I feel like I've been kind of in the loop for most of the headlines regarding this confrontation. Yet somehow I can't find it within myself to actually care about either side. It seems like both are lead by genocidal parties, hell bent on indoctrinating their populace into hating the other side. Yet at the same time people are able to discern which state is the good one. And some going so far as to believe that one state might even be right over the other.
So far from what I've read and heard, it seems that overall Isreal is just more successful militarily and is encroaching on Palestinian land, and is exhibiting control over some of it. Is that the reason why one might support Palestine? Is it the fact that Isreal has more direct power in the region and thus can easily execute its will a problematic issue for some? From what I can see, both sides have caused massive civilian casualties and neither side wants a two state solution, so neither of those reasons can be a contributing factor to side picking, right? That being said, I can't find a reason for supporting Isreal, so does Palestine win out by default? But what of the people that support Isreal, do they do that purely because they're an American ally? Is any of this side taking have anything to do with the insertion of Jews into the region? What is expected to be done outside of a two state solution or genocide by those taking sides?
I have a lot of questions, and I obviously don't expect all of them to be answered in a single post. So maybe focusing on the elements you're highly informed on would be helpful and then I can kind of piece together the details. Thank you in advance!
To answer the first question, sorry I keep breaking it into smaller components but again, separating it out makes it clearer. If we look at:
what the IDF intentions are
what their actions are
what the effects of their actions are
What people think kind of depends on how well we think it matches up and whether we think the first one is actually an okay justification for the third one. Like when is it okay shoot when you can see there's someone in the crossfire.
What their intentions are
The IDF and mainstream Israeli politicians publically stated intention is to "destroy Hamas" in order to protect the safety of Israeli citizens both in Israel and in the part of Palestine that Israel is occupying. Hamas is a broad term encompassing both militant (eg militant) and civil (eg Health Dept) organization. Some politicians have gone a lot further and said their intention is to remove most Palestinians from Gaza. Some have said that no civilians are innocent, but these are minority viewpoints.
What their actions are
This is where it gets tricky, and some of it is contested. What is common ground is that they have chosen to use an unusually large number of bombs in a built up environment full of civilians, using huge bunker buster bombs, and drone bombing of targets suggested by AI. It also involves a ground offensive, and there appear to be "kill zones." The IDF has set itself numbers for "acceptable" number of civilians per kill, which may be high, and also permits itself to bomb hospitals and schools. Here is an article which covers some of the AI concerns. They also keep tight control of humanitarian aid and limit what enters. There are allegations that are disputed, of widespread deliberate killing of wounded and civilians and children. We may find forensic evidence in the mass graves. The IDF dispute it.
The effects of their actions
I've covered this already above, but what stands out is the unusually high number of civilians and medics being killed, compared to other modern wars that involved urban warfare. To put the total mortality into perspective, during the Bosnian Genocide 3% of the population were killed over a 2-year period. 1.5% of the Gaza population have been killed in 6 months. The mortality statistics we have are for known deaths, those still buried in rubble are extra.
Using satellite images of before and after, analysts estimate 57-60% of buildings in Gaza are destroyed, rising to 75% in Gaza City. We also know the hospitals were bombed.
During the current war monitoring of humanitarian aid entering Gaza has drastically reduced the amount going in. (Before this war, Gaza did not function self-sufficiently. A significant part of the population (many were refugees) relied on humanitarian aid.
NGOs on the ground report that the current numbers of starving people will meet the technical threshold for it to be designated famine, by May.
For many of those who are on the side of civilians, there is no possible justification for killing this many people to get to each millitant. International law (eg Geneva Conventions) specifies how to treat civilian populations, and many international experts think that these rules are being breached. Moreover, the blocking of humanitarian aid is problematic, whatever the rationale.
Most of us live in civilisations where we do not find it acceptable to kill innocent people as way to also kill guilty people.
Ah, I see. Given those numbers it's pretty clear that Isreal is pretty much going scorched earth when it comes to Gaza. Good to know, thank you. I had just assumed the damages to infrastructure weren't as extensive as they were.
Edit: I also hadn't known about the active blocking of humanitarian aid, so that alongside some of those numbers really speaks volumes.
Edit 2: also no need to apologize, I mean I'm the one asking all the questions and you're graciously taking your time to answer them. The fact that you're splitting them makes sense to me. You've overall been very helpful and I can imagine that anyone that stumbles across this entire thread will likely also leave equally as informed as I have after reading most of it.
Alright, some of the side taking makes sense to me now.
I think it was really cool that you asked questions instead of just being content with assumptions.
Btw, here's an article describing how epidemiologists have been able to independently verify the mortality rate. It's from a while ago so the numbers are lower but you can still get a sense of it.