- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
As early as October 9 top Israeli officials declared that they intended to block the delivery of food, water, and electricity, which is essential for purifying water and cooking. Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s words have become infamous: “I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly.” The statement conveyed the view that has seemed to guide Israel’s approach throughout the conflict: that Gazans are collectively complicit for Hamas’s crimes on October 7.
This was my turning point as well, when it became completely obvious that the goal was the direct suffering and punishment of civilians collectively with government officials dehumanizing Palestinians openly. The repeated evacuations to “safe zones” that were then attacked just reinforced this, along with cutting off or murdering journalists to hide the genocide.
Yes, Hamas escalated the situation knowing the Israeli government would retaliate on this level, but that does not justify the IDF taking the bait.
More like “the goal was to get rid of all those filthy animals and raze their territory to get all that delicious free real estate”, but I agree.
Excellent article. Poignant and dense with citations. For those who would like to read Aryeh Neier’s full essay, here’s a link that will circumvent the paywall. I highly recommend it.
I thought then, and continue to believe, that Israel had a right to retaliate against Hamas for the murderous rampage it carried out on October 7. I also thought that Israel’s retaliation could include an attempt to incapacitate Hamas so that it could not launch such an attack again. To recognize this right to retaliate is not to mitigate Israel’s culpability for the indiscriminate use of tactics and weapons that have caused disproportionate harm to civilians, but I believe that Hamas shares responsibility for many of Israel’s war crimes. Hamas’s leaders knew, when they planned the attack, that Israel had the most right-wing government in its history, at immense cost to the civilian population of Gaza.
Hamas’s operatives do not wear uniforms, and they have no visible military bases. Hamas has embedded itself in the civilian population of Gaza, and its extensive network of tunnels provides its combatants the ability to move around quickly. Even if Israel’s bombers were intent on minimizing harm to civilians, they would have had difficulty doing so in their effort to destroy Hamas.
And yet, even believing this, I am now persuaded that Israel is engaged in genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. What has changed my mind is its sustained policy of obstructing the movement of humanitarian assistance into the territory.
His essay was a well-informed and compelling read, wasn’t it? It’s a clear journey of his shift in mindset, well substantiated with his comprehension of facts as they became available to him. I’d expect no less from the former director of the ACLU.
I definitely appreciate that he considered the point of view of the Israeli government, as too many people are black and white on this matter, before reaching his conclusion.
Right. He weighed on all perspectives of attack and defense, and still came to the conclusion that this could not be seen as anything other than an act of genocide.
I think all this is eventually going to backfire on Israel. There’s breaking a bully’s nose in retaliation, and then there’s killing him and chopping him up and setting his pieces on fire, and then burning down the school with everyone in it and, and, and…
It’s like cartman and the chili, except it’s multiple generations of families.
good, more and louder.
Removed by mod
so, first off, stop with this homogenous ethnostate bullshit, just because someone lives in America and is American doesn’t make them a supporter of genocide
Removed by mod
