logical problem if we apply the word there, right? Why were the two murdered and the other eight not? Did not something distinguish the two from the right? So, the intention must have been to wipe out the ten and the evil people failed to accomplish this goal. Otherwise, it seems difficult to apply the word genocide in our example.
Genocide was a word created by a Polish Jewish lawyer that referred to the Holocaust but which could be applied to other atrocities. Adolf Hitler and the Nazis murdered six million Jewish people because they were Jewish. Yet was this the entirety of Jewish people in the world or even in Germany? Of course not. Nor were they necessarily interested in land far away from them. But they intended to wipe out the entire population of Jewish people within Germany.
So, in part doesn't mean what some might think.
Wikipedia: Genocide
Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people[a] in whole or in part.
In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".
What is the rule of genocide?
To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group.
https://www.un.org › genocide
.
So, it must be PROVEN that the INTENT is to wipe out a population based upon their ethnicity, religion, or nationality.
.
But this has not and can not be done. INTENT. The best argument is from the atrocious conditions of life in Gaza. That's the first problem. But then to claim that President Biden is responsible for Prime Minister Netanyahu's military choices is sheer lunacy.
You may have a disagreement on a complex area of foreign policy with President Biden, but the claim that he is complicit in genocide is hogwash. It's nonsensical. It's illogical as they are astute observers of our political environment and it would be self-destructive. This claim should not be appearing here. If somebody here actually believes this, who are they voting for and how do they justify their vote? I can list off the top of my head a dozen ways President Biden showed concern for Palestinian civilians. Joe Biden is the president of the United States. He is not the King of the World or the Prime Minister of Israel.
.
This diary considers the Israel Hamas conflict and explains why a wide variety of perspectives on the conflict can be considered reasonable and be morally justified. The context in which the conflict is taking place and our own American response to the terrorist attacks on September 11th are compared with Israel's. Our advantages in our response to September 11th and their disadvantages as they respond to October 7th are made explicit. This conflict is more complex morally and politically and militarily than most people here admit. Wherever one lands on this conflict, there is one thing that we can say with certainty. Sitting out this presidential election and or dragging President Biden is a terrible mistake of the first order and although there are many reasonable perspectives on the Israel Hamas conflict, that isn't a part of any of those reasonable perspectives.
.
.
In a recommended list diary by Kos, a point was made in a comment that Israel is a sovereign nation and that point wasn't about whether Israel's demand that we stay out of their internal politics is reasonable or not; the point was that the extreme left has this belief that there are no free agents who can defy the will of political leaders within the Democratic Party.
.
.
This is a through line. We see it here among extremists who blame the whole Democratic Party when we had 50 US Senators who voted for Chuck Schumer for Majority Leader (this circumlocution is necessary because we can't say all those who caucus within the Democratic Party because Senator Sinema doesn't and so all that holds these 50 together is that they all voted for Chuck Schumer for Majority Leader) and only 48 were willing to vote to modify the filibuster in order to get xyz legislation passed in the Senate (voting rights legislation or Roe or ...) . It is then asserted that President Biden could force Senator Manchin to support filibuster reform in order to get whatever legislation an up or down vote. Senator Manchin has free agency. President Biden cannot force Senator Manchin to do something that he refuses to do. He just can't. Likewise, President Biden cannot force Prime Minister Netanyahu to do what he wants. Somehow we have to find a way to get rid of this belief among us, this faith in some all powerful Democratic Party Messiah in office who can destroy all our enemies for us.
.
.
However, this conflict defies easy answers and simple slogans. There are two bad entities in my view, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Hamas. In my view, there is a broad range of perspectives which are reasonable and can be morally justified. This is much more complex than many people here would have you believe.
.
.
Having said that, I feel compelled to lay out what I view as the outer limits of reasonable views. It is reasonable to believe that Israel has a right to use its military in this conflict and to blame Hamas equally with Prime Minister Netanyahu and his military decisions. It is not reasonable to choose to engage in major combat operations in high density areas with civilians without finding better and more effective ways of protecting civilians. It is not reasonable to allow the deterioration of conditions in the Gaza Strip to not sustain life. It is reasonable to believe that using the military in this conflict is a mistake because the cost in Palestinian civilian casualties will be too high and because one believes that there is no military solution.
.
.
It is reasonable to disapprove of President Biden's prior policy of continuing to send offensive weapons to Israel post some date. It is unreasonable to demonize President Biden, and attempt to claim that he is responsible for Prime Minister Netanyahu's military choices. The claim that you are merely holding him responsible for his own policies not Prime Minister Netanyahu's military choices doesn't square with the vitriol directed at him by those who say this. The language isn't consistent with a difference in foreign policy in a conflict this complex. Prime Minister Netanyahu made clear that he would go through with his plan to invade Rafah despite President Biden's condemnation of such an invasion .
.
If he were completely dependent upon our military aid to be able to carry out his military choices, he would not have said this. Israel still has enemies nearby. To stop sending offensive weapons to an ally with whom we have been close for seven decades shortly after a terrorist attack when they have numerous enemies nearby is not something a serious leader would do. Therefore, it is reasonable that President Biden would put off the cessation of sending offensive weapons to Israel. This doesn't make President Biden complicit in anything but sober and sound foreign policy. It is rational to disagree with him, but condemnation of him is unwarranted.
.
.
Finally, it is irresponsible to use a certain phrase to refer to President Biden and to not clearly and unambiguously support his reelection. Adding Donald Trump to this conflict would only result in worse outcomes for Palestinian civilians and on the most important issues domestically, it is imperative that we reelect President Biden. If President Biden doesn't win, he's not the one who would suffer. Marginalized communities would suffer. The United States would lose our democracy. The Department of Justice would be used as a weapon against political enemies. A national abortion ban would likely emerge, but current conditions are already horrific. The ability to avoid the worst outcomes of global warming would be thrown away. After the first Donald Trump term in which we lost 400,000 more people to COVID than we should have and nationwide social justice riots after racial injustice and having seen fewer people employed at the end of his term than at the beginning, it is hard to understand how anybody could think that it is progressive to enable Donald Trump to return to the White House. Moreover, there would be a terrific Vice President Harris ready to step in if the need arises.
.
.
Back then [the 1948 war of independence for Israel] , there was also an arms embargo on Israel — but we won. Today, we are much stronger.… If we need to, we will fight with our fingernails," he said.
.
.
In the long term, Israel needs US support. This is as much for the Security Council votes as it is for weapons. However, Israel's existence and a strong Israel are important for global stability and for a Middle East that is aligned with US interests. So, it doesn't just benefit Israel for us to support Israel. Israel remains the only democracy in the Middle East. Terrorism emerges out of these theocratic dictatorships. In general, democracy is a necessary but not sufficient condition to control or limit the spread of terrorism. Israel's current actions are, of course, creating more terrorists, not fewer.
.
.
In the short term, Israel doesn't need our weapons to pursue their military "strategy" such as it is. Prime Minister Netanyahu made this clear to anybody who didn't understand this obvious truth. Prime Minister Netanyahu is not popular within the nation of Israel. On the other hand, his aggressive military response to the Hamas terrorist attack is, and this may or may not surprise Daily Kos readers, popular among Israelis as poll numbers in this diary show and Prime Minister Netanyahu knows it.
.
.
.
Yet every day Netanyahu's response appears to be a post hoc justification when the real reason, from a cynical perspective, appears to be to enable him to cling to power and avoid legal accountability for his actions, much like Donald Trump's candidacy is to avoid legal accountability for his crimes. Foreign Policy magazine says:
.
.
Apr 5, 2024 — Despite blaming the prime minister, a large majority of Jewish Israeli citizens support his destructive policies in Gaza and beyond.
They also say:
Israel’s military operations inside Gaza have significantly damaged Hamas’s infrastructure and military capabilities, but they haven’t guaranteed peace. The fact that Israel’s world-renowned defense forces and security services haven’t managed to nab the two masterminds of the Oct. 7 attack—Mohammed Deif and Yahya Sinwar, who are still hiding somewhere in Gaza’s crevices—is telling of the country’s limitations and the support that Hamas’s leadership still receives.
.
.
Pew poll results make it crystal clear where the nation is. Most Israelis are emphatically not where most US progressives are .
.
.
39% of Israeli adults say that Prime Minister Netanyahu's military response has been about right, 34% say that it has not gone far enough, and 19% say that it has gone too far. Eight percent of Israeli adults either refused to answer the question or have no opinion. That after accounting for the nearly four in ten Israeli adults who say that the military response has been about right, nearly twice as many say that the response has not gone far enough as say that it has gone too far tells us how differently the victims of the terrorist attack feel about their leaders response to the attack than we do.
.
.
Let's consider the obvious reason why this is, especially in the light of our own response to the terrorist attack we faced on September 11th of 2001. I will simply note that in 2002 President Bush's approval rating was in the 70s and the 2002 midterms were one of the few midterms in the last century in which the political party controlling the White House gained seats in both chambers of Congress. In 2004, President Bush actually won the popular vote as well as re-election. Therefore, despite the fact that President Bush failed to sign a ceasefire with Al Qaeda after six months of a land war, he seemed to be okay politically.
.
.
In 2001, the United States had a population of more than 300 million people. Israel has a population of ten million people today. In 2001, our economy was the largest economy in the world. Here is our economic standing in US dollars : our GDP is nearly 29 trillion and our GDP per capita in thousands is 85.37. Israel's economy in US dollars: their GDP is 525 billion and their GDP per capita in thousands of US dollars is nearly 56. Our armed forces are considered the finest military in the world and given the advanced technology, therefore, the greatest military force in the history of the world . Israel's armed forces are considered the 17th best in the world .
.
.
What is Israel ranked in military power?
According to the Global Firepower Index 2024 , the Israeli and Iranian militaries are not too far apart in terms of overall military power. Iran is ranked 14th in the global ranking, followed by Israel in 17th place.Apr 18, 2024
https://www.dw.com › israel-iran-...
.
.
Our neighbors to the North, Canada, and our neighbors to the South, Mexico, are our allies. We are not surrounded by enemies. Israel is surrounded by enemies. So, Israelis rightly feel threatened and vulnerable . Therefore, if our response to the September 11th terrorist attack is considered to be moral and rational despite the advantages we have which Israel doesn't (superpower, best military, biggest best economy, not surrounded by enemies, main enemy isn't based right next door), then how can we say that there is not a legitimate argument for Israel to use their military? How can what we did be moral, but what they are doing be immoral? We on Daily Kos now say that our response, even just the Afghanistan War, was a mistake, but do we say that it was immoral and did we say it say that the Afghanistan War was immoral at the time? Representative Lee was the the only member of the House of Representatives to vote against the AUMF, Authorized Use of Military Force for the Afghanistan War.
.
.
I mean look at the polling for the Iraq War in its early days and what Americans believed:
.
.
ABC News/Washington Post poll taken after the beginning of the war showed a 62% support for the war, lower than the 79% in favor at the beginning of the Persian Gulf War.[2]
However, when the US invaded Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom, public support for the conflict rose once again. According to a Gallup poll, support for the war was up to 72 percent on March 22–23. Out of those 72 percent, 59 percent reported supporting the war strongly; and although allied commanders said they had not yet found evidence of weapons of mass destruction days after the initial invasion, 9 out of 10 Americans believed it was "at least somewhat likely" that the United States would find evidence of these weapons.[11]
.
.
And
President George W. Bush's approval rating also jumped at the beginning of the war, going up 13 percentage points at the start of this conflict (Smith and Lindsay).[10]
.
.
After the Hamas invasion on Oct. 7, Doron Shabty and his wife and their two small children hid in Sderot, near the border with Gaza, and survived. A reservist in the infantry, he went into the army the next day.
He just returned after more than 100 days in Gaza, having lost friends. Mr. Shabty, 31, who sees himself on the political left, said he felt no sense of revenge, even if other soldiers did. Nor did he justify every act of the Israeli military, expressing sorrow over the many thousands of Gazans killed in the fight against Hamas.
But he said he felt certain that to restore Israelis’ faith in their country’s ability to protect them, there cannot be a return to the situation of Oct. 6. “We can’t live with an armed Gaza — we just can’t do that,” he said. “And in order to disarm Gaza, you need to pay a terrible price.”
The shock of Oct. 7 was emotional, physical and psychological, undermining the idea of security, both personal and national, and reminding Israelis that they have powerful enemies next door who wish them dead and gone.
.
.
Then you add in the long history of anti-semitism in the world.
.
.
Sometimes called "the longest hatred," antisemitism has persisted in many forms for over two thousand years. The racial antisemitism of the National Socialists (Nazis) took hatred of Jews to a genocidal extreme, yet the Holocaust began with words and ideas: stereotypes, sinister cartoons, and the gradual spread of hate.Jews found themselves increasingly isolated as outsiders. Jews do not share the Christian belief that Jesus is the Son of God, and many Christians considered this refusal to accept Jesus' divinity as arrogant. For centuries the Church taught that Jews were responsible for Jesus' death, not recognizing, as most historians do today, that Jesus was executed by the Roman government because officials viewed him as a political threat to their rule. As outsiders, Jews were objects of violent stereotyping and subject to violence against their persons and property.... we now call pogroms (riots launched against Jews by local residents, and frequently encouraged by the authorities). Pogroms were often incited by rumors of blood libel. In desperate times, Jews often became scapegoats for many natural catastrophes
.
.
Again, this found culmination in the Holocaust .
.
.
The Holocaust was the genocide of European Jews during World War II. Between 1941 and 1945, Nazi Germany and its collaborators systematically murdered some six million Jews across German-occupied Europe, around two-thirds of Europe's Jewish population. The murders were carried out primarily through mass shootings and poison gas in extermination camps, chiefly Auschwitz-Birkenau, Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, and Chełmno in occupied Poland. Separate Nazi persecutions killed a similar or larger number of non-Jewish civilians and POWs; the term Holocaust is sometimes used to refer to the persecution of these other groups.
.
.
Those Arab nations and others who view the existence of the modern state of Israel as a temporary state of affairs motivate this extreme military response.
.
.
Until very recently, few Arab nations have accepted the right of the modern state of Israel to exist. Even today, although there has been some progress, many Arab nations do not have diplomatic relations with Israel or do not recognize the right of the modern state of Israel to exist. Here are a few Arab nations and their current status with Israel:
.
.
Egypt
.
.
Since then, the two countries have cooperated closely on security issues, for example regarding Hamas in the Gaza Strip or the Sinai. However, diplomatic recognition of Israel was rejected by 85 percent of Egyptians in 2020.[24]
.
.
Iran
.
.
After the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran severed all diplomatic and commercial ties with Israel, and its theocratic government does not recognize the legitimacy of Israel as a state. Iran's development of nuclear technology relative to Israel's long-stated Begin Doctrine, Iran's funding of Islamist groups such as Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas, as well as alleged involvement in terrorist attacks such as the 1992 attack on the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires and the 1994 AMIA bombing, and Israel's alleged support for militant groups such as the People's Mujahedin of Iran and Jundallah as well as alleged covert Israeli operations in Iran including multiple assassinations and bombings.[4]
Since 1985, Iran and Israel have been engaged in an ongoing proxy conflict that has greatly affected the geopolitics of the Middle East, and has included direct military confrontations between Iranian and Israeli organizations, such as in the 2006 Lebanon War. The conflict has played out in various ways, including through support for opposing factions in conflicts in Syria and Yemen.
.
.
Iraq
.
.
No diplomatic relations. The country also does not accept Israeli passports and Iraqis cannot travel to Israel.
.
.
Kuwait
.
.
No diplomatic relations. In response to Donald Trump's 2020 announcement that Kuwait could be the next Arab country to recognize Israel, Kuwait rejected the claim, stating, "Kuwait will be the last country to recognize Israel".[27]
.
.
Lebanon
.
.
No diplomatic relations.[23] The country also does not accept Israeli passports.
.
.
Libya
.
.
.No diplomatic relations.
.
.
Qatar
.
.
No diplomatic relations. In April 1996, Qatar and Israel agreed to exchange trade representations. The representations was closed in February 2009 because of Israeli attacks on Gaza. Israeli passports are not accepted by Qatar. Only during the 2022 FIFA World Cup were Israelis allowed to enter the country.[31] Qatar is a major financial supporter of the Palestinian Sunni Islamic fundamentalist group Hamas.[32]
.
.
Saudi Arabia [this is very encouraging]
.
.
The State of Israel and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have never had formal diplomatic relations. In 1947, Saudi Arabia voted against the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, and currently does not recognize Israeli sovereignty. However, as of 2023, bilateral negotiations towards Israeli–Saudi normalization are ongoing, with the United States serving as the two sides' mediator.[1]
.
.
I am not at all suggesting that Prime Minister Netanyahu's military choices are justified by this. If anything, it would seem to make it clear that we have political problems here that cannot be resolved militarily, but rather must be resolved peacefully.
.
.
Hamas' charter has the elimination of the modern state of Israel and wiping Israel off the map as a goal.
.
.
The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement was issued on August 18, 1988. The Islamic Resistance Movement, also known as the HAMAS, is an extremist fundamentalist Islamic organization operating in the territories under Israeli control. Its Covenant is a comprehensive manifesto comprised of 36 separate articles, all of which promote the basic HAMAS goal of destroying the State of Israel through Jihad (Islamic Holy War). The following are excerpts of the HAMAS Covenant:
-
Goals of the HAMAS:
"The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine." (Article 6)
On the destruction of Israel:
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." (Preamble)
The exclusive Moslem nature of the area:
"The land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [Holy Possession] consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. No one can renounce it or any part, or abandon it or any part of it." (Article 11)
"Palestine is an Islamic land... Since this is the case, the Liberation of Palestine is an individual duty for every Moslem wherever he may be." (Article 13)
.
Rejection of a negotiated peace settlement:
"[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement... Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of Islam... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility." (Article 13)
.
.
An analysis of the Hamas Covenant
.
.
confrontation as a conflict between Islam and the "infidel" Jews. "Palestine" is presented as sacred Islamic land and it is strictly forbidden to give up an inch of it because no one (including Arab-Muslim rulers) has the authority to do so. With regard to international relations, the charter manifests an extremist worldview which is as anti-Western as Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.
That worldview brings in its wake the refusal to recognize the State of Israel's right to exist as an independent, sovereign nation, the waging of a ceaseless jihad (holy war) against it and total opposition to any agreement or arrangement that would recognize its right to exist.
.
.
.
I suspect that all of this is why Israelis support this extraordinarily aggressive, wrongheaded and immoral military action by Prime Minister Netanyahu.
.
.
Nevertheless, we, those of us who live in the United States, should ask ourselves how did we respond to the terrorist attack on September 11th? We went, not next door, but rather halfway around the world to engage in a land war and invade a country, Afghanistan , not controlled by the terrorists who attacked us on September 11th, Al Qaeda, but rather by a different group, the Taliban. Between the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War, we caused a large number of civilian casualties .
.
.
How many civilians died in the US Afghanistan war?
Key Findings. As of March 2023, more than 70,000 Afghan and Pakistani civilians are estimated to have died as a direct result of the war. The United States military in 2017 relaxed its rules of engagement for airstrikes in Afghanistan, which resulted in a massive increase in civilian casualties.
https://watson.brown.edu › human
.
.
And
.
.
How many civilians has the US killed in the Middle East?
432,093 civilians have died violent deaths as a direct result of the U.S. post-9/11 wars. An estimated 3.6-3.8 million people have died indirectly in post-9/11 war zones, bringing the total death toll to at least 4.5-4.7 million and counting.
https://watson.brown.edu › human
.
.
Genocide is a word which tends to, when inappropriately used, end rational discussion. Opposing the use of the word because it doesn't apply does not mean support for Prime Minister Netanyahu's military decisions. The use of logic here does not mean that emotions and empathy are not present. Outrageous statements by Israeli government officials and conditions in which life is not sustainable make us ask, "Is Israel committing genocide?"
.
.
Currently, Hamas spokespersons are saying that up to 40,000 Palestinians have perished because of the conflict, because Prime Minister Netanyahu chose to respond in this way with the Israeli Defense Forces and because Hamas is using Palestinian civilians as human shields. In giving this number, the Ministry of Health in Gaza under Hamas control, is not distinguishing between civilians and Hamas terrorists. There are, approximately 2.4 million Palestinians in the Gaza strip. Simply because the word genocide doesn't apply here does not mean that one finds Prime Minister Netanyahu's military choices morally acceptable. So, again , we ask is Israel committing genocide? A case for answering it in the negative is presented, but a case for answers it affirmatively can be made.
.
.
The Jerusalem Post
.
.
Many point to the large number of deaths in Gaza as proof of Israeli genocide. As of April 6, the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health claimed that 33,137 Gazans had been killed in the war, while Israel maintains that more than 13,000 of those deaths were Hamas combatants. If we accept these unconfirmed figures, approximately 20,000 Gazan civilians have died.
To determine whether these deaths constitute genocide, compare the Gaza war to other modern wars:
the non-genocidal campaigns of World War II, the civilian-to-combatant death ratio was approximately 2:1; in the Korean War, it was 3:1; in the Persian Gulf War, it was 9:1; and in the Iraq War, it was 2:1. In the present Gaza war, it is 20,000/13,000 or 1.54:1.The low 1.54:1 Gaza ratio is notable because the war is being fought in dense urban areas where civilians have little protection, while Hamas fighters are protected in underground tunnels.
Moreover, Hamas has positioned its military assets in and under schools, hospitals, and residential buildings.
.
.
The Economist says
.
.
Israel, by contrast, does not meet the test of genocide. There is little evidence that Israel, like Hamas, “intends” to destroy an ethnic group—the Palestinians. Israel does want to destroy Hamas, a militant group, and is prepared to kill many civilians in doing so. While some Israeli extremists might want to eradicate the Palestinians, that is not a government policy.
.
.
Senator Warren clarified her original comment
.
.
We note the clarification subsequently made by your spokesperson that you were commenting “on the ongoing legal process at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), not sharing [your] views on whether genocide is occurring in Gaza.” Nonetheless, we believe that your statement was inaccurate and hurtful and did not reflect what is happening in Gaza or the likely outcome of South Africa’s claim against Israel at the ICJ, which Secretary of State Antony Blinken called “meritless.”
.
.
Professor Geoffrey Corn discussed the allegation of genocide:
.
.
So we know South Africa has a history of anti-Israel positions, it has historically sided with the PLO, Palestinian Liberation Organization and it now appears to be supporting the Hamas terrorists that govern Gaza. There also might be some political posturing going on here ahead of a national election.
Now, I personally believe that that [the claim that Israel is attempting to eliminate all Palestinians] is a highly erroneous inference to draw from the facts on the ground. But this is part of Hamas’ information campaign. This should be unsurprising from the inception of this conflict, they know that they cannot defeat Israel in battle. So if you think about it, for Israel, what does operational success look like? It looks like Hamas’ military capability has been completely destroyed. But you cannot find an enemy that's determined to create conditions where you have to inflict civilian casualties without doing so.
.
.
And then he points out the indefensible statements made by some of those who are officials in the Israeli government. These statements when put together with the Palestinian civilian casualties make the allegation appear to be plausible.
.
.
The other factor to be to be candid, is the terribly bombastic statements of certain Israeli government officials that fuel this perception that you have an ulterior motive here that's separate from just achieving a legitimate military goal, and the failure of the Netanyahu administration to be more aggressive in sanctioning or isolating the officials in the government who make those foolish statements.
.
.
For me, the casualties numbers aren't as good an argument for the allegation that Israel is committing genocide because realistically one would have to expect civilian casualties in such a conflict, civilian casualties are not unusual in conflicts like this, and it is simply a fact that Hamas is using Palestinian civilians as human shields. Others clearly differ with me here. On the other hand, a good argument can be made from conditions in Gaza which makes life unsustainable there . If there are good arguments for genocide, this is certainly one of them. For me, it would be the most compelling argument.
.
People in Gaza are facing desperate living conditions and food shortages as the conflict between Israel and Hamas continues.
Almost two million people - most of the population - are reported to have fled their homes and those who remain in northern Gaza are on the brink of famine, according to the United Nations.
The Strip has been under the control of Hamas since 2007 and Israel says it is trying to destroy the military and governing capabilities of the Islamist group, which is committed to the destruction of Israel.
Much of the small enclave of Gaza, only 41km (25 miles) long and 10km wide, bounded by the Mediterranean Sea on one side and fenced off from Israel and Egypt at its borders - has become uninhabitable.
And people are starving. Half the population is struggling with catastrophic hunger and famine is imminent in northern parts of Gaza, according to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), the global body responsible for declaring famine.
Save the Children says families are struggling to find enough food and water and children are dying because of malnutrition and disease.
Even before the current conflict, about 80% of the population of Gaza was in need of humanitarian aid. Aid deliveries halted at the start of the latest conflict have resumed, but at much lower levels - with about 164 aid lorries a day crossing into southern Gaza from Egypt.
.
.
The point of this diary is to attempt to show how there is a wide range of perspectives on the Israel Hamas conflict that can be considered reasonable and moral. However, sitting out this presidential election because of the Israel Hamas conflict isn't one of them.