Since the Hamas attack of Oct. 7, the mainstream spent a long time just presenting it as something that was done with no preceding history. Over time, at least some of the mainstream has expressed disagreement with over-reaction by Israel. I would like to present some point that are not commonly covered. Hamas' attack violated humanitarian standards, but violations of humanitarian standards are not uncommon in conflicts. We need to take a deeper look and widen the look to consider Israel and the Palestinians.
First, I would like to note one historical fact. When the international community designated an area from the British colony of Palestine to become an independent nation of Israel, it also designated the rest of that colony to be an independent nation for Palestinians. Since the 1967 and 1973 wars against Israel, the land designated for the Palestinians has been an "occupied territory" denied independence by Israel. The mainstream treats this as justified by the 1967 and 1973 wars. What this ignores is that in the 1950's, Egypt seized control of Gaza and Jordan seized control of the West Bank. Therefore, there was no independent Palestinian nation(s) that could have participated in those wars. Furthermore, I would ask whether international law should say that if Nation A attacks Nation B and Nation B successfully defeats and occupies Nation A, should that occupation continue indefinitely?
To some people these points are irrelevant as they believe God promised that land to Moses' people. I have a few responses to this:
1) Individuals have the right to believe this, but this is not a basis for international law / policy.
2) Both Jews and Christians believe they are the true representatives of Moses' people. So, it may not belong to the Jews.
3) In the Judeo-Christian scriptures, key figures misbehaved. Jacob tricked Isaac into making Jacob his heir. Jacob's other sons planned to murder Joseph, then sold him into slavery. In Egypt, Joseph interpreted the Pharaoh's dream of 7 years of plenty then 7 years of famine. Jacob's family had no warning of this. This led to Jacob's people moving to Egypt, initially treated well but later oppressed. Moses displeased God enough he was forbidden to enter the "promised land." During the 40 years in the desert, God said they were forbidden to to take two lands he previously promised to the descendants of Lot and Esau, but under King David they were attacked. In light of such things, perhaps God's promise to Moses' people was revoked. That could explain why God did not intervene to prevent the fall of ancient Israel.
I don't "oppose" the existence of a Jewish nation, although I generally think nations should not be based on religion and that diversity is beneficial. There seems at least 2 reasons to be cautious about having a Jewish nation:
1) It may have been relatively safe at the beginning of the Zionist movement, but in the era of weapons of mass destruction, it is risky to have too many of your "eggs in one basket."
2) When I was in college, there was a woman who grew up in a small town with no Jews. In her youth, she heard that Jews had horns on their heads. At college, when she met Jews, she learned this was false and saw what real Jews were. The more Jews who isolate themselves in a distant nation, the fewer non-Jews will learn this way.
To the extent we accept that there should be a Jewish nation, we can still ask "Where?" In so far as it has broadly been said to be justified by the Holocaust, consider:
1) If the land is to be taken without the consent of the inhabitants, the most just way to take the land for a nation for the victims of atrocities seems taking land from the nation which committed the atrocities. I understand Jews may have been uncomfortable going to a former section of Germany, but it would be a less unfair way to seize land.
2) A most justified way to obtain land would be to have another nation (not a colonial empire) voluntarily offer land to be set aside for a Jewish nation. For instance, the U.S., Canada and Australia have so much land that an area the size of Israel would be only a small percentage of its total size. If such land was offered but refused by Zionists, I think it was less justified to take land that wasn't so offered. If no large nations were willing to offer a tiny part of their land, I don't think those nations should insist another people were obligated to give up a larger part of their land.
3) The least justifiable way to obtain the land would be to take land without the residents of that land having any say in the process. The British Empire gave up it's colonial rights to the land which was designated to become Israel and a Palestinian nation, but the people who actually lived on the land didn't have the choice whether to offer the land. Rather than the U.S. giving a small fraction of its land, a little more than half of the British colony of Palestine was given to Israel.
The Palestinians had been subjects of the Ottoman Empire prior to WWI, then to the British Empire, then the land was split between Israel and Palestinians without them having a say, then Egypt seized Gaza and Jordan seized the West Bank, then there were the 1967 and 1973 wars, and then Gaza and the West Bank became Israel's Occupied Territories for decades. Try to imagine what this would do to any people.
It isn't surprising that at least some Palestinians objected to this. When American homeowners have their land taken away when a new highway is constructed or such, they often object. Not because they are prejudiced against highways or because a foreign government made the decision rather than their local government - but because they are upset about losing their home and having to start all over again. It's important we not assume Palestinians were always prejudiced against Jews. About 10 years ago, my wife took a class at her synagogue which included the early Zionist movement. The class said that when the early Zionists moved to Palestine in the 1800's or so, there wasn't significant friction between the Jews and Palestinians. As the number of Zionists grew and more Palestinians understood the Zionists viewed the area as intended for them, frictions did arise. This doesn't mean inherent prejudice. Americans weren't inherently prejudiced against the Irish prior to the large immigration to the U.S. in the 1800's, but some Americans became hostile when the number of Irish reached a certain level. (And those Irish didn't believe the U.S. had been promised to the Irish.)
Now, regardless of what Hamas' attack should mean for Gaza, let us consider the West Bank. The West Bank did not participate in the Oct. 7 attack and did not join Hamas in fighting Israel's responses. The West Bank may have some violent separatists living within its borders, but must every land that has extremists be under permanent occupation? Should the 13 Colonies still be under British occupation because they had violent separatists? The question doesn't even have to be whether the West Bank should continue to be denied independence by Israel. Should Israel be allowed to continue to authorize Jewish settlements in the West Bank? The U.N. has declared this violates the Fourth Geneva Convention. We don't even have to go that far. Should international action be taken because Israel does not actively work to shut those Jewish settlements in the West Bank which did NOT receive authorization from Israel? Despite the fact the West Bank hasn't attacked Israel and was not an independent nation that could have chosen whether to participate in the 1967 and 1973 wars, after 50 years of occupation, Israel doesn't even want to grant the West Bank the right not to have unauthorized Jewish settlements.
To be fair to those Palestinians who do believe in fighting for independence, we should remember that while the area was a British colony, some Zionists (such as the Lehi and Irgun groups) used violence to fight for independence. Pacifists can consistently criticize both those groups and Palestinians willing to use violence. Those who believe the U.S. and/or the Lehi & Irgun were justified in using violence to fight for independence from the British, must use more than merely violence to criticize Palestinians. Of course, not all forms of violence are consistent with human rights. On the other hand, if George Washington violated human rights that would not mean the British should always rule over the 13 Colonies.
We might also ask what is justifiable responses to an attack that violated human rights. Does the original inhumane attack justify any action, including those which would usually be considered inhumane? That is a question to ask about Gaza. Perhaps, in a case such as the war in Ukraine where for years the invader keeps attacking, crossing your border, damaging infrastructure and declaring your land their own, it would be easier to argue that you should turn the invader's home country into rubble and limit food supplies. But in the case of Gaza, after Oct. 7, Hamas continued to fight Israeli troops IN GAZA and fired some (ineffective) missiles across the border. How much violence (and where) does the attacker have to carry it out to deserve how much devastation?
