Interesting detail: Just one day prior to "Al Aqsa flood", a poll was taken on how popular Hamas actually was in Gaza. About 29% of people in Gaza supported Hamas while 44% had absolutely no trust in Hamas. And surprise, surprise, the vast majority were pissed off about corruption and the majority favoured a two-state solution. Of course, what a difference a day makes, when Gaza became the evil city thanks to Hamas.



And if 29% supported Hamas, that means, I guess, some hundreds of thousands for Bibi to do away with.

↪Benkei

It could be that the reason Amnesty and B'tselem refer to it as Apartheid is because the international community took action against Apartheid and that is what they believe is needed now.

Good point; I hadn't thought of that. — Count Timothy von Icarus

There won't be any sanctions, though, even BDS is deemed illegal. Is it because South Africa is so far away, and was a Dutch territory?

Nothing says "moral high ground" like weeks of indiscriminate bombing, targetting civilians, wounded and medical personnel alike.

Al-Shifa: Israel admits airstrike on ambulance near hospital

The blatant disregard for humanity is appalling.

What's perhaps worse is the complete inability of the Biden White House to put any meaningful pressure on Israel to stop its abhorrent practice. It seems content with virtue-signaling rhetoric while in fact doing absolutely nothing.

One cannot help but wonder what kind of leverage the Israel lobby has for this to be the case.

Or is it simply election politics?

One cannot help but wonder what kind of leverage the Israel lobby has for this to be the case. — Tzeentch

Ever hear of AIPAC?

I have heard of them, and I know a little bit about the US Israel lobby, but it has never been entirely clear to me what the United States gets in return for billions of dollars in yearly 'financial aid' and unconditional military support.

Election politics would be a decent explanation, were it not for the fact that this policy is basically bipartisan and criticism by politicians from either side never amounts to any action.

Why don't you look up the definition of genocide as agreed in the general assembly and get back to me so you can all eat crow?

Oh you know what, I'll save you the trouble:

On 11 December 1946 the General Assembly of the United Nations resolved that genocide was a crime under international law. This was approved and ratified as a Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide on 9 December 1948. The Convention defines genocide as:

‘any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

killing members of the group
causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

I emphasised the part that applies in this situation. So no, it's definitely not an exaggeration. — Benkei

Sorry that I've not responded to this earlier, @Benkei, as your argument ought to be discussed here.

I think there's quite enough of quotes of Israeli politician giving emotional outcries of revenge and demands to flatten all Gaza, that it's a evil City with human animals and questioning the innocence of all Palestinians in Gaza as they had not overthrown Hamas. The massacre on October 7th lead to this response. Obviously a chance to milk the justified outrage for the massacre to get a "free hand" on dealing with Hamas.



Yes, that is the kind of political rhetoric you need for a genocide. However, we have to remind ourselves that this kind of rhetoric is very typical in the Middle East. How many times have nearly all of the other participants have been involved in ranting to their own crowd the rhetoric of the destruction of Israel and throwing the Jews into the Sea? Yet these are the same people who have done that have been capable of making peace with Israel. Hence there is simply a lot of hot-heads and a ranting style of discourse in the Middle-East. Behind this discourse are still shrewd and logical politicians, even if they earlier called for the utter destruction of their enemies.

Yet I don't think the orders are for the IDF to perform genocide. However, with unrestrained bombing, a tiny area filled with over 2 million people totally dependent on outside logistics and incapable of fleeing the battle, this is very difficult. It can easily become so that nobody can refute you.

Hence here it's really about how Israel deals with the two million people of their open air prison, which is in a riot. If there's a prison riot, do you kill everybody and flatten the prison? Sounds easy, but then what you kill is also the rule of law.

Hence the real question is that if Israel continues to block supplies, doesn't anything on the survival of two million people, then pretty well it will play into the hands of Hamas. Bibi can easily make this error. As I mentioned with the example of the US Army, which itself really had no grudge against the Iraqi people (and basically was left to solve issues on the ground without it's incompetent politicians), it observed that it had to start humanitarian assistance to the people at the same time as the fighting was still going on in Fallujah. (Let's remember that actually the US Army did put down Al Qaeda and reached a solution in Iraq, again without any political direction from Washington, only then to leave and leave the place to the Shia government, which then lead to ISIS taking over the place.)

Perhaps if Bibi fucks up again and there is a huge death toll, well into the tens of thousands and perhaps even hundred thousand killed. Perhaps then, out of outside pressure, the post-Bibi government of Israel has to seriously consider a two-state solution.

Or at least give the picture of it being serious about the peace process at least a few years. Because in a few years the Western audience will have forgotten about Gaza. And then back to the policy of perpetual war and "mowing down the lawn" every once a decade.



About the rhetoric of Israeli politicians and the question of genocide commented on MSNBC:

It's seems to me that allegations of genocide have to come with actual genocide to be meaningful, not just "genocidal intent among some of the members." It is not that the latter isn't worth pointing out or criticizing, but that it would apply to virtually all wars of any significant size.

If every war with massacres of civilians and attempts to displace populations was a genocide, than virtually every war is a genocide. Maybe they are in a sense, but then the term loses any value in international affairs.

By such a standard, Yemen's Civil War would be a war of genocide, as would Iraq's. The Vietnam War, the Russo-Ukrainian War, the Iran-Iraq War, Pakistani intervention in what is now Bangladesh, Algeria, the Russian Civil War, much of the Chinese Civil War, etc.

But it seems to me that the term "genocide" needs to apply to something more than "at least some leaders express such intent," and "at least some attacks are carried out showing such intent." If that's the bar, then it would also be the case that Hamas is guilty of "carrying out a genocide of Jews in Israel," by virtue of publically expressing such goals and carrying out attacks explicitly designed to further them. This seems wrong. Hamas isn't carrying out a genocide because of 10/7; the term has to be attached to some sense of scale. Russian actions in Bucha, heinous as they were, were likewise not "genocide."

It seems wrong in part because a study of most conflicts will find attacks like October 7th occuring very often, and because it seems ridiculous to say that Hamas, who is in such a militarily weak position, is guilty of "committing genocide." By such a metric, North Vietnam and the Vietcong would also be guilty of "genocide," because of events like Hue as well.

By such a weak definition, the PLO certainly committed genocide in Lebanon, because they massacred the populations of Lebanese Arab villages, destroyed their cultural heritage, etc., with the aim of removing them from the area. And then Lebanese groups would be guilty of genocide as well, carrying out similar attacks against Palestinians. And Russia would be guilty of "genocide," in Ukraine for its punitive strikes, executions, and population transfers.

Here, one can't really debate the absolute vileness of such acts. The reason they are not genocide is because genocide is a term that needs to apply to scale. Else you could easily have it that the victims of most genocides are themselves "committing genocide," whenever there are counter massacres.

Thus, in comparing scale we should look at the explicit examples. In Rwanda, 800,000 people were killed over the course of 100 days. During the Holodomor, 3.5-5 million were killed from 1932-1933, with deaths heavily concentrated in areas Stalin had denied food to, areas in Ukraine that were then immediately resettled with ethnic Russians (who there was plenty of food for). In Syria, where genocides against minorities have been carried out locally, 500,000-600,000 have been killed.

I would draw a distinction between that and Russia's actions in parts of Ukraine, but it isn't to "excuse," such acts in any way. It's just in scale and unified purpose of such efforts.

In this, the history of the conflict over Palestine does not seem like a genocide, with the possible exception of both parties' attempts at ethnic cleansing in 1948. This doesn't make their actions any less heinous, but the distinction has to remain meaningful.

Decades of conflict have not produced a very large number of fatalities (significantly less than other wars in the region). Population growth in Israel has remained strong due to continued immigration, but the Arab Israeli birth rate is higher as well. The Occupied Territories are subject to all manner of oppression, but their population has soared faster than almost anywhere on Earth in recent decades (actually a major problem/source of the collapse in standard of living.)

Until the decoupling of the OT's from the Israeli economy, the residents had significantly higher incomes than their Arab neighbors as well.

If simply being oppressive, offering a low standard of living, and responding to terrorism and protest with a massive use of force was genocide, then a very large share of the world's states fall into that category, cheapening the term.

Even indiscriminate mass killing is not necessarily genocide. US fire bombing of German and Japanese cities was never aimed at erasing those populations, but at forcing their governments to capitulate and reducing their ability to wage war. Israel has not been blanketing the strip in indiscriminate shelling and fire bombing— the death toll would be many times as high if they were, for they are well capable of doing what the US did to Tokyo.

IMO, to call either side's actions genocide is to simply cheapen the term such that, by any objective standards, it would apply almost anywhere. The Taliban would then be a genocidal force, the Soviets in Afghanistan as well, North Vietnam, etc. And then the imperative to "stop genocide," becomes impossible to meet, because it becomes equivalent with stopping all warfare.

Nor do I think the enlightened West would act particularly different. If the Swiss government carried out a 10/7 style attack on French, German, or Italian cities, you could certainly expect that there would be a counter invasion and heavy use of air power in urban areas. Actually, for all their righteous proclamations, given their actual track record and ability for complex air ops, combined with their aversion to casualties, I could definitely see the French just leveling all of Zurich in such a scenario (source: all of European history before the EU).

The condemnation due to Israel is rather due to their broader historical role in creating the situation, not simply that there has been an attempt to destroy Hamas at all. They are at fault in that they helped create Hamas and the situation they find themselves in, not because they are using military force to remove a hostile government that carried out an attack against their population.

:up:

If every war with massacres of civilians and attempts to displace populations was a genocide, than virtually every war is a genocide. Maybe they are in a sense, but then the term loses any value in international affairs. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Naturally the term "genocide" is used in excess and is a basic word of propaganda. However, how you fight wars does have differences:

Soviet war in Afghanistan (9 years): 525 000 - 2 000 000 civilian deaths, 7+ million displaced
US war in Afghanistan (19 years): 46 300 civilians killed

Do you see any difference in the amount of civilians killed? No? Or did both armies fight the war in the same way?

And of course you can refute that 46 000 civilians number, but the low estimate won't be over half a million. No amount of propaganda or media control will somehow erase the hundreds of thousands of not having been killed. Yet the difference in happened because of the way the war was fought. And why was the Soviet number so high? Here's one quote:

In order to separate the mujahideen from the local populations and eliminate their support, the Soviet army killed and drove off civilians, and used scorched earth tactics to prevent their return. They used booby traps, mines, and chemical substances throughout the country. The Soviet army indiscriminately killed combatants and noncombatants to ensure submission by the local populations. The provinces of Nangarhar, Ghazni, Lagham, Kunar, Zabul, Qandahar, Badakhshan, Lowgar, Paktia and Paktika witnessed extensive depopulation programmes by the Soviet forces.

Basically this was going back to the Roman tactic of making peace by making an artificial desert. If there are now peasants from whom the mujahideen can live off, there's no mujahideen. And even some ancient Roman's found this way of fighting immoral.

Hence the fact is that how you deal with 2,2 million people that of whom about 1 million are now displaced is going to be a key factor here. There simply isn't any way around it. Especially when there's no Armenia as there were for those Armenians living in Nagorno Karabakh to go for the Palestinians. Yes, in Nagorno Karabakh where just a little time ago a huge ethnic cleansing happened and nobody lifted a finger.

They are at fault in that they helped create Hamas and the situation they find themselves in, not because they are using military force to remove a hostile government that carried out an attack against their population. — Count Timothy von Icarus

In 1967 Israel decided to occupy more land because it could. And that's basically where the problems we have now started.

When people are calling the actions of the Israeli government genocide, they are not just referring to the indiscriminate bombing and collective punishment that is going on in Gaza right now.

They are referring to decades of Israeli policy which has already termed been by human rights organisations, UN legal bodies and even the Israelis themselves (Haaretz and B'Tselem, for example) to be ethnic cleansing and apartheid, among a whole slew of other human rights violations.

When Israeli politicians today are stating outright that they wish to raze Gaza to the ground together with all its inhabitants, it appears they have started to 'say the quiet part out loud'.

There is something rotten in the state of Israel. It's clear for all to see, except for people who cling to the delusion that Israel is a normal state and hand-wave dozens, probably hundreds of UN resolutions and human rights reports.

Even the Israelis themselves see it. They are protesting for Netanyahu to step down as we speak. Many of them have long understood that staying on this path will not provide Israel with security, and will instead facilitate its demise. They want Israel to be on the right side of history.

You are right, it is all about election politics, nothing more. Support Israel, and your campaign will never want for lack of funds. It is all part of what has been detrimental to US politics for quite a while now. It's the reason we get the Bushes, Obamas, Trumps, Bidens and the entire host of treasonous twats that do nothing but sandbag the American people.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/bernie-sanders-rejects-progressives-call-for-cease-fire-in-israel-conflict-hamas-has-got-to-go/

Right on, Bernie.

You are right, it is all about election politics, nothing more. Support Israel, and your campaign will never want for lack of funds. It is all part of what has been detrimental to US politics for quite a while now. — Merkwurdichliebe

Starting from the Six Day War.

Before the US-Israeli relations were friendly, but basically normal as with two countries and France was Israel's biggest ally. But then came the astonishing Israeli victory in 1967. Back then it was Cold War realpolitik as the Soviet Union backed the Arab nationalists mainly in Egypt and Syria.

But now, as you say, it's all domestic American politics. That someone like Netanyahu knows well how to play.

Politicians support Israel because the public supports Israel, older people in particular. Also, there are good practical and moral reasons to support the only decent country in that whole area.
https://www.npr.org/2023/10/13/1205627092/american-support-israel-biden-middle-east-hamas-poll

Also, there are good practical and moral reasons to support the only decent country in that whole area. — RogueAI

Can't argue with that, not many terrorist acts being perpetrated by radical Hebrews

@RogueAI @schopenhauer1 @BitconnectCarlos

So was this Israeli cabinet minister sacked just for what he said or rather for his extremist, Freudian slip – saying the quiet part out loud – nuking Gaza? :brow:

https://www.politico.eu/article/israel-minister-amichai-eliyahu-suspend-benjamin-netanyahu-nuclear-bomb-gaza-hamas-war/

The Likud-led regime is nothing but Hamas with US firepower & NATO support.

So let’s condemn the brutality of Hamas and then turn around and do the same things. All perfectly fine, however, because all Palestinian children killed are killed defensively and accidentally— i.e., with good intentions. Not like the savage, “animal” members of the other team.

To pretend there’s any parity between a US-backed settler-colonial state and the actions coming out of an illegally occupied territory is absurd.

The least we should be asking for is a ceasefire.

So was this Israeli cabinet minister sacked just for what he said or rather for his extremist, Freudian slip – saying the quiet part out loud – nuking Gaza? — 180 Proof

That endlosung has been openly talked about on social media in Israel for decades. You know the type of hate speech that lands you in jail in any other "democracy". This poor man only lost his job. Oh... Wait... No, just suspended.

About the rhetoric of Israeli politicians and the question of genocide commented on MSNBC: — ssu

I watched that incredibly balanced view on the accusations of genocide, and the conflict.

causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part — UN definition

Obviously since these words alone, and it looks like we can only state our opinions and not convince anyone, then I would say guilty on two counts.

That's just my opinion, based on a totally disinterested reading of the definitions.

In any case my opinion that the ongoing carnage should stop, whether or not there is genocide or not, so I was objective going in to reading. I did not need to draw the conclusion at all.

In this, the history of the conflict over Palestine does not seem like a genocide, with the possible exception of both parties' attempts at ethnic cleansing in 1948. This doesn't make their actions any less heinous, but the distinction has to remain meaningful. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well then it seems like genocide to me. Is this what we are down to, discussing what it feels like to each person? Opinions? Based on what?

Maybe the best thing to do is to state our underlying views as simply as possible, and let everyone see that the conclusions follow from the assumptions.

Here I my assumptions:

I assume that this is the best thing for all parties concerned.

Both sides should immediately enter into a permanent ceasefire and come to a peace agreement. Hamas should give up its arms and stand trial for war crimes. Hamas fighters should surrender. Israelis and Palestinians should live in a permanent peace between themselves as it was alleged they lived before the creation of Israel. How this is to be done are just details.

Of course this is all fantasy, but this is what my thinking is.

It might be best if everyone presents their axioms, then we can make up the arguments themselves, the arguments that follow from the initial assumptions.

Also, there are good practical and moral reasons to support the only decent country in that whole area.
— RogueAI

Can't argue with that, not many terrorist acts being perpetrated by radical Hebrews — Merkwurdichliebe

I reject the idea that we can judge which countries are decent and which ones are not.
I have a list of decent countries as well, and it will not be the same as yours. These are errors of reasoning here, practical and moral reasons supposes that the morality of Israel is better than the morality of everyone else.

If there is a conclusive way to settle which countries are moral and better than other countries I like to hear it, however I may not agree on the criteria, then what?

So what do we follow? The United Nations Charter, and Bible, other religious texts? Which one should we follow?

I would like to hear your suggestions.

And while you are at it, maybe highlight the lies and deliberate distortions and omissions on both sides.
Or just watch the news channels - all of them.

If you are interested in Philosophy, at least realize that certain lines of argument are prohibited by the laws of reason, these are fallacies of reason. At least they are entertaining.

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/logical-fallacies/

Question: are there any logical fallacies or omissions, unsupported claims made here in this interview?
Is the speaker presenting a certain point of view? I think that is why it is upsetting watching it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMkA--JpO7c

So let’s condemn the brutality of Hamas and then turn around and do the same things. All perfectly fine, however, because all Palestinian children killed are killed defensively and accidentally— i.e., with good intentions. — Mikie

By the same argument, if the Israelis crossed the fence into Gaza and killed 1400 civilians in exactly the same way, then it would be fine. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, revenge perfected.

Why do so few agree with the above argument? What are the issues here?

Then we have to ask, why is this?

If it is a reasoning machine, then it is fed by the same facts it should come up with the same answer the same conclusions on the other side. What is this reasoning machine made up of? What are its initial settings? What are the filters used?

I would like to see everyone's assumptions : let's start with the Wikipedia history of the conflict.
Are we all agreed on history?

I don't think that the US has to do anything (and will do anything) about the internal Israeli politics. You see, this goes only one way: Israel influences US politics, not the other way around. If you say it does, please give me a concrete example. — ssu

Americans have their material leverages (like the American package of military aid), but I guess their diplomatic network can reach Israeli military-intelligence apparatuses as well as political opposition inside Israel to figure out a post-Netanyahu strategy.
Besides the Israeli lobby can be so powerful over American administrations because of the mostly bipartisan American interest in the region: Israel can still be instrumental to contain the risk of emerging regional powers in the Middle East as previously was to counter Soviet Union influence in the region. Here two examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_rocket_attacks_on_Israel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_in_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

I don't recall Isreal and Bibi helping the US to defeat ISIS. Actually what I do remember is that islamists fighting Assad's forces who were wounded were helped by Israel: the islamists would simply leave the wounded on the Isreali side of the Golan Heights and Israeli soldiers would pick them up and take them to a hospital. Pretty honourable thing to do... but I'm not sure if they would have done the same for Syrian troops. In all, Israel and Bibi are just interested in themselves. — ssu

But you are talking about Netanyahu, I’m talking about Israel. The US is evidently committed to the survival and security of Israel in the region, not to a specific Israeli leadership. And my understanding is that Netanyahu political prospects have become pretty grim. Maybe Netanyahu “getting rid” of Hamas is the way Israel might get rid of Netanyahu as well as neutralise his toxic fanbase.

Umm... isn't the US and Egypt in good terms too? Wouldn't geopolitically the stability of Egypt be here more important? The Suez canal is in Egypt. Btw, those gas fields that Israel has aren't so important. And as Israeli is a very wealthy country, I guess it does have a lot of internet cables. — ssu

It’s not an aut-aut choice. The more the better. But I guess the US-Israel partnership is more solid and resourceful than the partnership with Egypt. The geographic position of Israel is relevant for military and intelligence projection, also against/for possible sabotage operations in a region that is dense of major routes critical to the World economy. That’s all I’m saying.

But you are talking about Netanyahu, I’m talking about Israel. — neomac

Then give the example when Israel has done anything to help it's ally US. As I have stated, this "special relationship" with Israel started only after the six day war. And it's been quite one sided, especially when there's no threat of Soviet Union: no country in the region is armed by China as the Soviet Union did. There are no Chinese instructors in the Middle East.

The geographic position of Israel is relevant for military and intelligence projection, also against/for possible sabotage operations in a region that is dense of major routes critical to the World economy. That’s all I’m saying. — neomac

The US doesn't have any military bases in Israel. The US has military bases in Turkey, in Kuwait, the Gulf States. It has friendly ties to Egypt and Jordan. What is the geographic position so favorable in tiny Israel? And intelligence sharing. Really, all of these billions of dollars

US troops have only been deployed to Israel to defend Israel when Saddam Hussein launched Scuds to Israel and Israel yet didn't have it's vast anti-missile systems it now has (thanks to the US again sponsoring that).

Basically the alliance with Israel serve one purpose: domestic politics in the US. Both political parties uphold the staunch special relationship at any cost to win elections, to woo especially the Evangelists for whom Israel is a biblical entity to be supported. Even the large Jewish population of the US (7,6 million) understands that Israel is a normal country and can be critical of politics in Israel, but not the whacky Evangelists who wait for the rupture and the second coming of the Christ. The Holy Land getting attacked rhymes well with that. After all, to the Evangelicals, the Jewish Israelites are Gods people too. Hence the support of Israel has nothing to do with security policy or global realpolitik. And Netanyahu knows this. He can just walk past Biden or whoever is the US president and get his support from eager American politicians waiting in line for the photo-op.

Basically here's the dire extrapolation of the catastrohy of the US foreing policy in the Middle East. It has gone all through the decades worse and worse falling to another lower level.

The 1950's was the height of US influence: The Middle East had a treaty alliance like NATO in the case of CENTO with Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Turkey aligned in the organization. Then Iraq had a revolution.

Next phase was worse, but still good: This was the "Twin Pillars" policy were Saudi-Arabia and Imperial Iran were the backbone of the US alliance in the Middle East. And then came the Iranian revolution where the most important, most armed ally in the region suddenly changed to be an enemy, a rogue state from the US.

Perhaps last the swansong of the US happened when the utterly reckless dictator of Iraq attacked it's former war financier Kuwait. The Bush the older could create a truly impressive alliance of not only all of the Western allies of UK, France etc and all of the Gulf States, but Morocco, Pakistan, Egypt even Assad's Syria sending a tank division. With approval from the Soviet Union, this was the pinnacle of US diplomacy and power. Luckily Bush took the advice of the Saudis and didn't invade Iraq. Yet the episode it went into the head of a tiny cabal called the neoconservatives.

Next phase was worse: Now the time of "Dual Containment", containing both Iraq and Iran (both former allies, do take note of that!), might sound as the lowest, but it got worse, far worse. After 9/11 for totally invented reason (a nuclear program that didn't exist anymore) the neocons had their war in Iraq and the US attacked and occupied an Arab country, even if just having attacked and occupied another country (Afghanistan).

Next phase was worse: The US stayed in Iraq with a small force, which now could be attacked by Iran and Iranian proxies and the relationship with the Iraqi government, the one originally installed by the US, is bad. The as Syria fell into civil war, you have US troops there alongside Russian troops, who have their own agenda.

If you simply extrapolate from the above the future is bleak for the US. It will continue standing with it's special-relationship Israel and simply alienate it's former allies. So when will Egypt become a rogue state? Or if the Saudi kingdom falls? In the end likely Israel will be the last place where the US can be.

Then surely Israel will have strategic importance.

Oil has always been the big game in that region. Take down the Ottomans and install various oil kingdoms. That didn’t quite work. Luckily for Britain and France they had the US take the reins in foreign policy after WW2, thus allowing the messy military aftermath to them. Europes last hurrah in the region was the 1956 Suez War.

in exactly the same way, then it would be fine. — FreeEmotion

No. That’s not the argument, and it wouldn’t be fine.

True, justifications and pretexts are always given. They’re given by everyone from Hamas to the Nazis to the IDF to the Pentagon.

But what it comes down to is usually predictable: when they do it, it’s terrorism. When we do it, it’s counter-terrorism.

The condemnation due to Israel is rather due to their broader historical role in creating the situation, not simply that there has been an attempt to destroy Hamas at all. They are at fault in that they helped create Hamas and the situation they find themselves in, not because they are using military force to remove a hostile government that carried out an attack against their population. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Do you think Israel would have been more brutal and careless about civilian casualties if they'd been unhampered by international pressure and hostages?

But you are talking about Netanyahu, I’m talking about Israel. — neomac

Then give the example when Israel has done anything to help it's ally US. As I have stated, this "special relationship" with Israel started only after the six day war. And it's been quite one sided, especially when there's no threat of Soviet Union: no country in the region is armed by China as the Soviet Union did. There are no Chinese instructors in the Middle East. — ssu

If the question is about “ Israel has done ANYTHING to help it's ally US”, I gave you the examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_rocket_attacks_on_Israel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_in_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War
The alliance is strategic and it doesn’t need to focus exclusively on current military threats , so it concerns the emergence of anti-Western regional powers (like Iran) and the potential penetration of great power rivals in the Middle-East (like Russia and China), assuming that the US is reasoning as an hegemon.
If you are claiming that Israel is INFLUENCING American foreign policies that are AGAINST the American national interest, I would claim instead that the American support for Israel is solid, longstanding and bipartisan so that’s for me enough to claim that is in the American perceived interested to preserve Israel (or, if you prefer, that the pros to preserve an alliance with Israel are estimated to outweigh the cons) and that makes sense given how resourceful and geographically strategic Israel is in the Middle East.

The geographic position of Israel is relevant for military and intelligence projection, also against/for possible sabotage operations in a region that is dense of major routes critical to the World economy. That’s all I’m saying. — neomac

The US doesn't have any military bases in Israel. The US has military bases in Turkey, in Kuwait, the Gulf States. It has friendly ties to Egypt and Jordan. What is the geographic position so favorable in tiny Israel? And intelligence sharing. Really, all of these billions of dollars — ssu

I think the US-Israel partnership is more solid and resourceful than the partnership with Egypt, Turkey or other Arab countries which can support terrorism, flirt with China and Russia, and lack the democratic flavour Israel has. And even if the US has military bases here and there (I was talking about the military and intelligence projection of Israel, though), the challenges against American hegemony by regional and global powers are growing in intensity and number. So it doesn’t seem to be the best moment for the US to give up on one of its most powerful allies. Concerning the “all of these billions of dollars”, Israel may be as expensive and dubiously beneficial as any policy insurance. Given the stakes and the uncertainties, billions of dollars may never be enough though.

Basically the alliance with Israel serve one purpose: domestic politics in the US. Both political parties uphold the staunch special relationship at any cost to win elections, to woo especially the Evangelists for whom Israel is a biblical entity to be supported. Even the large Jewish population of the US (7,6 million) understands that Israel is a normal country and can be critical of politics in Israel, but not the whacky Evangelists who wait for the rupture and the second coming of the Christ. The Holy Land getting attacked rhymes well with that. After all, to the Evangelicals, the Jewish Israelites are Gods people too. Hence the support of Israel has nothing to do with security policy or global realpolitik. And Netanyahu knows this. — ssu

I think you are overestimating the importance of the Evangelical Zionism which is not only grounded in the American internal polarisation but also in Netanyahu’s attitude toward it (https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/evangelical-youth-losing-love-for-israel-by-35-percent-study-shows-671178).
Evangelicals support Trump not Biden, even if Biden decides to support Israel. If Biden wanted to compact his democratic front, assuming the anti-Israel front was significantly stronger among democrats, then it would be more convenient for Biden to not support Israel.

Basically here's the dire extrapolation of the catastrohy of the US foreing policy in the Middle East. It has gone all through the decades worse and worse falling to another lower level.

The 1950's was the height of US influence: The Middle East had a treaty alliance like NATO in the case of CENTO with Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Turkey aligned in the organization. Then Iraq had a revolution.

Next phase was worse, but still good: This was the "Twin Pillars" policy were Saudi-Arabia and Imperial Iran were the backbone of the US alliance in the Middle East. And then came the Iranian revolution where the most important, most armed ally in the region suddenly changed to be an enemy, a rogue state from the US.

Perhaps last the swansong of the US happened when the utterly reckless dictator of Iraq attacked it's former war financier Kuwait. The Bush the older could create a truly impressive alliance of not only all of the Western allies of UK, France etc and all of the Gulf States, but Morocco, Pakistan, Egypt even Assad's Syria sending a tank division. With approval from the Soviet Union, this was the pinnacle of US diplomacy and power. Luckily Bush took the advice of the Saudis and didn't invade Iraq. Yet the episode it went into the head of a tiny cabal called the neoconservatives.

Next phase was worse: Now the time of "Dual Containment", containing both Iraq and Iran (both former allies, do take note of that!), might sound as the lowest, but it got worse, far worse. After 9/11 for totally invented reason (a nuclear program that didn't exist anymore) the neocons had their war in Iraq and the US attacked and occupied an Arab country, even if just having attacked and occupied another country (Afghanistan).

Next phase was worse: The US stayed in Iraq with a small force, which now could be attacked by Iran and Iranian proxies and the relationship with the Iraqi government, the one originally installed by the US, is bad. The as Syria fell into civil war, you have US troops there alongside Russian troops, who have their own agenda.

If you simply extrapolate from the above the future is bleak for the US. It will continue standing with it's special-relationship Israel and simply alienate it's former allies. So when will Egypt become a rogue state? Or if the Saudi kingdom falls? In the end likely Israel will be the last place where the US can be.

Then surely Israel will have strategic importance. — ssu

The political elites of Saudi Arabia and Egypt are most certainly not pro-Hamas. The openness of Saudi Arabia to economic partnership with Israel was normalising the relations of Israel and part of the Arab world, EVEN IF the Palestinian cause wasn’t solved yet. Most certainly the Israeli reaction in Gaza raises socio-political concerns in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, because the muslim population is sensitive about the Palestinian issue. But how serious is the risk that Israel’s current retaliation is going to alienate Saudi Arabia and Egypt’ political elites? I think that this may be brought on the political table by the American informal network inside Israel to define a post-Netanyahu strategy (that might include smearing campaign against Netanyahu and prison, investments to reconstruct Gaza, etc.).
Israel will have strategic importance in both cases: if it succeeds in normalising the relation with other Arab countries, it’s a strategic success, if the normalisation fails is a strategic failure, Israel will remain the only ally with strategic importance in the Middle East.

Oil has always been the big game in that region. Take down the Ottomans and install various oil kingdoms. That didn’t quite work. Luckily for Britain and France they had the US take the reins in foreign policy after WW2, thus allowing the messy military aftermath to them. Europes last hurrah in the region was the 1956 Suez War. — schopenhauer1

And Israel's gas fields are a very late comer here. Besides, the US lost interest in the oil once it had it's fracking & shale oil revolution.

Just look at what are the primary Oil trade customers of Saudi Arabia:


Yes, the US is only 6th. For China Saudi-Arabia is more important. But then China also buys oil from Iran too.

Just curious, what do you make of how the Middle East turned out with the Sykes-Picot agreement? Seems pretty dismal. What were the goals of Britain and France? Were there any goals of the inhabitants? But you see, the inhabitants, anything it took up that wasn't naturally developed from the Middle East itself (the last being the Ottoman Empire itself), would be just European political philosophy. Rather, anarchic sheik-run fiefdoms and kingdoms and tribal units was not an option for Europe, was it now.

Why do I picture a bunch of men in mustaches sipping their tea, thinking they are civilizing the world drawing arbitrary lines on maps? Why is this connection to colonialism downplayed in Britain nowadays and shoved onto Israel and the US?

If the question is about “ Israel has done ANYTHING to help it's ally US”, I gave you the examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_rocket_attacks_on_Israel — neomac

I think I already mentioned that it was the US that deployed it's own forces to protect Israel. Not the other way around.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_in_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War — neomac

HAH HAH!!!
Well, I cannot fathom just what that supposed to be of an example of the "strategic alliance" that Israel had covert arms deals with Iran. For the US similar weapons deliveries was the Iran-Contra scandal, that shook Reagan's administration. So Israel makes shady deals with it's neighbors that vow to destroy it.

And the Osirak strike? Well, again here (just as with similar strike in Libya) Israel had first and foremost it's own agenda in having nuclear dominance in the region. Heaven forbid any kind of parity!!! Again read just how suspicious JFK was about the Israeli nuclear weapons program, but then that was before 1967.

I would claim instead that the American support for Israel is solid, longstanding and bipartisan so that’s for me enough — neomac

But that's my whole point. This "solid" relationship happened only after 1967 and yes, there's bipartisan support. As I stated, the whole reason is that the US is the staunch ally of Israel is because both parties want to get votes and win elections. That's it. For the US it's a domestic issue. That's the key to this "strategic alliance". And that's why Biden or anybody cannot push Netanyahu around. Heck, he'll just voice his concerns to the both parties and it's hell for the US president.