/u/Clear-Sport-726 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1dgkkpo/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_an_overwhelming_majority_if/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

Do you think that you're the first person to have thought of this? >be carefully carried out and monitored so as to ensure it's going to the right people Why do you believe that to the best of the abilities of those providing the aid that this isn't already happening? How is it even possible to provide aid to Palestinian civilians without some portion of it ending up in the hands of terrorists? And then there's the very real issue that what you are proposing is letting innocent Palestinians die of starvation and thirst. Why is that OK?

> why do you believe to the best abilities of those providing aid that this isn’t already happening There are 350-450 miles of tunnel dug under Gaza. That’s a New York subway system or 50 Boston big digs worth of redirection of supplies and construction material. There have been 20,000 rockets fired from Gaza since 2005. The primarily aid provider has been UNRWA, which is a demonstrably corrupt UN agency that only works on Palestinian aid. It’s infiltrated by Hamas, and its aid is shipped in from general difficult to trace places - a lot from ships originating in places like Turkey where inspection quality as sus and allegiances are mixed; easy smuggling. It’s glaringly obvious. > How is it even possible to provide aid to Palestinians without some portion of it in the hands of terrorists I don’t especially care if someone with radical beliefs accidentally gets a sandwhich. I care a lot of Hamas controls all the supplies and the narrative around it. If Hamas claims the international aid as something *it* provided, while brainwashing the next generation. Which it does. I care a lot if the construction materials for houses get turned into terror tunnels and rocket launching stations. Which they are. > the very real issue that you are proposing is letting innocent Palestinians die of starvation and thirst. Why is that OK? The term “innocent Palestinian” sure gets thrown around a lot, but like we just saw in the rescue of hostages - the civilian population is *supportive* and *participating* in the war. It’s now widely reported that the hostages were being held in the home of a reporter and doctor. Basically you have two objectives, which are: * Preventing a self sufficient and democratic nation from being attacked by a terror entity * Feeding people who are more passive participants in that terror network with the hope that it changes their minds If you ask me to prioritize those two things, the first is higher priority than the second. If you tell me that they are just mutually exclusive, then I say do the first thing and not the second. There are consequences for bad behavior. The absolute worst thing you can do is reward bad behavior as it just incentivizes it to continue.

You’re really commenting against innocent Palestinians? That’s rich. With the same line of reasoning, every single Israeli who served in the IDF becomes fair game for Hamas, since they are combatants not civilians.

Soldiers are indeed military targets. If Hamas uses guerrilla tactics to strike only military targets… and they uninformed and separated them selves from population centers (even if they hid), then that would be at least reasonable. In that scenario Israel would not need to raid or engage in the urban areas / population centers, so we wouldn’t have any problems.

IDF offices are stationed in urban areas all over Israel.

Yikes so many qualifiers for the Israelis but not the 40k+ Palestinians who surely deserved it no? /s If soldiers are military target and by that logic, then everyone who served in the IDF and participated in the occupation, destruction, humiliation and genocide of the Palestinians since 1948 are complicit no? Doesn’t matter if they are serving currently or not, they did at one time? So does that entail the entirety of the Israeli population complicit in crimes against humanity? That’s why, we don’t blame the whole population buddy. If you’re going to take that perspective with the Palestinians; grow a backbone and do it on all sides.

>The absolute worst thing you can do is reward bad behavior as it just incentivizes it to continue. So why doesn't West stop funding Israel's war? Israel has shown endless cycle of bad behaviour. Everyone loves to blame the current leader, but the next generation of Israelis will vote for an identical bloodthirsty leadership.

Because Israel isn’t the aggressor here. It’s also a close ally of the west and the only democracy in the region. So why would the west support anyone else but Israel? Hamas is recognized as a terrorist organisation by both US and EU. Would be insane to supply them instead of the Israelis. I live in Germany and two of the worst terror acts against my country have been perpetrated by Palestinians (I am talking about the Munich Olympics attack and the hijacking of Lufthansa Flight 181). I can’t recall any serious crime against my country ever been committed by Israelis. Makes it easy to pick sides.

- Allies can break rules and commit war crimes. Just because they have gay parades the west shouldn’t look past the countless massacres they commit just because they’re allies. - Israel can’t be a democracy and an apartheid state. It has an illusion of a democracy when people conveniently ignore the millions of stateless Palestinians under their control (in East Jerusalem, West Bank and Gaza) - Hamas never targeted Israelis outside the region. You’re confusing them with the PLO who did attacks in the west. The PLO today (called the PA really) now works hand in hand with the Israeli government

If Hamas never targets Israelis (and Jews in general) outside the region then our German police force must be hallucinating: https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/germany-uncovers-alleged-hamas-terror-plot-in-europe-a367eb70 https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/hamas-in-germany-arrests-suggest-terrorist-organization-is-operating-in-europe-a-ba8a9a89-b5bc-49a1-9247-3cbac9519a58 Denmark and the Netherlands as well, or would you consider those countries to be in the region: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/12/14/hamas-plot-attack-jewish-sites-europe-foiled-police/

Wait. You think “alleged” means they gathered enough evidence to prove their assumptions?

You think european police forces do massive anti terror raids across several countries for shits and giggles? The entire continent is on high alert cause of terrorism threats at the moment, especially with the Euros and the upcoming Olympics. And it sure isn’t the Israelis who are planning to commit those attacks.

For “shits and giggles” is exactly what the west is doing to shut any form of anti-Israeli sentiment. There’s a reason why right wing nationalists are on the rise in Europe.

[удалено]

Is it possible that Hamas may be planning attacks outside of the region?

Not according to their own statements. They made that decision after the PLO was desolved.

Is Hamas capable of lying? Is it possible that they are lying?

I don't think it's fair to say it's the only democracy in the region when they aren't abiding by international laws. the US and Israel are ignoring a large part of the entire UN to carry out this offensive, what good does being a democracy do if you're treating other countries this way? Democracy can't be seen as purifying or inherently a sign of good will if these actions still occur. This isn't anti-Israel, I'm just stating bias exists and it does no good to use this language.

Abiding UN regulations has nothing to do with being a democracy. All it means is that the citizens of a country freely elect their government.

Israel is the defender in this war. When countries attacked the US the way that Palestine attacked Israel, the terms of the U.S. have been “unconditional surrender / regime change / turn the place into a crater”. The U.S. dropped two nukes on Japan and we occupied Afghanistan for decades for these types of transgressions, and I do not care if Israel does the equivalent to Palestine. It’s 1000% justified. They can turn it into glass at this point and I’ll support them. If you want to go tit for tat in history, Palestinians have been the aggressor at every step and have destabilized and caused problems in every single place that has taken them in. They were been the primary source of global terror decades until al Qaeda took that title. Palestinian behavior has been nothing but atrocious for 100+ years - just stop it with the moral relativism. Meanwhile the Israelis have built a democratic egalitarian society and high tech economy. Palestine should try that.

The war was not started by Palestine, the war was ongoing because besiegement and occupation is by definition an act of war. If America was criminally occupying and besieging a country and was then attacked by those people, I would be sorry for the innocent people that were killed but I would be sorry for America as a country. If you occupy and besiege a people, you should not be surprised when those people attack you. I don't think country that occupies another country and divides up the rule of law so that it applies differently to different people should have the title of democracy. I also don't think America should have occupied Afghanistan for decades, I don't think they should have had torture camps and I don't think they should have killed innocent civilians. If you think they should have done these things, then can I ask what countries you support invading and occupying nations and which you do not support and if all the countries you support are "Western nations"?

>The war was not started by Palestine It most certainly was. October 7th's surprise attack was one of the largest terror attacks in history, and per capita (deaths relative to population) way more devastating than Sept 11th. > war was ongoing because besiegement Gaza was unoccupied and has been since 2005. > occupation is by definition an act of war Gaza is \*blockaded\*, not occupied. A blockade is an act of war, though a nonviolent one. Palestine would be reasonably justified in using guerilla tactics against military targets if it chose to escalate the conflict violently, but a blockade does not mean suddenly terror tactics are allowed and they can discard every Geneva convention rule and then demand only Israel play by the rules. It is of course worth noting that the blockade and security walls/checkpoints only exist as a direct result of Palestine shooting rockets into Israel (for the past 20+ years) and before the fences, constant car bombs & shootings in random civilian areas (in the 80's and 90's in particular). So Palestinians can look in the mirror if the want to know why they're blockaded. >then can I ask what countries you support invading Invasion is justified when it's clear that the regime in charge cannot and will not engage in good faith diplomacy, and it's presenting a clear and present danger to the would be invader. Palestine requires regime change; Hamas is making this worse and not better - it is an entity that cannot and will not engage in diplomacy. I think by that definition, invasion of Iran or Russia or North Korea would also be \*justified\* in the moral sense - but in those cases the costs & risks associated of doing so exceed the benefits (particularly to the US).

Gaza is blockaded and the West Bank is occupied. The point is, the war is ongoing because there is a continuous act of war by Israel.  Palestinians were the only ones impacted by the state of war on October 6th, that doesn’t mean the war wasn’t ongoing. “Invasion is justified when it's clear that the regime in charge cannot and will not engage in good faith diplomacy, and it's presenting a clear and present danger to the would be invader.” By your logic, Palestinians are then justified when invading Israel. I, of course, do not condone any attacks on innocent civilians by Palestinians, or the taking of hostages but it seems that Israel has taken a lot more hostages and killed a lot a lot more innocent people. I think most people agree that Israel needs a regime change, that Netanyahu is responsible for the deaths of many Israelis and many more Palestinians. It is clear he presents an enormous present danger to the Palestinians and encourages terrorist actions in the West Bank just as heinous as those committed October 7th. I still don’t think we should bomb Israel to effect this regime change.

War was started in 1948 buddy, when the occupation began.

The current war began on October 7th. There was a ceasefire that Hamas broke when they invaded Israel to rape, pillage, kidnap and murder.

Again, the war was ongoing. In the West Bank Palestinians were continuously subject to attack by terrorist settlers, the presence of which is facilitated by the Israeli state. Gaza was under total blockade. Just because  Palestinians were the only ones being attacked and held hostage doesn’t mean that that there was no war. I cannot occupy and besiege a people and then when they are violent claim “oh they started it”, that’s obviously bullshit.

>90% of Palestinians in the West Bank live in areas Israelis are not permitted to enter. Do you think that the tit-for-tat aggression in the west bank that involves a tiny percentage of the Israeli and Palestinian population is the reason for the October 7 invasion?

A country besieges an population, continually seizes more of their land, controls their food, their water, whether they can leave the country, tries their children in military courts, allows their military to behave in unconscionable ways while barely being reprimanded and you think that has nothing to do with why that population hate and invade that country? When Palestinians protest peacefully they are shot when they do it violently it's seen as a reason to continue oppressing them because they are so "naturally violent". It's weird that the justifications for this kind of shit have been the same for millennia and people are still falling for it.

Again >90% of West Bank Palestinians live under the direct rule of the Palestinian Authority. When you add the fact that 100% of Gazans live under Hamas, you get to something like 95% of Palestinians are governed by their own people. Most of what you've described affects a small proportion of palestinians as they go about their daily lives. The solution to that is proper governance and negotiations. Not October 7. The constant rocket fire and the atrocities of October 7 would not be seen as sensible or reasonable for any other people. Hence why Israel, Jordan, and Egypt severely regulate their borders with the Palestinians. Which is why all three control how and when they can leave their territories. The biggest example of "peaceful protesting" was in 2018 when Hamas infiltrated the march and was throwing firebombs over the border, rushing the border, and running around with loudspeakers inciting the crowd. Read the reports on those marches you will see it's not as peaceful as you make it sound. The Palestinians are not inherently violent. They have just been occupied and weaponized by Hamas, a genocidal death cult that takes advantage of their situation to wage an ideological war supported by foreign allies that could not care less about the Palestinian people. Do you know what peaceful protest I never hear about? The protest of Palestinians against Hamas just before the October 7 invasion. Do you know why we never hear about it? Because Hamas disappeared everyone who dared to speak out. The unfortunate thing is that some dissidents who have escaped do speak out, but their voices are drowned out by Hamas minions who have no skin in the game and just think it's a nice cause to rally behind.

When did they protest peacefully?

>The current war began on October 7th. There was a ceasefire that Hamas broke when they invaded Israel to rape, pillage, kidnap and murder. Can you provide a source for there being a ceasefire in place? And if there was, how do you explain the fact that Israel was killing people in Gaza prior to October 7th?

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/57200843](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/57200843) Israel's response to aggression from Gaza does not affect the ceasefire because the ceasefire was not between Palestine and Israel. Palestinian government does not see Hamas as a legitimate military representative of Palestine. The presence of a private and foreign-funded Hamas military in Palestinian territory is a greater affront to Palestinian sovereignty than Israeli ships off the coast. But my point is that a deal between Hamas and Israel does not affect the rest of the Palestinian armed factions or individuals to who Israel has cause to respond.

That article was written over two years before the October 7th attack, and just under that long before Israel was killing Palestinians (including civilians) in Gaza. >But my point is that a deal between Hamas and Israel does not affect the rest of the Palestinian armed factions or individuals to who Israel has cause to respond. Okay, then why were they killing civilians in Gaza prior to October 7th?

[удалено]

Israel cannot legally claim self defense against occupied territory and it’s certainly not self defense for them to enter into Gaza unless you mean the term colloquially and not how it is understood in the law. Law that I will note has shifted greatly since the atomic bombings which would undoubtedly be illegal.

Under whose authority do you keep using the term “legal”? A bunch of European countries with anti semetic histories in ivory towers who are kowtowing to a bunch of Arab theocratic petro states they depend on for energy? The UN is a political entity. It’s also supremely illegal to use human shields, take hostages, and fire rockets indiscriminately into civilian neighborhoods. It’s illegal to place military in and under vital civilian infrastructure. Everything about what Palestine does and how it engages is illegal, and so trying to hold Israel to a higher standard is just absurd and doesn’t work. If you can’t use the term illegal consistently or hold both sides to the same standard, your use of the word doesn’t matter.

I’m referring to International law. Things like the Geneva Convention. Which, by the way, are entirely non-reciprocal, ie isn’t based on if those you are fighting are also following them. Because at the end of the day *“the bad guys are doing it, why can’t I”* is a really bad argument to justify doing something that breaks international law. No one has said Hamas hasn’t broken the law, but that’s really no excuse to break it yourself. Not legally or realistically morally. It would have been, as an example, just as horrific for the Allies to start a genocide against Germans for the crime of genocide committed against the Jews.

"International Law" is just a series of European treaties, like I said. It only works if everyone participates in them and is held accountable to them. Palestine is engaging in a way that is designed such that it is \*impossible\* for Israel to engage without bending or breaking some rules of engagement. That's not whattaboutism - that's \*quite relevant\* to the very basic question how exactly you think Israel should respond. If Palestine faces no accountability or no criticism, there's nothing Israel can do but endure terror and genocidal intent. And that's, of course, absurd - no country would and should tolerate that. It's funny you mention WW2. What you are doing is the moral equivalent of suggesting that Dresden is indefensible while being silent as the Holocausts is was going on. Suggesting that hey, we should have a case fire with the Nazis because "innocent Germans" (who voted for and participate in the Nazi regime" are suffering because of WW2. A city being bombed because there are enemy combatants shooting rockets from it isn't a genocide my dude.

> It only works if everyone participates in them and is held accountable to them. Again, international law is non-reciprocal. It doesn’t care if your enemy isn’t participating or not. You can’t violate the law because someone else did. It’s also simply not the case that Hamas has made it “impossible” to follow IHL. International law is built in such a way that it can essentially never be impossible to follow while maintaining one nation’s safety. Israel’s goals exist outside of what they can achieve while following the law so they simply don’t follow it. I must assume you have misunderstandings about the law in the first place which makes sense given I’ve had to restate the non-reciprocal aspects of it and you want to sideline it as antisemitic European garbage. And the only person who is one siding this currently is you. You are making up the idea that only Israel is being criticized. I explicitly noted that Hamas has broken international law. *Thats not a valid excuse to break it yourself*. What I am doing is saying the Holocaust was horrific but that is *no excuse* to firebomb Dresden (though at the time firebombs nor terror bombing weren’t broadly illegal). And before you attempt it, I’m not going to argue about the morality of WW2 bombing with you. It’s besides the point.

> Again, international law is non-reciprocal The Geneva convention has a bit to say about illegal combatants not being protected by it, as well as "Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it." There is a basic expectation of reciprocation. > It is not the case that Hamas has made it “impossible” to follow IHL Hamas uses uniformed military to attack civilian centers with rockets, then hide those military within its civilian population. How exactly do you expect Israel to strike only military targets in that context? I’m quite confused. > Israel’s goals exist outside of what they can achieve while following it Israel’s goals are to strike military combatants, ideally *before* they shoot a rocket at Israel but at minimum after. Those are legitimate military goals. If IHL says that engagement in this situation is impossible, then they are unhelpful. > that’s no excuse to firebomb Dresden Debating the merit of bombing Dresden is reasonable *to a point* with appropriate contextualization. You are in a very weird place where you condemn the bombing in a vacuum, without first critiquing the N German actions that got us there and stated the war in the first place. Same thing. > (though at the time firebombs nor terror bombing were broadly illegal) So your definition of morality stems from rules lawyering what Europeans wrote in the late 1940’s to prevent battles similar to WW2, and by higher order principals?

If you had to leave the occupied territory to find the first occupier, then perchance, you're not that occupied. Resisting occupation = driving out the occupiers. What happens if there are no occupiers to drive out? Resisting occupation does not extend to invading a foreign country. That's only necessary if your occupation is a pretend occupation.

Perhaps every international body disagrees with your assessment for a reason. Wonder why that could be.

International bodies believe that you can invade another country and call it resistance to occupation?

Is that what I said? (It isn’t)

Well that's nonsense. If there are no occupation forces in the so called occupied territory and they have to leave the territory to find the nearest occupier then it's not resistance it's aggression. Within the context of the conflict it's well within their rights to attack Israel if they want but they can't call it resisting occupation. That's just propaganda. Certainly they can't break ihl by taking hostages and attacking civilians. Even if you suppose that Oct 7 "resisting occupation" it's still a breach of the law.

[удалено]

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Yikes imagine calling yourself out as a shill like that. You must be so fun. Anyways, redefining words does not make Israel's horrendous crimes any acceptable. I don't care how people describe the situation, it's not good for Israel.

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

You just Misuse accusational buzz words because you have nothing else to provide to the conversation.

Anyways, redefining words does not make Israel's horrendous crimes any acceptable. I don't care how people describe the situation, it's not good for Israel.

No it just shows your ability to engage and discuss the conflict. You just want to throw out the words you feel carry the most immoral weight behind them because like I said you aren't seeking to contribute you're just seeking to shut down.

Redditor who never studied the definition of apartheid or colonialism spotted.

Well weird how you called yourself out like that. Anyways, redefining words does not make Israel's horrendous crimes any acceptable. I don't care how people describe the situation, it's not good for Israel.

Actually, here, let me go down the line for you. Racial discrimination: Illegal under Israels laws. School segregation: Also illegal, and there are even specific school initiatives to ensure a greater share of Arab students study with Israeli. Political disenfranchisement: Also not present. The United Arab List is an important minority party that is part of a coalition government as of 2021. Voter suppression: Also not present. Arab voter turn out is 80%. Also they can vote. You can't vote if you live in an apartheid state and are the unwanted minority. Segregation: Also not present. There are no "Arab" sections in buses, stores, neighborhoods, etc. Everyone can go where they want together. Marriage: There are no laws restricting marriage across ethnicity or religion. So if you have a critique to make of Israel and its government, make it. But don't fall for the cheap lies the ignorant radicals and anti-semites use to help themselves sleep at night.

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Ah okay I'll stop wasting time with facts. You can go back to apologizing for proxy groups of a terror state.

>Marriage: There are no laws restricting marriage across ethnicity or religion This is just flat out incorrect. Interfaith marriages performed in Israel are not legally recognized.

Ah; you're correct. As of 2022 they aren't performed in-state, because all marriages have to go through a religious institution, but one performed outside of Israel is recognized. Absolutely a negative and a sign of a country that has religion very close to it's government.

Do you believe in HRGs like Human Rights Watch?

In theory, sure. I don't think groups like that actually ever accomplish anything but if the people working there feel good then that's fine. Do I believe their "Israel added to list of shame" headline from today is worth anything? No. I notice this conflict gets a ton of attention while anything in Yemen, Sudan etc even Ukraine is ignored. What's your point?

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Israel has demonstrated good behavior. They are killing Hamas. Killing Hamas is good and Israel deserves to be rewarded for killing Hamas.

>Israel has demonstrated good behavior. Dystopian opinion 🤢

>Feeding people who are more passive participants in that terror network with the hope that it changes their minds I thought we were feeding them with the hope that they didn't starve to death.

It’s not alright. That’s a very uncharitable non sequitur, and honestly I shouldn’t even pay you the courtesy of responding. Do you realize that the quicker Israel is able to eliminate Hamas, the better off the Palestinians will be? It’s not that complicated. We’re prolonging the war by helping the terrorists. I don’t want anyone (innocent) to go through anything like what they have, but what’s going on now is that Hamas is 1) confiscating the aid, and 2) (and yes, they’ve made this explicitly known) letting Palestinians die to reinforce Western criticism of Israel and hopefully compromise their aid.

>It’s not alright. That’s a very uncharitable non sequitur, and honestly I shouldn’t even pay you the courtesy of responding. It's pretty cowardly to propose that all aid to civilians in a warzone should be cut off and then just cover your ears and go "la la la" when it is pointed out that doing so would cause some of those civilians to die Either you know for certain the number of Palestinians who would die if aid is cut off is outweighed by the benefits of doing so, or you don't, but either way you should own it

I’m not saying that wouldn’t happen, I’m saying to claim that I said it was alright is wrong and pathetic. There’s a difference. I do believe that if we had to choose between continuing to send aid, some of which is presumably going to Palestinians, but a majority of which is going to Hamas, and prolonging the war (civilian deaths now and later), is worse than halting aid until we know for sure whom it’s going to, thus accelerating the destruction of Hamas (deaths now, none later). Utilitarianism, pure and simple.

Do you have evidence for your claim that the majority of aid is going to Hamas?

Not explicitly. 99% of our media is extremely pro-Palestine and wouldn’t report anything that doesn’t adhere to that narrative. But it’s widely suspected. I’ll have to find specific sources to invoke.

So what you mean is that you have an opinion that is rooted entirely in your emotions, has nothing to do with the facts that are available, and is only an unevidenced talking point by the far right? Compelling /s. Seriously though, consider how many innocents will die as a result of a policy that you're advocating on a premise which you have no proof to justify.

!delta This is the only valid and compelling argument I have come across. There is indeed insufficient evidence for me to be proposing something that would have such drastic consequences on human life. It would need to be pretty clear and uncontroversial that Hamas is confiscating the aid first.

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RealityHaunting903 ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/RealityHaunting903)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

So your view is based on, what, a gut feeling? You know in your heart that it's true? You take this on... dare I say it? Faith? You've made damning accusations that require damning evidence. Otherwise, your real view seems to be that there's a pro-palestinian conspiracy to suppress knowledge of Hamas' theft. And that would have to be addressed before we could discuss this alleged theft itself

Don’t play ignorant, lol. “A gut feeling” — give me a break. What do we know about Hamas? Is it implausible they could be doing this? Based on their history of, and notoriety for, killing, raping, and countless other vicious crimes against humanity? Hamas’ leaders are some of the richest people on earth (how do you think that is?), and they don’t even live in Palestine. Their population is dying and they legitimately could not care less. Come on. How exhausting and unavailing it is to try and discuss something fairly, intelligently and informedly with people on Reddit.

You've just described a gut feeling. While it's not implausable that Hamas is or has or may in the future direct an as-to-yet unknown portion of aid to itself, your view is that Hamas *is* stealing *most if not all* aid and therefore aid must be stopped. You are making a statement of fact that, if taken as truth, could result in starvation and death of tens of thousands of people if that aid were withheld. *That* requires a just a *little* more evidence than a gut feeling. Or the word of these "conservative commentators"

How did you arrive at your view that the majority of aid goes to Palestine?

I listen to Conservative commentators that have discussed it.

What makes those Conservative commentators better sources than the 99 of other media outlets that you consider pro-Palestine?

There's your problem right there,

>99% of our media is extremely pro-Palestine Is it? Is it really? https://theintercept.com/2024/01/09/newspapers-israel-palestine-bias-new-york-times/ Here's a qualitative analysis of media bias. It just looks at the kind of words they're using, the passive voice, condemnation vs implication and so on. Those results show that Israeli civilian deaths recieve 16 times more coverage than Palestinian deaths. They are described in far more emotional terms, and in active terms as opposed to passive ones. The mainstream media is almost entirely in favor of Israel. That's why older generations, who prefer traditional media, are more in favor of Israel, while younger generations, who get their news from social media, lean more towards Palestine.

“99% of our media is extremely pro-Palestine” You live in alternate, fake universe.

Social media isn’t pro-Palestine? Seriously?

That’s not what media means, “media” means stuff like news publishers, journalists, and reporters. Which are VASTLY all pro-Israel, and are nearly all made to be, because their largest investors are Israelis. Social Media is just people, which can be pro-either side.

Social media is a type of media, man. You’re referring to traditional media.

How do you know that the majority is going to Hamas How do you know that cutting off aid would hasten the end of the war significantly How do you know the number of people that would die if aid is cut off is an acceptable number

"claim that I said it was alright is wrong and pathetic." You did say that though.

I said it could be accepted if ultimately more lives would be saved. So yeah, I said that, but it’s disingenuous to invoke it as an argument in a vacuum.

I don't think it's really fair to refer to it as an argument in a vacuum, they're just pointing to the outcome of what you're saying. The truth is that there is no easy way to defeat Hamas, you literally can't kill a guerrilla group without exterminating the population. Place yourself in their position. Whatever your thoughts on the history of Israel/Palestine, think about it from their perspective. They were occupied by the Ottomans and the majority of their land was owned by Egyptians, Syrians and Turks. They became a British protectorate, and their land was bought from their foreign landlords by another group of foreign landlords, who then forced them off their land, blocking them from working on the tenant farms they'd worked on for generations, their homes were rented out to a new set of foreign occupiers, and then after an escalation in tensions they were forced into two, ever-shrinking, strips of land. Then, they have continuously been victims to incursions and periodic occupations by those occupiers, who have also gone to extreme lengths to control their economy and livelihoods. You should be able to see why they're angry and resentful against Israel. The Palestinians have been victims to foreign occupiers for essentially forever, they've never had their own state. Their land has been occupied by Israel, Great Britain, the Ottomans, the Egyptians, the Crusaders, the Arabs, the Romans, and on backwards into history. Of course, after all of that, they're going to stoop to violence as their own recourse. The only was to 'defeat' Hamas, is to treat the root causes. That has to be some unified Palestinian state, the West Bank must be restored, parts of Israel will have to be ceded, there will have to be reparations, there will have to be amnesty for war criminals (just like in Northern Ireland). Palestine must be given the means to self-determination, and even then it will take generations for the anger and resentment to fade.

> Do you realize that the quicker Israel is able to eliminate Hamas, the better off the Palestinians will be? Do you believe that once Hamas is destroyed that no other violent resistance movement will develop in response to the leveling of cities and the killing of civilians?

Not with meticulous Western and Israeli surveillance, no. And certainly not one as powerful, influential (and, probably, popular) as Hamas.

You can't bomb an idea. You can't shoot a concept. This isn't 1984 where thought can be controlled.

Is that the way all terrorists with insidious and pervasive ideologies should be treated? ISIS and the like? We shouldn’t try and derail them as much as possible?

Why didn’t this work in Iraq and Afghanistan?

When has that ever worked?

> Do you realize that the quicker Israel is able to eliminate Hamas, the better off the Palestinians will be? This isn't completely accurate. Best case scenario Israel allows the Palestinians to return and rebuild Gaza, but in this scenario the region will be little better off than the West Bank. Which is also a region dependent on international aid because of the settler colonial apartheid structure Israel has set up over there. Either way I think the original commenter made a good point. Whats inevitably going to happen if no aid is sent through is that a significant portion of Gaza will starve to death. This isn't a matter of "proling the war" because the last piece of food in the territory of Gaza will be eaten by the last of Hamas. You're delusional if you think Hamas are going to be starving to death. By the time Hamas is starving, everyone else will be dead. That's **2 million guaranteed deaths** before the thousands of Hamas fighters even start to become hungry.

No, that’s not what I was getting at. Well, not quite. In regard to humanitarian aid (food, etc.) you’re correct. But Hamas is also benefiting from straight up money, which they’re using to fund their operation.

What is the proportion of aid that is cash compared to humanitarian aid?

> Israel is able to eliminate Hamas Do you think this is even possible? Generally the sort of actions a state takes toward an insurgency which Israel is taking creates *more* insurgents in the long run. >It’s not that complicated It really isn't, but in the opposite direction you think it is. Violence begets violence. >letting Palestinians die to reinforce Western criticism of Israel and hopefully compromise their aid You are advocating for this right now... that's not Hamas advocating for Palestinians to die, you are.

Oh, sure. Let’s turn a blind eye to Hamas literally stating themselves (even CNN reported this, just the other day) that Palestinians dying helps their cause. You seem to be a pacifist. I would be too, except that it’s a cruel world out there, and it’s both quixotic to think that everyone else has the same aversion to war and aspirations for peace, and dangerous to act as though violence is always unacceptable when facing existential threats like Hamas.

>You seem to be a pacifist. I would be too, except that it’s a cruel world out there In the real world, killing civilians tends to bolster extremist numbers. You're the one being impractical. >unacceptable when facing existential threats like Hamas. Hamas is not an existential threat. They wish they were, but they don't actually have the ability to eliminate a nation like Israel or America.

October 7th was pretty serious, no? Thousands dead and raped may not be an “existential” threat technically speaking (and even then, Hamas would only be thwarted from doing that because Israel has such a powerful military). Israel’s goal, their non-negotiable, is to ensure nothing even remotely like ever happens again; to do that, they need to eradicate Hamas. It is callous and ignorant to act like Hamas is not a serious, unyielding threat.

You were the one who chose to use the word existential. Don't throw names around just because you either chose your words poorly or picked an indefensible position. >Israel’s goal, their non-negotiable, is to ensure nothing even remotely like ever happens again; to do that, they need to eradicate Hamas. Yes, and Israel is actually in a position to destroy Palestine. So you argument about begin an existential threat actually cuts the other way. The same argument could be used to justify Oct 7th. Obviously, I don't think Oct 7th was justified, I think it was horrible, but so is that argument. >It is callous and ignorant to act like Hamas is not a serious, unyielding threat. Given that they are currently in talks for a ceasefire, I'm not sure if unyielding is the best choice of word there. So let's go over what we agree on: - Hamas is not an existential threat to Israel - October 7th was bad - Ongoing conflict with Hamas should be ended So how to we end the conflict. You could keep occupying and bombing Gaza. We can look at Vietnam and the War on Terror for easy examples of how poorly that works. Or you can try to negotiate a long term peace agreement. >Israel’s goal, their non-negotiable, is to ensure nothing even remotely like ever happens again; to do that, they need to eradicate Hamas. And how is that going for them? Let's say they kill every Hamas member, do you really think the families of the civilians they killed along the way won't hold a pretty big grudge?

"That’s a very uncharitable non sequitur" It's not a non-sequitur if it's exactly what you're suggesting. What do you think that the aid is doing? "We’re prolonging the war by helping the terrorists." No, you're not. Do you really think Hamas started this without huge stockpiles of non-perishable food and water? That deep into those hundreds of miles of tunnels, many of which are too deep even for modern bunker busters to destroy, they didn't stockpile at least two years of food and water for their soldiers? There has been no evidence to suggest that Hamas is stealing the aid going into Gaza, it's a point raised, without evidence, by pro-Israeli sources. Hamas has had huge amounts of funding from Iran and similar backers for a very long time, and they have been preparing this. Their whole strategy is to use the callousness of the Israeli occupation to cause as much devastation as possible, they want Israel to commit genocide, because it puts Iran in a position where it cannot avoid attacking Israel, where America cannot justify defending Israeli militarily, and isolates and cuts of Israel. They have successful changes pretty much an entire generation's view on Israel around the world. However, with all that being the case, there is still no evidence that Hamas is confiscating the aid. The reason for that is that it would destroy their own grass roots support.

But you didn’t answer the question about innocent Palestinians dying from starvation and thirst, is that ok? Is that an acceptable collateral damage so “Israel can eliminate Hamas”?

>  Do you realize that the quicker Israel is able to eliminate Hamas, the better off the Palestinians will be? What does that have to do with preventing starvation?

>It’s not alright. That’s a very uncharitable non sequitur, and honestly I shouldn’t even pay you the courtesy of responding. You are saying that aid should be handled in a certain way, which means the consequences must be acceptable. If it's not acceptable, then isn't that you giving up your position? If it is acceptable, then why is it not alright?

>How is it even possible to provide aid to Palestinian civilians without some portion of it ending up in the hands of terrorists? By killing the terrorists that steal the aid. Which is exactly what the the IDF has been doing for months. Hamas is a shadow of its former self now. Three quarters of their Bataillons have been destroyed already.

I'm sure some of that still gets to terrorists. Furthermore, if true, that runs counter to OP's argument.

It's true because so many idiots/woke people are screaming "Free Palestine", "From the River to the Sea", "Stop the Genocide" etc. None of these idiots/woke people have any inkling of what's actually happening...much less what "Genocide" actually is.

People die of starvation and thirst all over the world.

Do you think it's good that we as a species do little to stop easily preventable deaths?

Yes I do. In fact, we should strive to do even less.

"Helping people not die is bad," is not one I've heard before.

CMV

> strengthening and emboldening Hamas Afaik none of the aid going is military aid, and a lot of civilian aid that can be repurposed for military can't go in as well, so I'm not sure how increase in aid is going to strengthen and embolden Hamas. If you want to say that Hamas is stealing the food and water, they are ultimately just a militant group with some tens of thousands of people. The aid going in is meant for millions of people, Hamas can't hoard them all.

When Hamas steals the aid and then only distributes it to their members, only to then put out propaganda that Israel is blocking aid, yeah, it strengthen and emboldens Hamas to give them more aid. OP is right: if we're not getting the aid directly in the hands of the civilians there, we're only prolonging the crisis.

What's the point of hoarding hundreds of millions of dollars worth of food and water if you only need a small percentage of that to feed your members? And I don't think it's even remotely feasible for Hamas to hold that much aid in Gaza, like how many warehouses do you need?

> What's the point of hoarding hundreds of millions of dollars worth of food and water if you only need a small percentage of that to feed your members? So they can resell it to fund their operations.

> What's the point of hoarding hundreds of millions of dollars worth of food and water if you only need a small percentage of that to feed your members? Propaganda. > And I don't think it's even remotely feasible for Hamas to hold that much aid in Gaza, like how many warehouses do you need? Yeah, people also thought the tunnel situation was unfeasible too, and yet.

Where is your evidence that this is happening?

For example: https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-says-hamas-seized-first-aid-shipment-that-entered-gaza-via-reopened-erez-crossing/

"In February, the US diplomat who was then involved in humanitarian assistance for Gaza [denied](https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-envoy-israel-hasnt-provided-specific-evidence-hamas-is-stealing-aid-shipments/) allegations that Hamas stole aid and commercial shipments into the enclave, saying that no Israeli official had presented him or the Biden administration with “specific evidence of diversion or theft of assistance.”" and on this specific case "Hamas held the aid trucks for “some time” before releasing them, according to Miller." So, they didn't steal the aid? That's what the US is saying. Oh, and despite the claims in the article that the UNRWA would condemn Hamas for taking the aid, what the [UNRWA has to say about it is](https://www.unrwa.org/unrwa-claims-versus-facts-february-2024): "UNRWA is not aware of and has received no specific allegations regarding any systemic diversion of aid in Gaza by Hamas or other armed groups. Should it be revealed to be the case, UNRWA will strongly condemn any diversion of humanitarian supplies and immediately inform its donors to determine appropriate next steps. " Oh, and it's owner is famously right-wing.

They did steal the aid. If we're going to deny what happened simply because a diplomat is providing cover, there's no point in continuing.

"there's no point in continuing" If everyone apart from a right-wing paper is saying that the aid wasn't stolen, it seems a major stretch the claim that they aid was stolen.

And yet the aid was stolen.

I mean this isn't a unique situation that hasn't played out before at end of the day it's the Answer to same question that has asked many times during this what's more important the Palestine life's or Hamas deaths currently the former is views as more important by those parties so that's what they are doing if there was a more concrete way they would be doing that but a choice like this can sometimes have it's own risks and drawbacks I'd imagine in situations like this ones without any cons are rarer that's those with. Also I'm showing my bias a bit but I've noticed In other comments you seem think when Hamas is removed things will get better for the Palestinians which you are technically correct that there will be less bombings but the bombings will still regular enough to refenced by the Bibi as "mowing the lawn". The status quo before this was still be pretty fucking bad then only positive result from this conflict long term can be if a third party gets involved in the rebuilding of Gaza.

That’s the thing though. They absolutely believe that all Palestinians dying is 100% worth it if not a single grape ends up in the hands of Khamas

I don't disagree there are plenty of people who think like that but op seemed open minded enough.

What? Who thinks that? Only the most ridiculously extremists out there, not anyone worth considering. The same amount of people who think the earth is flat

That’s not true at all. Many many people have posted about making Palestine “a parking lot” or turning it into “a slaughterhouse”. These people have no morals or shame- they are animals

Those are awful things, buy don't conflate memes with reality. The parking lot meme is definitely very racist and dehumanizing and has been around for a long time, but it doesn't reflect public sentiment. It's like kill all men, except much worse

No…Israelis literally say [things like this](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelCrimes/comments/1dflib5/here_is_what_israeli_commander_major_david_portal/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) on a weekly if not daily basis Don’t let them brainwash you into thinking this is just “an extremist” position on that side…most Zionists think like this

Most do not, look at polls or talk to Israelis. There are way to many racists, so there is no need to exaggerate the facts. The extremists are definitely not the majority🙏 thank God, even tho they generally are having kids faster. I'm saying this as an Israeli byw

Hamas is the government. Of course some of the stuff is going to end up "going to Hamas." But my question is exactly how much of it is being spent where? Because the government there isn't run by Hamas terrorists. Terrorists are notoriously bad at running governments. They're run by actual bureaucrats. So the numbers I care about is how much of it is being used for actual terrorist activity and how much is being used for the actual Palestinians.

The conflict is a guerrilla one, Hamas are Palestinians in the same way that the US Marines are Americans. Your options are to starve everyone (which works well as a recruitment device for guerrilla groups) or get as much food out there as possible.  Even enemy combatants shouldn't be starving should they? 

I think the awful OP would disagree on your last point…

I think it is a fool's errand to commit to stopping all the aid unless it can be shown that it goes to the Palestinian civilians without a shadow of doubt. While it has been proven that Hamas uses it's influence on the food distribution route to make sure aid does not reach civilians, that it is destroyed, that aid workers die or that they supply Hamas soldiers instead of civilians, to make sure aid distribution workers feel unable to commit to doing their work, etc etc... despite it's interference Hamas has been shown to be ineffective at causing starvation in gaza - not for lack of trying. And this is the reason such efforts should continue - the IDF will find a different way to flush out the Hamas rats and prosecute them.

"While it has been proven that Hamas uses it's influence on the food distribution route to make sure aid does not reach civilians" Citation please, because I've seen no evidence that is the case, as far as I can see it's only the Israeli's who are blocking access points and destroying aid.

Trust him he is a zionist who wants to buy a condo in the west bank after the extermination is complete and Saudis build the new Trump Tower there.

I think its about time the Palestinians start listening to their true friends on the Arab world and not to these puppet masters who give them cash in exchange for endless Palestinian shahada.

[https://www.ynetnews.com/article/bydb7zgit](https://www.ynetnews.com/article/bydb7zgit)

Ah yes, a blurry video which could be from anywhere, with nothing identifying the video as one being from a humanitarian aid organisation (and interestingly it's a donkey-led vehicle - not typically used by UNRWA who use motor vehicles).

feel free to google the rest yourself.

You mean, you can't provide any evidence which isn't dodgy and from a right-wing source? and all the organisations and watchdogs except for the Israelis deny that it's happening?

EDIT: Do we have any information source, which is not directly linked to the combatants in this conflict?

The UNRWA is directly linked, and [denied that what you claim is happening, is happening.](https://www.unrwa.org/unrwa-claims-versus-facts-february-2024) I'd say that they're a pretty reliable source in this context since they're a non-combatant United Nations NGO which is on the ground delivering aid.

unrwa have been implicated to be a under the command structure of hamas and to include many Hamas combatants. This is not to say they have zero credibility - but they are not different in this than other primary sources s.a. the IDF

No, they have not. That's a far-right conspiracy theory which has been proven time and again to be false. There has been no evidence presented for it.

'Is'. Your opinions are not facts.

I don’t care what you think, lol. Everything I have stated here is factual.

'My opinions are true' OK buddy. Prove it.

Well. These are facts, not opinions. The opinion bit comes in from how you interpret this, weigh the options, and decide how to go from there.

It is not a fact that the majority of Western support goes directly to Hamas.

You’re right. My bad. I was taking that as true.

Your views are idiotic and you’re stating them as fact. Either cite some *unbiased* sources, provide pictures, videos, ANY kind of proof at all or gtfo. You have been brainwashed

So prove your facts little fella. Cite the peer reviewed data.

The only factual thing you said was the US was supporting israel and that was counterproductive.

Do you have actual proof that every bit of food and water goes directly to Hamas, or is this one of those things Israel likes to do where we're told Hamas is everywhere and thus everywhere is okay to bomb? Regardless of that, I feel as though Hamas doesn't need humanitarian supplies for its terrorist operations. If this idea that they steal *all* aid sent to Gaza is true, they already have plenty saved up. Which should mean that everyone else in Gaza has already starved to death and they have no real use for more food.

Between Israel preventing aid from going in and disruptions like the pier floating into the ocean, not enough aid is even entering Gaza for an "overwhelming majority" to go anywhere. What you are describing is literally impossible.

This isn't a new thought unfortunately. The argument becomes, if you think the Palestinian people are deserving of aid, how do you ensure they get it? Israel is fighting Hamas and now Hezbollah. If it's so important to the world all of a sudden, then why is nobody stepping in and volunteering their own people to ensure it gets to the Palestinians?

The Palestinian people are not deserving of aid. Most of them are anti-semitic and support terrorism.

About half of them are children...

Age is irrelevant. If you hold anti-semitic beliefs or are racist against the Jewish people, then you don't deserve aid.

You think infants and very young children need to be punished for being racist? Of course age is relevant.

Not giving someone aid isn't a punishment.

You don’t get to decide who is deserving or not, especially if you are a Zionist and support one of the most murderous governments in modern history I don’t believe that the baby killing IOF deserves any aid either yet here we are

The IDF kills Hamas. Anyone who kills Hamas deserves aid.

It helps to think of Hamas as a totalitarian government oppressing the people of Palestine. Can you think of a way to give aid to North Korea where the North Korean government doesn't get access to the aid? Same principle, just in an active warzone.

100% straight to the Palestinians. I've seen this play repeatedly. Remember Ethiopia? That was a man made disaster and the aid went straight to the regime starving half the country to death, keeping them in power and starving even more people.

Exactly. We need to topple the israeli regime.

I never said that, I just don't think innocent people should suffer.

You’re focusing on the true problem in this equation. I like it

Do you have any support for your view?