Comment by jrochkind1

Comment by jrochkind1 2 days ago

2 replies

Thanks. And on top of all that the fact that Israel clearly considered this situation manageable and sustainable. Netanyahu's plan was "managing the conflict", with periodic "mowing of the grass". He didn't see any need to "resolve" the "conflict", and neither did most Israeli citizens, whose lives were not effected by it at all (to the extent they would plan a music festival a mile from Gaza without a second thought).

While Palestinians in both Gaza and West Bank live intolerably. And surrounding countries that promissed not to regularize relations with Israel until the situation were resolved were abandoning Palestinians and regularizing relations anyway (for, among other things, access to Israeli weapons and technology they could use to repress their own and other populations).

This is what motivated the attack, an attempt to find _some_ way to do what other things had not, get Israel to see this as a situation that was not in fact sustainable, that they coudln't just go on like this forever no problem.

I think it is a violation of international law and a war crime to intentionally target or kidnap civilians, which I think happened that day. But it was not "unprovoked", and it does not require resorting to the explanation of "they just like violence" to explain motivation.

raxxorraxor 2 days ago

No, you don't attack the country and murder festival goers to make that political point. That is a perverse rationalization of what happened.

  • jrochkind1 2 days ago

    Certainly I don't do that and don't approve of it. I didn't say I was planning on doing it, or approved of it.

    In fact, I specifically said I thought it was a violation of international law and a war crime to intentionally attack or kidnap civilians. So I'm not sure what you are saying "no" to in response to me?

    Talking about motivation is different than talking about if we approve of the choices.

    Bad immoral choices that are war crimes and violations of international law do not somehow prove that the motivation is "fundamentalism", right? If the question is what was the motivation for the attack, saying the motivation is something other than "fundamentalism" is not to say attacking or kidnapping civilians is ok. You asked, if not fundamentalism, what is the motivation? We told you. Bad immoral choices that are war crimes on Oct 7th also don't erase the prior decades of history, involving many many violations of international law and war crimes. Which are as we described above.