Hamas attacks southern Israel

[NorseThing]

My screen shows 146 pages for this topic. A fundamental problem is the use of language to "justify" actions. It leads to confusion. The fundamental right to self defense ends when an invader is expelled from the home. Call it what you want, but entry into another political jurisdiction is never self defense. Gaza may be under the political jurisdiction of Israel, but it is not considered a part of Israel. Israel firing into Gaza or sending missiles or tanks into Gaza is not self defense. This is the same vocabulary used in Putin's Russia to cross into the Ukraine. If I see one as invasion, why not both. Is invasion ever justified. That seems to be the real focus of this thread.

I have my personal beliefs that at least in this instance, it is not justified. Hostage taking is also not justified. Being elected and then over staying is also not justified -- note Hamas. Too many issues all mixed up here. Many of the posts here use one issue to negate another issue. Bad form for discussion and debate, but hey -- I have been away for a while. Things change.

[mishkin]

I'm sorry, are you saying Hamas leaders shouldn't be killed?
An agreeable peace likely includes the eradication of Hamas, sending their leaders to hell is certainly a step towards that. It's also widely beleived that Sinwar, was one of the factors blocking a proper negotiated hostage deal. In fact, people on this very thread argued as much when Haniyeh was killed, the supposed 'moderate'. Weren't you one of the people making that argument? Weren't you, in the aftermath of 7/10, arguing that Israel should just target Hamas leaders? Why are you now against?

You must remember that my proposal for the most surgical assassinations possible was to avoid the deaths of hundreds, now thousands of innocent Palestinians (and now also Lebanese). But it seems that Israel wants to kill terrorist leaders as well as anyone connected to Hamas, as well as anyone living in the same neighborhood (or refugee camp, or hospital) where something related to Hamas might be found.

You said that Sinwar was responsible for the delay of peace. He is dead, and peace does not depend at all on his death, it depends on Israel's objectives being met, uncertain objectives but which point to the eradication of potentially hostile populations both in Gaza and in Lebanon. Expulsion of the natives and their replacement by Israeli settlers. A new drawing of the area through bombings and mass expulsions with which Israel expands.

I repeat that if Israel's main objective had been the recovery of the hostages, it would not be ravaging Gaza and Lebanon, and it would not have taken even a couple of months to pay whatever it took to recover those hostages. By the way, at the risk of seeming insensitive, how many hostages have been killed so far by friendly fire? What a great strategy to recover hostages, to raze the area.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

My screen shows 146 pages for this topic. A fundamental problem is the use of language to "justify" actions. It leads to confusion. The fundamental right to self defense ends when an invader is expelled from the home. Call it what you want, but entry into another political jurisdiction is never self defense.

I very much disagree with your definition of self defence. If the invader is expelled, sets up in an opposing room, and starts shooting at you from that room, are you to sit there and watch then? Of course not. Self defence isn't just removing the invader from your home, it is stopping them from attacking you, and from posing an immediate threat to you.

Gaza may be under the political jurisdiction of Israel, but it is not considered a part of Israel. Israel firing into Gaza or sending missiles or tanks into Gaza is not self defense. This is the same vocabulary used in Putin's Russia to cross into the Ukraine. If I see one as invasion, why not both. Is invasion ever justified. That seems to be the real focus of this thread.

Ukraine did not invade Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine, unprovoked, with the goal of conquering territory. Ukraine does not seek to conquer Russian territory.
Israel did not invade Gaza. Hamas invaded Israel, unprovoked, with the goal of conquering territory. Israel does not seek to conquer Hamas territory.

You must remember that my proposal for the most surgical assassinations possible was to avoid the deaths of hundreds, now thousands of innocent Palestinians (and now also Lebanese). But it seems that Israel wants to kill terrorist leaders as well as anyone connected to Hamas, as well as anyone living in the same neighborhood (or refugee camp, or hospital) where something related to Hamas might be found.

Oh, so if civilians dies suddenly Hamas leaders don't need killing..?

You said that Sinwar was responsible for the delay of peace. He is dead, and peace does not depend at all on his death, it depends on Israel's objectives being met, uncertain

The US branded Sinwar an 'insurmountable obstacle' to a ceasefire. He was definitely holding back a potential hostage deal and temporary ceasefire. Temporary, mind you. A full on ceasefire can only come to be when Hamas ceases to be.

objectives but which point to the eradication of potentially hostile populations both in Gaza and in Lebanon. Expulsion of the natives and their replacement by Israeli settlers. A new drawing of the area through bombings and mass expulsions with which Israel expands.

[/quote]
Absolutely not.

I repeat that if Israel's main objective had been the recovery of the hostages,

That's one of them, yes.

it would not be ravaging Gaza and Lebanon, and it would not have taken even a couple of months to pay whatever it took to recover those hostages. By the way, at the risk of seeming insensitive, how many hostages have been killed so far by friendly fire? What a great strategy to recover hostages, to raze the area.

It is unknown how many exactly were killed directly/indirectly by friendly fire. We know for sure of 3 that were shot by soldiers who somehow managed to not realise who they were, and it's suspected a few (i can't remember how many. 3? 4?) may have died from smoke inhalation following a bombing. Nothing concrete beyond that.
So your position is that the hostage takers should just be given everything they demand? It's a bold strategy, Cotton, but it wouldn't pay off. Much like the Shalit deal, it would create a massive incentive to repeat 7/10.

[PointOfViewGun]

Israel had every chance to clear out Gaza slowly but methodically, house by house, street by street, sweeping from north to south, and dismantle any and all Hamas infrastructure and weaponry. Instead, they opted to create a false narrative and use that to destroy entirety of Gaza. No other point illustrates this the best other than Israel's handling of information around infant casualties on October 7. We were expected to believe that Hamas killed many babies. 40 were supposedly beheaded in a single village. Elsewhere many babies were burned alive, mutilated or plucked from their mother's wombs, we were told. Many of these claims were shared by Israeli officials and official accounts which were later repeated by some Western leaders and politicians. Questioning these claims were met with disgust and extreme condemnation. How many infants actually died on October 7? Two.

[mishkin]

nhytgbvfeco2, are we to believe that Hamas is still a powerful force capable of carrying out a new attack on the scale of that of October 7? So what the hell has the Israeli army been up to these past 13 months? Planting poppies in Gaza?

What demands by Hamas do not merit the return of the hostages after more than a year in the hands of, according to Israel, the atrocious Hamas people?

They're asking for Netanyahu's head on a silver platter? (Wouldn't you give it to them?) They're asking for the disappearance of the state of Israel? (We know they're more realistic than that) They're asking for millions of dollars to rearm? Again, what the hell has the Israeli military and intelligence been doing if Hamas still has a structure capable of rearming and posing a threat? What's stopping Israel from buying the hostages? What impossible request is Hamas making to stop the hell the hostages (and their families) aare living in?

Sorry man, but the hostage thing is an excuse. Almost as obvious as the excuse of ending Hamas/any kind of terrorism that given the history of the country (and what is happening right now) is inevitable in the area.
-------------------------

Subjective/personal crap:
Let me tell you one thing about the hatred that Israel has created. When this latest episode of the conflict began, I, partly out of ignorance, simply supported the Palestinian people and considered Israel to be a state that practiced apartheid. Now I really hate the state of Israel. I, a guy hundreds of miles away, on another continent. There are people who a few years ago felt sympathy for the Jewish people and now make very unfortunate comments about Hitler. I cannot imagine the degree of hatred that an Arab neighbor of Israel can feel, and it seems miraculous to me that there are Palestinians seeking concord.

[mishkin]

[snip][/snip]

The Portuguese left has indeed lost the war, their country is being ruled by the right.

Now tell Israel that Hamas, Hezbollah and company are already war-torn. Tell them stop bombing innocents.

[NorseThing]

Subjective/personal crap:
Let me tell you one thing about the hatred that Israel has created. When this latest episode of the conflict began, I, partly out of ignorance, simply supported the Palestinian people and considered Israel to be a state that practiced apartheid. Now I really hate the state of Israel. I, a guy hundreds of miles away, on another continent. There are people who a few years ago felt sympathy for the Jewish people and now make very unfortunate comments about Hitler. I cannot imagine the degree of hatred that an Arab neighbor of Israel can feel, and it seems miraculous to me that there are Palestinians seeking concord.

separate religion from the government and from the people. I have some respect for the state, little respect for the current situation. and complete respect for all people. I do not know how this will end, but in some ways it will end with all people being worse off. Winning and losing are relative terms here.

[Love Mountain]

separate religion from the government and from the people. I have some respect for the state, little respect for the current situation. and complete respect for all people. I do not know how this will end, but in some ways it will end with all people being worse off. Winning and losing are relative terms here.

Well, I'm pretty sure I know who's going to be doing the "losing" in the short to medium-term.

[mishkin]

I have a certain respect for the Jewish religion, in fact I find it more reasonable than Christianity and its presence or proselytism has never affected me.

Israel is a state based on religion, Israel is the Jewish state of Israel, and people in the current government and many of its citizens believe that its presence and expansion (for example Gaza) are the will of God. Literally a few days ago a settler in Gaza armed with a rifle said it. "We are here because God gave us this land (Gaza)."

I absolutely agree with you when you say that no one will benefit from this conflict, whose end I do not think we will see. Israel will achieve its expansionist objectives in exchange for more hatred, more future violence, more October 7ths. And I think Israel knows this and that is why it is strengthening its position and trying to root out the terrorists and their children, so to speak, any Arab who might take up arms against them.

[Love Mountain]

I have a certain respect for the Jewish religion, in fact I find it more reasonable than Christianity and its presence or proselytism has never affected me.

Israel is a state based on religion, Israel is the Jewish state of Israel, and people in the current government and many of its citizens believe that its presence and expansion (for example Gaza) are the will of God. Literally a few days ago a settler in Gaza armed with a rifle said it. "We are here because God gave us this land (Gaza)."

I absolutely agree with you when you say that no one will benefit from this conflict, whose end I do not think we will see. Israel will achieve its expansionist objectives in exchange for more hatred, more future violence, more October 7ths. And I think Israel knows this and that is why it is strengthening its position and trying to root out the terrorists and their children, so to speak, any Arab who might take up arms against them.

Israel is not a monolithic entity. It's a parliamentary democracy. Whether you like it or not, but millions of Israelis also have no grand designs for the rest of Palestine. Your real problem is with the current government of Israel, which is security-paranoid (for good reason) and have no issues with the current level of collateral damage as long as they eliminate organized threats to their country. I think we need to edge from treating actors as monlithic entities. It's a bit more complex than that.

Of course, this makes no difference for the people that the Israel's army is currently bombing, shooting, and oppressing. However, rather than focusing on Israel, I think most citizens should instead look to their own governments who continue to rubber-stamp this atrocity, and make very little to no efforts to coerce Israel to change their behavior.

Without credible opposition there is literally nothing that would encourage the Israeli government to stop their behavior. As far as they're concerned, they are fully backed by their allies.

[mishkin]

I am against the Israeli government since its creation based on nationalism and religion, its declaration of independence/the first major expulsion of Palestinians from their lands/the massacres in Israeli villages to its current policy. There was an Israeli president who was in favor of dialogue and was assassinated by Israelis. It was a parenthesis in an expansionist policy that now sees its culmination with the destruction of Gaza, the continued invasion of settlers in the West Bank and whatever they are doing in Lebanon (I would say a new Gaza).

I have no words for your comment that you think the level of innocents killed or the situation in which Gazans are trying to survive right now is acceptable. You are justifying something that can be called (and perhaps soon will be called) genocide and war crimes.

[sumskilz]

Let me tell you one thing about the hatred that Israel has created. When this latest episode of the conflict began, I, partly out of ignorance, simply supported the Palestinian people and considered Israel to be a state that practiced apartheid. Now I really hate the state of Israel. I, a guy hundreds of miles away, on another continent. There are people who a few years ago felt sympathy for the Jewish people and now make very unfortunate comments about Hitler. I cannot imagine the degree of hatred that an Arab neighbor of Israel can feel, and it seems miraculous to me that there are Palestinians seeking concord.

There were celebrations and demonstrations in major cities all around the world starting October 8th, before Israel even struck back. Neither those people nor Israel’s neighbors hate Jews any more than they ever did.

There are others, mostly westerners, who are all worked up about Israel now, despite knowing next to nothing about the conflict, but they’ll move on to the next perceived outrage soon enough.

Israel is a state based on religion, Israel is the Jewish state of Israel, and people in the current government and many of its citizens believe that its presence and expansion (for example Gaza) are the will of God. Literally a few days ago a settler in Gaza armed with a rifle said it. "We are here because God gave us this land (Gaza)."

I don’t know the incident you’re referring to, but I’m near certain it didn’t happen in Gaza.

Israel’s institutions are secular, except for a few which have been retained from the Ottoman Empire, that are shared to varying degrees by most (if not all) of the states in the region, which have much greater support among Israel’s minorities than among Israeli Jews, and in most cases can be opted out of.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

nhytgbvfeco2, are we to believe that Hamas is still a powerful force capable of carrying out a new attack on the scale of that of October 7? So what the hell has the Israeli army been up to these past 13 months? Planting poppies in Gaza?

Today? No. Tomorrow? No. In a few years, if Israel just leaves right now? Yes, absolutely.

What demands by Hamas do not merit the return of the hostages after more than a year in the hands of, according to Israel, the atrocious Hamas people?

Freeing thousands of Hamas operatives with blood on their hands, Hamas retaining control of the Gaza strip, a full withdrawal of Israeli forces that would allow Hamas to rebuild their military unopposed. If you want this war to happen again in 5 years, then that's great. If you don't, then no.

They're asking for Netanyahu's head on a silver platter? (Wouldn't you give it to them?)

I've no love for Netanyahu, he belongs in prison for corruption.

They're asking for the disappearance of the state of Israel?

Yes, but not in return for a ceasefire in this particular instance. That is, however, their goal.

They're asking for millions of dollars to rearm? Again, what the hell has the Israeli military and intelligence been doing if Hamas still has a structure capable of rearming and posing a threat?

So long as they're in power and retain full control, what's stopping them from re-arming exactly, in your mind?

What's stopping Israel from buying the hostages? What impossible request is Hamas making to stop the hell the hostages (and their families) aare living in?

For the war to cease with Hamas still existing.

Sorry man, but the hostage thing is an excuse. Almost as obvious as the excuse of ending Hamas/any kind of terrorism that given the history of the country (and what is happening right now) is inevitable in the area.

The hostages are one of several wargoals.

Subjective/personal crap:
Let me tell you one thing about the hatred that Israel has created. When this latest episode of the conflict began, I, partly out of ignorance, simply supported the Palestinian people and considered Israel to be a state that practiced apartheid. Now I really hate the state of Israel. I, a guy hundreds of miles away, on another continent. There are people who a few years ago felt sympathy for the Jewish people and now make very unfortunate comments about Hitler. I cannot imagine the degree of hatred that an Arab neighbor of Israel can feel, and it seems miraculous to me that there are Palestinians seeking concord.

Mishkin, Israel and the Jewish people have always been despised, this is nothing new. There was a brief period of time where in Europe collective guilt repressed such feelings, but that passed some years ago, way before the war. The newly arrived immigrants in Europe certainly did not possess such guilt. I have been to Europe many times, at least once a year as I have family there, and not once have I felt safe telling people where I'm from, or that I'm Jewish. Never. Let us not pretend that anti-semetism started on 7/10, or 1948, or any other recent date. This hatred is precisely why Israel must exist. This hatred isn't new, it's as old as the existence of the Jewish people.

I have a certain respect for the Jewish religion, in fact I find it more reasonable than Christianity and its presence or proselytism has never affected me.

That's because Judaism does not prosletyse.

Israel is a state based on religion,

No, it isn't.

Israel is the Jewish state of Israel,

In the same way that Portugal is the Portugese state of Portugal.

and people in the current government and many of its citizens believe that its presence and expansion (for example Gaza) are the will of God.

Many is a stretch, though I won't deny the existence of such people, obviously.

Literally a few days ago a settler in Gaza armed with a rifle said it. "We are here because God gave us this land (Gaza)."

There are exactly 0 settlers in Gaza.

I absolutely agree with you when you say that no one will benefit from this conflict, whose end I do not think we will see. Israel will achieve its expansionist objectives in exchange for more hatred, more future violence, more October 7ths. And I think Israel knows this and that is why it is strengthening its position and trying to root out the terrorists and their children, so to speak, any Arab who might take up arms against them.

Israel does not seek expansion.

[Love Mountain]

Mishkin, Israel and the Jewish people have always been despised, this is nothing new. There was a brief period of time where in Europe collective guilt repressed such feelings, but that passed some years ago, way before the war. The newly arrived immigrants in Europe certainly did not possess such guilt. I have been to Europe many times, at least once a year as I have family there, and not once have I felt safe telling people where I'm from, or that I'm Jewish. Never. Let us not pretend that anti-semetism started on 7/10, or 1948, or any other recent date. This hatred is precisely why Israel must exist. This hatred isn't new, it's as old as the existence of the Jewish people.

Then why does Israel keep building settlements in the West Bank?

Why does Israel insist on annexing East Jerusalem?

Aside from the general conditions the people of Gaza live in, there a number of acts undertaken by Israel which are expansionary and religious in nature. As a secular state that buys into the "rules-based order", it should be able to stop annexing the West Bank and dispossessing Palestinians in East Jerusalem (which was illegally annexed). But it doesn't.

Why?

[sumskilz]

Then why does Israel keep building settlements in the West Bank?

Why does Israel insist on annexing East Jerusalem?

Aside from the general conditions the people of Gaza live in, there a number of acts undertaken by Israel which are expansionary and religious in nature. As a secular state that buys into the "rules-based order", it should be able to stop annexing the West Bank and dispossessing Palestinians in East Jerusalem (which was illegally annexed). But it doesn't.

Why?

On the one hand, there is the Religious Zionist movement that has grown in relative strength over time. Obviously Jewish settlement of historical Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) is important to them, and while they’re still a relatively small minority, when a ruling coalition is dependent on them to maintain power, their interests are catered to. Some secular rightwing parties also see new settlement approval as an appropriate response to major terror attacks in an effort to force Palestinians to see violence as counter-productive to their cause.

That said, the main issue is that Israel has never accepted the assertion that the green line constitutes an international border, because the agreement signed by both parties is explicit that it does not.

From the agreement with Jordan:

The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.

From the agreement with Egypt:

The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.

In other words, neither side relinquished their claim to territory on the other side of the line. The international community gradually settled on the idea of it being a border independently of the parties actually involved, although the American and British drafters of UN Security Council Resolution 242 insisted on a deliberately ambiguous wording that would not legally define the green line as a border.

Settlements across the green line are considered illegal by the international community, but Israel rejects this on the grounds that if the green line does not constitute an international border, the establishment of a town on one side cannot be any more or less legal than on the other. There were of course Jewish towns and neighborhoods on the other side prior to the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank that took place during the 1948 war – the Jewish Quarter in the Old City, the kibbutzim in the Etzion Bloc, Atarot and Neve Ya'akov north of Jerusalem, etc. These previously Jewish areas were the first to be resettled after 1967. The first “settlers” were the legal owners of property in the West Bank prior to the war, or their descendants.

While there are some areas of the West Bank that no Israeli government would have ever considered ceding, such as the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, and the strategic high ground overlooking Israel’s main population centers on the coastal plane, the mainstream Israel view for decades was that the bulk of the West Bank would be relinquished in a land for peace deal. For this reason, Jewish expansion in the main settlement blocs near the green line was condoned and/or encouraged by successive governments in an effort to solidify Israeli claims to those areas, while new settlements in the middle of West Bank were considered illegal by most Israeli governments.

As Israel has shifted to the right on the conflict, due to demographic trends and gradual acceptance that there will be no peace with the Palestinians in the foreseeable future, the mainstream Israeli view regarding the West Bank has become more hardline. Most Israelis have trouble seeing a future Palestinian state as turning out any different than Gaza did after Israel’s withdrawal, so even though most Israelis don’t care much about the West Bank and wouldn’t live there, they are indifferent to settlement expansion, because they believe that Israel will have to maintain control of Area C of the West Bank indefinitely, for security reasons. That doesn’t, however, mean that Israelis support the behavior of extremist settlers. For example, most Israelis view Ben Gvir with contempt, see him and his type as a liability and unfit for government.

Personally, I think it would be better for Israel internationally if they had a better-defined position regarding the West Bank, which included which areas of the West Bank they are claiming and why, but this won’t happen for internal political reasons. It’s generally safe to assume though, that the last offer that the Palestinians rejected is pretty much the best they can hope to get. Since that’s not nearly acceptable to them, they’re likely going to end up with nothing more than what they have now – civil autonomy in Areas A and B, with security autonomy in Area A.

Gaza is a bit different. There isn’t much of an ideological attachment to it, because it wasn’t part of the heartland of historical Israel and Judah, and it’s not geographically in a position to threaten Israel’s main population centers to the same extent that the West Bank is. Plus, unlike Area C of the West Bank, annexation would be a demographic threat. That said, Israel will likely maintain security control of the Philadelphi Corridor and a one kilometer wide buffer zone around the entire territory to prevent the smuggling of materials for making rockets and to protect the border communities from another October 7th type incursion.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

40 were supposedly beheaded in a single village. Elsewhere many babies were burned alive, mutilated or plucked from their mother's wombs, we were told. Many of these claims were shared by Israeli officials and official accounts which were later repeated by some Western leaders and politicians. Questioning these claims were met with disgust and extreme condemnation. How many infants actually died on October 7? Two.

[mishkin]

Can you add my name to that image? I also love the topic of why Israel felt it necessary to say that the attack was even more brutal than it was. As if they were justifying the brutality that they themselves were going to commit. Or as if they wanted to dehumanize them, something they have managed to do, judging by how we talk about killing terrorists*

*Edit: Thinking about it, why wasn't Sinwar captured? The Israeli soldiers saw that he was alone, wounded, unable even to get rid of the drone that was filming him from his own room.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Can you add my name to that image?

Not sure what you mean by this?

I also love the topic of why Israel felt it necessary to say that the attack was even more brutal than it was. As if they were justifying the brutality that they themselves were going to commit. Or as if they wanted to dehumanize them, something they have managed to do, judging by how we talk about killing terrorists*

It was said by a French reporter.

*Edit: Thinking about it, why wasn't Sinwar captured? The Israeli soldiers saw that he was alone, wounded, unable even to get rid of the drone that was filming him from his own room.

They didn't know who he was at the time. If you're asking why he wasn't apprehended in general regardless of identity, because he could have had a bomb vest. That's why generally when you see footage of Hamas fighters surrendering, they're in their underwear, to make certain there's no threat.

[Love Mountain]

On the one hand, there is the Religious Zionist movement that has grown in relative strength over time. Obviously Jewish settlement of historical Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) is important to them, and while they’re still a relatively small minority, when a ruling coalition is dependent on them to maintain power, their interests are catered to. Some secular rightwing parties also see new settlement approval as an appropriate response to major terror attacks in an effort to force Palestinians to see violence as counter-productive to their cause.

Sure, but that highlights my point. Israel is happy to satisfy its religious movement at the expense of Palestinian rights. The only cost of such action is the displeasure of allies, but who nevertheless impose very minimal costs on Israel. At least relative to the political gains for the government in power, which is the only conclusion I can draw from why Israel persists in behavior widely decried as internationally illegal.

That said, the main issue is that Israel has never accepted the assertion that the green line constitutes an international border, because the agreement signed by both parties is explicit that it does not.

In other words, neither side relinquished their claim to territory on the other side of the line. The international community gradually settled on the idea of it being a border independently of the parties actually involved, although the American and British drafters of UN Security Council Resolution 242 insisted on a deliberately ambiguous wording that would not legally define the green line as a border.

Settlements across the green line are considered illegal by the international community, but Israel rejects this on the grounds that if the green line does not constitute an international border, the establishment of a town on one side cannot be any more or less legal than on the other. There were of course Jewish towns and neighborhoods on the other side prior to the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank that took place during the 1948 war – the Jewish Quarter in the Old City, the kibbutzim in the Etzion Bloc, Atarot and Neve Ya'akov north of Jerusalem, etc. These previously Jewish areas were the first to be resettled after 1967. The first “settlers” were the legal owners of property in the West Bank prior to the war, or their descendants.

While there are some areas of the West Bank that no Israeli government would have ever considered ceding, such as the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, and the strategic high ground overlooking Israel’s main population centers on the coastal plane, the mainstream Israel view for decades was that the bulk of the West Bank would be relinquished in a land for peace deal. For this reason, Jewish expansion in the main settlement blocs near the green line was condoned and/or encouraged by successive governments in an effort to solidify Israeli claims to those areas, while new settlements in the middle of West Bank were considered illegal by most Israeli governments.

As Israel has shifted to the right on the conflict, due to demographic trends and gradual acceptance that there will be no peace with the Palestinians in the foreseeable future, the mainstream Israeli view regarding the West Bank has become more hardline. Most Israelis have trouble seeing a future Palestinian state as turning out any different than Gaza did after Israel’s withdrawal, so even though most Israelis don’t care much about the West Bank and wouldn’t live there, they are indifferent to settlement expansion, because they believe that Israel will have to maintain control of Area C of the West Bank indefinitely, for security reasons. That doesn’t, however, mean that Israelis support the behavior of extremist settlers. For example, most Israelis view Ben Gvir with contempt, see him and his type as a liability and unfit for government.

Personally, I think it would be better for Israel internationally if they had a better-defined position regarding the West Bank, which included which areas of the West Bank they are claiming and why, but this won’t happen for internal political reasons. It’s generally safe to assume though, that the last offer that the Palestinians rejected is pretty much the best they can hope to get. Since that’s not nearly acceptable to them, they’re likely going to end up with nothing more than what they have now – civil autonomy in Areas A and B, with security autonomy in Area A.

Gaza is a bit different. There isn’t much of an ideological attachment to it, because it wasn’t part of the heartland of historical Israel and Judah, and it’s not geographically in a position to threaten Israel’s main population centers to the same extent that the West Bank is. Plus, unlike Area C of the West Bank, annexation would be a demographic threat. That said, Israel will likely maintain security control of the Philadelphi Corridor and a one kilometer wide buffer zone around the entire territory to prevent the smuggling of materials for making rockets and to protect the border communities from another October 7th type incursion.

You've summarized some of the issues quite nicely, but my questions weren't really an inquiry, but more of a rhetorical sort.

Israel will never give up claims to certain areas on the basis of historical/religious claims, and the Palestinians, who have already lost so much, are going to be more and more unwiling to give up larger parts of territory they see as theirs. In an ideal world, both sides could theoretically calm down and draw up a plan that would satisfy the majority of both sides' demands, but obviously this is going to be impossible for quite a while due to October 7th. Not that I saw any progress prior to 10/07. There was/is no pressure for Israel to settle or to seek a settlement with Palestine. Instead, a policy of slow annexation is de-facto what's happening, with Palestinians slowly being driven out of East Jerusalem and part of the West Bank.

Now sure, many Israelis do not consider this situation to be either moral or preferable, but it's ultimately not their concern. Majority of normal, working-class people will prioritize their own welfare above the welfare of another country's citizens, and especially of people who might be motivated to kill them. I suppose I do have an actual question now,

Do Israelis realize that this is simply a form of ethnic cleansing but in slow motion?

[sumskilz]

Do Israelis realize that this is simply a form of ethnic cleansing but in slow motion?

The vast majority of Israelis reject the term on the grounds that Arabs are not being expelled (with some specific exceptions, which I’ll address). Each time Israel has annexed territory, the existing population has been granted permanent resident status with a path to citizenship. Permanent residents have all the rights and benefits that citizens do except that they can’t vote in national elections (only local). In total, about 300,000 Arabs live in Area C of the West Bank, a significant portion of whom are Bedouins who tend not to identify as Palestinians. Therefore, annexation of some or all of Area C is not considered a demographic threat.

That said, the Israeli left opposes unilateral annexation of any part of Area C, while the center and some of the center right have a lot of trepidation about the idea. They prefer the legitimacy of maintaining the possibility of a negotiated settlement regarding borders, even though most doubt such an agreement is possible within their lifetimes. They see annexation as a symbolic act that would only really benefit the more hardline right and far right, while limiting Israel’s chances of normalization with more Arab nations. Everyone is aware that Arab leaders don’t actually care much, if at all, about the Palestinian cause, but have to pretend to.

You will hear the term ethnic cleansing used by Israeli academics and activists on the far left to describe policies that most Israelis support or are at least indifferent to. The three examples I can think of: 1) Arabs from Areas A and B are not granted building permits in Area C and are expelled if they build anyway. This is justified by the fact that the Oslo Accords grant Israel full civilian administration over Area C. 2) If an Israeli citizen can prove that they have legal ownership of a property in the West Bank because it was seized from their ancestors during the 1948 war, the court will usually rule that any current residents will have to leave within a certain time period or start to pay rent. 3) The one-kilometer buffer zone that is being created around the perimeter of Gaza. This was mostly farmland, but some Palestinians will be displaced. Most Israelis see this as justified on security grounds, and a reasonable consequence of the October 7th attack. Plus, the alternative of creating a buffer zone inside of Israel would be seen as punishing the victims.

Proposals regarding voluntary transfer are now openly discussed. Specifically, the idea of offering Palestinian families large sums of money to emigrate. On the far right this is seen as perfectly reasonable. The mainstream right sees it more like a lesser of evils solution. It’s been criticized as an implausible solution, in that few Palestinians are likely to accept, and countries would be reticent to accept them under the circumstances. On the left, the criticism is that with an ongoing conflict it can’t really be seen as entirely free of coercion, and therefore would not be entirely voluntary.

The idea that simply changing the demographic makeup of a territory should be considered ethnic cleansing, even in the absence of expulsion, isn’t something I’ve ever heard discussed in Israel.